#: 250342 S10/Paranormal Issues 04-Mar-92 23:25:26 Sb: CSICOP revealed Fm: Richard Brought

Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson

Skeptic Tank!

#: 250342 S10/Paranormal Issues 04-Mar-92 23:25:26 Sb: CSICOP revealed Fm: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 To: ALL For anyone interested in CSICOP and the folks who run it: "CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview" by George Hansen in the _Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research_, Jan 92, V 86, No 1, pp 19-63. This is probably the most detailed and thoroughly documented exposition of CSICOP, its aims, tactics, and leaders entertainingly written by a long- time CSICOP watcher. Hansen is not "bashing" CSICOP. He just "lets it all hang out" in a way that CSICOP probably would not have liked to see. This is _must_ reading for all whose interests have caused them to run afoul of CSICOP and is highly recommended to those who subscribe to the CSICOP cause. The journal is not easily accessible but larger academic libraries may have it or be able to get a copy. Some public libraries in larger cities may also have it. Teachers and researchers writing "officially" might be able to obtain a reprint from the author at Princeton Arms North 1, Apt. 59, Cranbury, NJ 08512. Keep in mind that his supply is probably limited and presently he is not affiliated with an institution that can pick up the postage tab. #: 250343 S10/Paranormal Issues 04-Mar-92 23:25:53 Sb: Meta-analysis & parapsyc Fm: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 To: ALL For all who are interested, an important paper and commentary have recently been published: "Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology" by Jessica Utts, in _Statistical Science_, 1991, V 6, No. 4, pp 363-403. (Utts is an Assoc. Prof, Division of Statistics, UC Davis.) Quoting from the abstract, "This paper presents an overview of the use of statistics in parapsychology and offers a summary of the meta-analyses that have been conducted." Utts reviews the early use of statistics in parapsychology and provides an useful discussion of the connection between statistical power and "successful" replication. She then reviews the successful "ganzfeld" experiments and highlights the set of successful experiments that followed the careful guidelines set forth by parapsychol- ogist Honorton and critic Hyman. Utts concludes, "...the overall evidence indicates that there is an anomalous effect in need of an explanation." The paper is followed by commentaries by Bayarri & Berger, Dawson, Diaconis, Greenhouse, Hyman, Morris, Mosteller and an extensive rejoinder by Utts. The commentaries range from the predictable defenses of their well-known positions from Diaconis and Hyman to support and thanks to Utts for an excellent summary, along with some heavy-going discussions on the applicability of Bayesian methods to parapsychology. #: 251815 S10/Paranormal Issues 07-Mar-92 17:32:06 Sb: CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 What's CSICOP? #: 252110 S10/Paranormal Issues 08-Mar-92 14:18:44 Sb: #251815-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Malcolm 100015,514 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Meryl, Commitee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. The "Amazing Randi" & Co. Malcolm M. There is 1 Reply. #: 252165 S10/Paranormal Issues 08-Mar-92 16:56:47 Sb: #252110-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Malcolm 100015,514 Thanks. #: 252633 S10/Paranormal Issues 09-Mar-92 16:30:33 Sb: #252110-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Malcolm 100015,514 > Commitee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. The "Amazing Randi" & Co. Randi is not on the committee. Best Regards, Rick M. There is 1 Reply. #: 252715 S10/Paranormal Issues 09-Mar-92 20:56:20 Sb: #252633-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 Who is on the committee? There is 1 Reply. #: 252770 S10/Paranormal Issues 09-Mar-92 22:25:32 Sb: #252715-CSICOP revealed Fm: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 I see your question has been answered, save to note that "Scientific" in their name is a bit of a misnomer. They aggressively debunk anything that does not fit into their framework of accepted science, which includes much of what comes up for discussion in this forum. As the article I referred to indicated, their methods are hardly scientific, though quite effective. Randi resigned from the committee (or was asked to resign, depending on the source) to spare the organization the financial vicissitudes of the lawsuits he is fighting. The committee seems to have something between 100 and 200 members, most of which are listed on the cover of their journal Skeptical Inquirer. The actual power and direction comes from a small executive council consisting of James Alcock, Barry Beyerstein, Susan Blackmore, Kendrick Frazier, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Philip Klass, Paul Kurtz, Joe Nickell, and Lee Nisbet. That is probably more than you wanted to know. Richard #: 253126 S10/Paranormal Issues 10-Mar-92 15:55:16 Sb: #252715-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) > Who is on the committee? As far as I know, it consists of the people this guy Broughton listed at the bottom of his post. (He is, however, incorrect about the "100 to 200" stuff, those being "Fellows" and "Scientific and Technical Consultants", rather than committee members.) The committee puts out a quarterly journal (about 100 pp.) called _The Skeptical Inquirer_, which runs articles from all perspectives, often mutually contradictory ones. Its aims are listed on the back cover, those being (I lossely paraphrase) to encourage and assist in the scientific investigation of paranormal claims, without a priori decisions as to the claims' merits, but rather an eye towards producing competent evidence. CSICOP plainly has, over fifteen years, annoyed a lot of people inclined towards the use of mudslinging, who cannot fault the merit of its results, and therefore resort to impugning its _motives_, instead. (They invariably deny in the same breath that they are engaged in "CSICOP-bashing, curiously enough.) Since the value of CSICOP's work is quite apparent from its journal, on its own merits, I'll just refer you to it, since it should be available from many libraries. James Randi resigned from the Committee about a year ago, because he's been the target of many expensive lawsuits, over a period of some three years, from Uri Geller and an associate. Many of those suits are still ongoing, and Geller has tended in the past to name CSICOP as a co-defendent. Randi says that he wishes to avoid any further financial burden to CSICOP from any additional suits. I don't profess to speak for any of these people, but just wanted to pass along such information as I have. Best Regards, Rick M. There are 2 Replies. #: 253236 S10/Paranormal Issues 10-Mar-92 20:30:36 Sb: #253126-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 Thanks. #: 253412 S10/Paranormal Issues 11-Mar-92 00:18:00 Sb: #253126-CSICOP revealed Fm: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 Rick, Sorry, but since you are into "authoritative" sources I should point out that it was Barry Karr, CSICOP Executive Director, who gave the figure of 200 to Hansen during an interview. Hansen notes that this contradicts Kurtz who regards the 55 fellows and 58 consultants as the official "members" of CSICOP (letter to Hansen 8/14/91). Can you give me the source for your claim that I am wrong? Rick's comments suggest a great experiment for you Meryl (and anyone else). Get yourself a couple of copies of SI, and also get a copy of Hansen's article. Then decide who is doing the mudslinging. Best regards, this guy Broughton #: 253128 S10/Paranormal Issues 10-Mar-92 16:01:14 Sb: #252770-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 (X) > Randi resigned from the committee (or was asked to resign, depending on the source) to spare the organization the financial vicissitudes of the lawsuits he is fighting. All right, I'll bite: What specific person says that Randi was "asked to resign" from CSICOP, and on what authority? I'm interested in finding out what credible source you have for this ('though I'm not going to hold my breath). I realise that many people on this forum seem to have a problem with the idea of specific, verifiable evidence, but I would appreciate an actual name, publication details (if applicable), and some idea of how this postulated source would be in a position to know about this. In other words, convenient rumour is not _my_ idea of a good source. Best Regards, Rick M. There is 1 Reply. #: 253393 S10/Paranormal Issues 10-Mar-92 23:53:33 Sb: #253128-CSICOP revealed Fm: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 Rick, I didn't say it was a good source, just a source. It was not in print that I am aware of, just rumor as you say. The official word from CSICOP was that Randi resigned to keep CSICOP from being named co-defendent in any subsequent suits that he might attract (he already has several pending from different plaintifs, and CSICOP is named in them), and so be it. What may have transpired or have been discussed at the relevant committee meeting has not been made public. In the absence of hard evidence to the contrary undoubtedly we should accept CSICOP's position at face value and not give in to idle speculation as to whether Randi jumped or was pushed. We do that all the time when corporations announce that this or that executive has "resigned" don't we? Best, Richard Broughton #: 253237 S10/Paranormal Issues 10-Mar-92 20:30:49 Sb: #252770-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 (X) Thanks for your informative message. I want to get hold of their publication. As a scientist myself, I'm very curious about their methods of investigation, and quite able to judge them. If you have access to a copy of the Skeptical Inquirer, could you post their address & subscription price? I'd like to subscribe to it, because I don't have time to look for it in the library. Do you know anything about the people on the executive council? Their occupations, etc.? There is 1 Reply. #: 253392 S10/Paranormal Issues 10-Mar-92 23:53:15 Sb: #253237-CSICOP revealed Fm: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 I know a bit about the members of the executive committee, and at least one of them is a personal friend, but I think it best to consult Hansen's article in JASPR that I cited in the original message if you want details. One of the sections in Hansen's paper is entitled "Key Personalities" and it makes for more interesting reading than I could do it justice. I'll post the Skeptical Inquirer address when I remember to bring it home, but don't count on that as a basis to evaluate the organization's scientific credentials. It is not a refereed scientific journal by any stretch of the imagination. It is more like FATE magazine for the skeptic. The editor, Kendrick Frazier, is reported to have argued that "the magazine's purpose is not to consider what the best evidence for anomalous claims might be but to argue against them." (RM note: H.H. Bauer, Jnl Scientific Exploration, 1989, V3, N1) CSICOP itself conducts no scientific explorations since the well documented scandal that erupted over their "Mars Effect" study in which one member of the Executive Committee, Dennis Rawlins, (who was handling the statistical analysis) charged that Kurtz was fiddling with the numbers and had attempted a Watergate style coverup when he (Rawlins) tried to alert the rest of the committee. Not long after Rawlins went public CSICOP instituted a policy of not conducting research (SI, 1982, 6(3)). Richard Broughton #: 253618 S10/Paranormal Issues 11-Mar-92 13:34:11 Sb: #253393-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 (X) Richard -- I can't help noticing that you are conspicuously NOT answering the question: WHO says that James Randi was "asked to resign" from the CSICOP Executive Council, and on WHAT authority. The answer to the latter may well be "no authority at all" or, as you say, "just rumor". However, you allege that you HAVE a source for this. I would assume that this source has a name, and that you are capable of typing it. Please do so. You are incorrect when you say that CSICOP's article said that Randi resigned because of lawsuits "he might attract", by the way. There was no imputation that Randi _attracted_ lawsuits, merely that Geller had been filing a number of them. I assume that you have something to offer on this topic aside from errors, appeals to prejudice, and derogatory rumours. On the other hand, your listing of the CSICOP Executive Council membership appears to have been correct, not counting the erroneous reference to "100 to 200" others, and for that I thank you. Best Regards, Rick M. There is 1 Reply. #: 253915 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 00:20:31 Sb: #253618-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 (X) Rick, Sorry, but I shall not let you put words into my mouth. I merely said that some source(s) had indicated Randi's resignation was asked for, not spontaneously offered as the official position has us to believe. I never said that the source was an authoratitive one and in my last letter I made it clear that I have no way of knowing whether that source was correct, or whether CSICOP is correct. Quite frankly, it is of no importance to me. It was clever of you to notice that I did not give any names. That is not something I choose to share. Rick, if I wanted to quote CSICOP's article I would have put quote marks around it. I was paraphrasing what I recall reading some weeks ago. If you think that "attract" is not an accurate representation of CSICOP's position, fair enough. However, as you no doubt know, Randi's (and CSICOP's) worst legal exposure comes not from Geller's lawsuits, but from the suit by Eldon Byrd. Randi, both in print and at a meeting of the NY Area Skeptics, said that Byrd was a child molester and in prison. Unfortunately for Randi, that is an allegation easily checked: Byrd was not in prison and has no record of being a child molester. You may think otherwise, but it falsely accusing another person of being a child molester ain't "attracting" lawsuits, I don't know what is. I have lots to offer on this topic, and I find your characterization of it marvelously revealing. Regards, Richard Broughton There is 1 Reply. #: 253965 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 01:35:33 Sb: #253915-CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 > Sorry, but I shall not let you put words into my mouth. I merely said that some source(s) had indicated Randi's resignation was asked for, not spontaneously offered as the official position has us to believe. I never said that the source was an authoratitive one and in my last letter I made it clear that I have no way of knowing whether that source was correct, or whether CSICOP is correct. Quite frankly, it is of no importance to me. It was clever of you to notice that I did not give any names. That is not something I choose to share. Ah, a big secret, then, as to who gave you this "not authoritative" (so to speak) piece of non-information. In a nutshell: I ask you WHO said this nasty little invention, and you decline to state. I believe this speaks volumes. > If you think that "attract" is not an accurate representation of CSICOP's position, fair enough. No, the issue is not what I "think", but rather what the _facts_ are. You're familiar with the latter concept, I hope. However, when someone's inaccuracies are consistently on the side of the derogatory, one has to wonder. Best Regards, Rick M. #: 253701 S10/Paranormal Issues 11-Mar-92 19:40:10 Sb: #253392-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 (X) Fascinating! Now I'm truly curious! CSICOP doesn't do any research but just has 'scientific' opinions? This I've got to see! Or do their 'consultants' do research & publish it in the SI? #: 253628 S10/Paranormal Issues 11-Mar-92 13:48:36 Sb: #253412-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 (X) > Sorry, but since you are into "authoritative" sources I should point out that it was Barry Karr, CSICOP Executive Director, who gave the figure of 200 to Hansen during an interview. Hansen notes that this contradicts Kurtz who regards the 55 fellows and 58 consultants as the official "members" of CSICOP (letter to Hansen 8/14/91). Can you give me the source for your claim that I am wrong? Yes, I can. (1) Any issue of _Skeptical Inquirer_ correctly lists the people you speak of as "Fellows", not as members of the Committee. (2) Dial 716-636-1425, and ask to speak to Barry Karr or Paul Kurtz. CSICOP has been extremely clear about this for its entire fifteen years of existence. For that same length of time, I have known several members of the Executive Council, and three Executive Directors, and they, too, have been extremely clear about this. I can only speculate that either Hansen got it wrong, or you got Hansen wrong. I don't really know about this interview you speak of, and so cannot fairly comment further on it, but I _can_ address the _facts_ of this matter with no hesitation whatsoever. Fortunately, you can verify this very quickly with one telephone call. Best Regards, Rick M. There are 2 Replies. #: 253695 S10/Paranormal Issues 11-Mar-92 19:03:22 Sb: #253628-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 (X) You can verify it with one telephone call if they tell the, uh, truth. There is 1 Reply. #: 253818 S10/Paranormal Issues 11-Mar-92 23:28:58 Sb: #253695-CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 > You can verify it with one telephone call if they tell the, uh, truth. Why, yes, in the same way that you can find out my telephone number from the San Mateo operator if he tells the truth. One does not ordinarily, however, expect directory assistance staff to have any special incentive to lie about listed telephone numbers. One can, of course, also call all the CSICOP Executive Council members, and ask _them_ who constitute the Council's membership -- they're not hard to reach -- but then, they might also be lying for inexplicable reasons about membership in this fifteen-year-old, very public committee. So, I suppose you could call Uri Geller's New York attorney, Mr. Donald J. Katz, and ask him. I could theoretically conceive of someone distrusting the honesty of all the above people on this one, simple, non-controversial question. For such a paragon, there is always the Secretary of State's office for New York State, where CSICOP is incorporated, and where its annual filings are a matter of public record. Unfortunately, that would be taking the _government's_ word for it, and we know what They're like. 'Can't be too careful about fifteen-year-old public information. Best Regards, Rick M. #: 253916 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 00:20:47 Sb: #253628-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 (X) Rick, Of course I know that there some 55 fellows and 58 consultants listed on the inside cover of SI. That is one of Hansen's _facts_ too. On August 14, 1991 Paul Kurtz told Hansen that those are the "members" of the commitee. On that same day, Mr. Karr told Hansen that there were about 200 members, which included the 113 plus unnamed others. I know Mr. Hansen and have no reason to doubt the accuracy of his reporting. If Kurtz and Karr represent things differently now, then they may have a credibility problem, but it certainly won't be the first for them. Presumably you took your own advice and called 716-636-1425. What did Paul and Barry tell you? Regards, Richard Broughton There is 1 Reply. #: 253967 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 01:43:38 Sb: #253916-CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 > I know Mr. Hansen and have no reason to doubt the accuracy of his reporting. Well, I have reasons to doubt either Hanson's accuracy or yours, and I've already given them. > If Kurtz and Karr represent things differently now, then they may have a credibility problem, but it certainly won't be the first for them. The conclusion proceeds from a false premise, and is therefore worthless. ALL of CSICOP's officers _consistently_ know and state the plain, simple, non-controversial fact on this matter. For fifteen years, it has always been the exact same answer. Kapech? > Presumably you took your own advice and called 716-636-1425. What did Paul and Barry tell you? It is not necessary for me to call CSICOP, as you know full well. I've been straight on this decidedly minor, thoroughly-cut-and-dried factual matter for fifteen years, from any and all of the large number of sources I mentioned to you. If you the slightest bit interested in testing your understanding from this redoubtable Mr. Hansen, then all of those same sources are open to you, as well. I won't hold my breath, though. Best Regards, Rick M. READ THR STA:253968 #: 253968 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 02:21:52 Sb: #253392-CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 > CSICOP itself conducts no scientific explorations since the well documented scandal that erupted over their "Mars Effect" study in which one member of the Executive Committee, Dennis Rawlins, (who was handling the statistical analysis) charged that Kurtz was fiddling with the numbers and had attempted a Watergate style coverup when he (Rawlins) tried to alert the rest of the committee. This is completely wrong, as you would know if you consulted the original writings, instead of just quoting derivative works from habitual and careless CSICOP-bashers. (Even they don't have the devotion to anonymous, bad-mouthing rumour that you've been displaying in these parts.) You can hear the other side of the story in many places, including P.J. Klass's "CRYBABY" article, the reply to Rawlins's "sTARBABY", 1/10 the length of the article it responded to, that _Fate_ refused to publish (along with any other dissenting views). It's available in this section's file library as "CRYBAB.PJK". Best Regards, Rick M. #: 253991 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 03:34:31 Sb: #253916-CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 > I know Mr. Hansen and have no reason to doubt the accuracy of his reporting. Well, I have reasons to doubt either Hansen's accuracy or yours, and I've already given them. > If Kurtz and Karr represent things differently now, then they may have a credibility problem, but it certainly won't be the first for them. The conclusion proceeds from a false premise, and is therefore worthless. ALL of CSICOP's officers _consistently_ know and state the plain, simple, non-controversial fact on this matter. For fifteen years, it has always been the exact same answer. Kapech? > Presumably you took your own advice and called 716-636-1425. What did Paul and Barry tell you? It is not necessary for me to call CSICOP, as you know full well, although I have done so in the past and heard in passing the simple truth on this simple subject (which does _not_ accord with your account from this Mr. Hansen). I've been straight on this decidedly minor, thoroughly-cut-and-dried factual matter for fifteen years, from any and all of the large number of sources I mentioned to you. If you are the slightest bit interested in _testing_ what you understand from this redoubtable Mr. Hansen, then all of those same sources are open to you, as well. I won't hold my breath, though. Best Regards, Rick M. #: 253969 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 02:23:15 Sb: #253915-CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 > [representations about a lawsuit omitted] I'm omitting a quotation from the above in part because what you wrote might be actionable libel against one or more of the parties you mentioned. I don't care to be a party to such a deed. Now, I notice that your account differs from some of the others I've been seeing bandied about. Getting reliable information about lawsuits is always difficult, because the interested parties are busy promoting their own viewpoints, not to mention the contributions of ill-meaning commentators in the peanut gallery (CIS, for example). _You_, of course, have just shown on this forum a partiality to anonymous derogatory rumour. Others, on the other hand, make some effort towards getting _verified, reliable_ facts in advance of slinging stories about, persuant to a preference for fair comment. (You've heard of those concepts, I hope.) I, for example, am trying to get copies of actual court documents, both for those complaints that have been dismissed by the judges, and those that have not yet been adjudicated -- even though I'm not at all connected to the cases in question, but just to see what the actual facts are. I would also greatly appreciate having Mr. Geller come to speak before my group, in order to hear his side of the story, and am hoping that will be possible. What I will not do is repeat _anyone's_ unverified yarn about such court cases -- nor will I take seriously those who tell them. Best Regards, Rick M. #: 253992 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 03:41:42 Sb: #253915-CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 > Sorry, but I shall not let you put words into my mouth. Words put in your mouth, of which there were _none_, as you well know. I merely _asked_ if you had a "credible", "good" source. I didn't say you had claimed to have one. Moving right along, I also asked _WHO_ said this, which brings us to... > I merely said that some source(s) had indicated Randi's resignation was asked for, not spontaneously offered as the official position has us to believe. I never said that the source was an authoratitive one and in my last letter I made it clear that I have no way of knowing whether that source was correct, or whether CSICOP is correct. Quite frankly, it is of no importance to me. It was clever of you to notice that I did not give any names. That is not something I choose to share. Ah, a big secret, then, as to who gave you this "not authoritative" (so to speak) piece of non-information. In a nutshell: I ask you WHO said this nasty little invention, and you decline to state. I believe this speaks volumes. > If you think that "attract" is not an accurate representation of CSICOP's position, fair enough. No, sir, the issue is not what I "think", but rather what the _facts_ are. You're familiar with the latter concept, I hope. However, when someone's inaccuracies are consistently on the side of the derogatory, one has to wonder. Best Regards, Rick M. #: 253989 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 03:23:39 Sb: #253701-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) > Fascinating! Now I'm truly curious! CSICOP doesn't do any research but just has 'scientific' opinions? This I've got to see! No, CSICOP does not have scientific (or any other) opinions. > Or do their 'consultants' do research & publish it in the SI? Yes, they and others do. CSICOP doesn't engage in its own scientific research, but it publishes, encourages, assists, and sometimes commissions such research by individuals (including its members), in the same fashion as does _Nature_ magazine, for example -- and as does the Parapsychological Association. The policy statement in _Skeptical Inquirer_ Mr. Broughton refers to makes that clear, but also goes on to state that this is not intended to preclude more active involvement in research when its resources permit. For the time being, CSICOP is mostly a publisher: Its quarterly journal, _The Skeptical Inquirer_, presents news, many very assorted and diverse views, and a significant amount of scientific research within its tightly-budgeted but well edited 100 pages or so, under its very capable editor, Kendrick Frazier, formerly editor of _Science News_. It is indeed not peer-reviewed, but has never claimed to be, and yet it presents some high-quality work, as you will see when you read it. To comment on Mr. Broughton's polemical comparison: _SI's_ scientific standards of evidence are, I think, impressively high, while _Fate's_ seem absent and even unwanted. [cont'd] There are 2 Replies. #: 253990 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 03:24:33 Sb: #253989-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 [cont'd] Per its aims statement on every issue, CSICOP "attempts to encourage the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view, and to disseminate factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the public." Now, in a similar spirit, I've been urging you to investigate _SI_ and judge for _yourself_. From other quarters hereabouts, you've gotten inaccurate polemics and anonymous mudslinging. Please do judge for yourself, and please do consider who on this forum has favoured fair and open inquiry. Best Regards, Rick M. There is 1 Reply. #: 254415 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 22:05:35 Sb: #253990-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 Rick -- I'm not quite sure in what spirit you've been urging me to investigate SI & see for myself. In fact, I don't recall you urging me to do that. I'm not aware of any polemics or mudslinging by others, either. Keep in mind that other people have a right to their opinions, and a right to express them. Having an opinion contrary to yours doesn't automatically qualify as either polemic or mudslinging. You, in fact, seem to me to be the person who does most of both on this forum. And, by the way, insisting 'I do too have the facts and you don't' does not share the facts. I'm not convinced that a list in the magazine of the board & consultants is a membership list. No organization lists its members in that fashion, as a list of all the members. If you do have the facts, how about presenting them to the rest of us? In a simple, unemotional manner without denigrating anybody else? #: 254413 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 22:03:19 Sb: #253989-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 Oh, yes. Science News. They reported on some of my research once. Didn't quite get it, and misquoted me. But then, even Time Magazine is notorious for that, if you talk to the people they write about. #: 254265 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 16:38:07 Sb: #253701-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Some personal comments: 1. Came across CSISOP/SI when I was looking at the shroud of Turin developments. Got a bit interested in Randi's stuff on Geller, and the Bermuda Triangle stuff. Followed CSISOP/SI stuff for a while but lost interest because, unlike the Turin/Geller/Bermuda issues, most of the stuff they deal with is so obviously outrageous and nonsense that it does not deserve ANY attention, let alone scientific investigation. Whatever their scientific quality, when applied to such nonsense it is overkill. I have recently joined Nat's Capital Area Skeptics, and found them suffering of the same problem. I understand their rationale, but I simply can't muster enough interest. 2. An argument made by Randi/CSISOP is that physical scientists, whose research subjects don't lie/cheat/trick, may not be the best investigators of paranormal claims. Having read some examples of prominent scientists were readily fooled, I think the argument has merit, and the combination of a magician with a scientist is a better alternative. 3. It's always a good idea to be skeptical (sic) when it comes to self-appointed bodies, especially when their declared objectives appear "altruistic" (science, the public good, etc). From the Amway matter to the exchange here (which is news to me), such skepticism seems validated. For what it's worth. #: 254416 S10/Paranormal Issues 12-Mar-92 22:05:52 Sb: CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 (X) One of my areas of expertise is fakes, frauds & forgeries in the fine arts. Although one doesn't usually publish one's findings in this area (why enlighten the forgers?) the work I did on Caravaggio got rather extensively published & reviewed & is often footnoted when articles are written about his work. I didn't get involved in the Turin shroud matter (it's not fine art). I'm not sure that definitive conclusions were reached, though. I've also been involved in international debates about ancient textiles, during which I've gotten nastier than I should have about the quality of data & the rules of scientific evidence. This, too, is an area where pseudoscience abounds, & I'm extremely interested in the causes & effects of pseudoscience as a phenomenon in itself. I'm also curious about why presumably otherwise rational people get so violently outraged & passionately involved in attacks on whatever is defined at the moment as 'paranormal' -- and so outrageously self-righteous about it. (Keep in mind that the territory shifts; hypnosis & magnetism for example were both once considered paranormal & subject to disbelief & attack as fraud and stage tricks.) Why the investment in 'proving' certain kinds of phenomena can't exist -- I think you're noticing the extremes to which they go; thus your comment that 'the stuff they deal with is so obviously outrageous & nonsense that it does not deserve ANY attention.' But if something truly irrational is going on with them & it's all one horrifying, scary blob to them, of course that's how they'd respond. Fascinating psychology. What's the threat to them? I don't believe it's going to be possible to do any meaningful research in this area until this question is answered. For one thing, no one in his/her right mind who experiences anything now defined as paranormal is going to submit to examination, which seriously skews the data! Your reaction -- loss of interest -- is what I consider normal. #: 254603 S10/Paranormal Issues 13-Mar-92 05:34:55 Sb: #254416-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Michael McDowell 76207,1247 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) What is stranger is that the same person who would accept your word as final authority on whether a piece of painted linen was worth $15K or $1500K, will say that they don't believe you when you tell them a simple (but inexplicable) thing that happened to you yesterday. Will trust my handshake on a deal it will take four lawyers ten months to work out, but won't trust my word that I am occasionally clairvoyant. Would trust another member of this forum to put electrical drills into their mouths, but question her honesty when she says her office is haunted. I suppose it's just a sub-set of the "If you don't like the message, discredit the messenger" method of attack. You can see that pretty plainly elsewhere in this section. There are 2 Replies. #: 254643 S10/Paranormal Issues 13-Mar-92 09:33:44 Sb: #254603-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Michael McDowell 76207,1247 (X) Yes, at some museums I've been the final arbiter and no art could be purchased unless I approved the purchase. The Director & Board members couldn't override my decisions. Especially for art priced in the high millions. Such decisions don't make me well loved, but they indicate that they trust my integrity. Here's a little UFO story for you. I was having lunch at the FAA in Washington, idly contemplating a large cigar-shaped object hovering outside the window not too far away, trying to figure out what made the thing fly. Some kind of new helicopter? A group of guys at the next table fell into silence, also contemplating it. One of them said: 'Is that thing what they call an unidentified flying object?' 'Yes, I guess so.' 'You going to report it?' 'Hell, no! You think I want to get fired?' I didn't report it either, of course. This is the first time I've ever mentioned it. There is 1 Reply. #: 254706 S10/Paranormal Issues 13-Mar-92 12:49:40 Sb: #254643-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) I am not sure that seeing something which is not clear what it is is automatically an UFO, or that people should not report it. But you see, if there were no CSISOP's around, HOW would you KNOW whether it is or isn't? The premise of CSISOP is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and that is reasonable. That's precisely why they DON'T consider ANYTHING false, but are willing to investigate. Yet you seem to accuse them of trying to "prove those are not true". That's inconsistent. The fact of the matter is that there is not ONE paranormal claim that has withstood the test of science. Until ONE does, anybody can make claims, but this does not give them any special truth or even likelihood status. #: 254705 S10/Paranormal Issues 13-Mar-92 12:49:33 Sb: #254603-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Michael McDowell 76207,1247 (X) You can't be serious. You mean "being occasionally clairvoyant" and "haunted office" claims are not AT ALL different than "what happened yesterday", "deal handshake" or "allowing a dentist to drill"? I am not saying that one should trust the latter blindly (and most of us don't, if we're smart) but aren't the former more OBVIOUSLY questionable? There is 1 Reply. #: 254874 S10/Paranormal Issues 13-Mar-92 22:13:56 Sb: #254705-CSICOP revealed Fm: Michael McDowell 76207,1247 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 I'm not sure what you are talking about. What I said was: that someone who is willing to trust me on a matter of considerable financial and legal consequence is perhaps not willing to afford me the same amount of trust when I give my word on the subject of clairvoyance. In the same manner, I believe the Meryl Johnson is equally precise and thoughtful when she testifies to a matter of authentification of artefacts as when she writes here of her seeing a UFO while she was lunching at the FAA. The absurd discrepancy is not between her expertise in art history and her experience with the paranormal; the difference is in how her testimony is treated in the one case, and how it is treated in the other. And "questionable"? That's questionable to you. Certain aspects of the paranormal are to me about as questionable as the neighbors' barking dog. Sometimes the barking is very loud, sometimes there's hardly any barking at all, and sometimes I can even forget that the neighbors have a loudly barking dog. And animal annoys me -- just as a great deal of the paranormal phenomena I've experienced greatly annoy me. I don't care whether you believe in the existence of that dog or not, and I'm not going to take the trouble to record his barking. For despite your doubting, I dealt with the paranormal yesterday, and it will annoy me again tomorrow, and I'm going to count myself lucky if I don't have to deal with it tonight. #: 254691 S10/Paranormal Issues 13-Mar-92 11:53:28 Sb: #254416-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Meryl, true scientific rules of evidence are seldom used. Reality and human nature work against it. Science is the only field where one must always QUESTION what he does, to be true to it, and that is psychologically incompatible with the concept of achievement which requires one to BELIEVE in what he does. So more frequently than not scientists succumb to their natural tendencies, and start believing in what they do or say. And those are people who were TRAINED in the scientific method. Of course that most, who are not, have no corules of evidence are not even an issue. Only a few of us, who seem to be intrinsically capable of continuous questioning, are frustrated by it. The tests on the shroud were somewhat inconclusive, true, but reading its history, modern and ancient, it is clear that it was KNOWN AT THE TIME OF ITS ORIGIN THAT IT WAS A FAKE, some very likely methods of creating it were suggested and emulated, and the tests could not reject (and even somewhat showed) them. All in all, it was sensationalized by the media and others, without serious justification. Of course, I assumed that from the beginning (I'm an atheist), but it was interesting to follow. There is a case to be made for DISproving the claims (they are NOT proving anything), because they can cost the uninitiated (e.g. healers, etc.). However, many of the cases are simply not interesting, but it does not mean that they should not do it. I am not entirely sure that your fear theory is correct. They're just intrinsically interested in this stuff, and it gives them some notoriety. I don't think they do any damage. There is 1 Reply. #: 254701 S10/Paranormal Issues 13-Mar-92 12:35:52 Sb: #254691-CSICOP revealed Fm: Michael McDowell 76207,1247 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 (X) The damage that is done is simply this: that evidence does not come forward. There are some who will read Meryl's UFO story and say that she made it up as a trap or a joke, or that it was embellished, or that not having told it before it became magnified and distorted in her mind. On the other hand, if we questioned the FAA, I tend to think that the incident would be denied and dismissed. But Federal Agencies have a track record of duplicity, outright lies, coverings-up, and knee-jerk denials. Meryl on the other hand, in public appearances here, and in some private correspondence, has never given me any impression other than that she is honest, straightforward, thoughtful, and precise. It would be foolish of me not to believe her, exactly as she writes of the incident. The testimony of an honest woman or man is much harder evidence to fake than a photograph, than a graph, than an official pronouncement. But because of the reception that such testimony is likely to receive, we do not get the evidence of many honest men and women. That is harm. #: 254677 S10/Paranormal Issues 13-Mar-92 11:29:35 Sb: #254415-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) > I'm not quite sure in what spirit you've been urging me to investigate SI & see for myself. Simple: Read it and see for yourself. > In fact, I don't recall you urging me to do that. Three times, now. Best to re-read your forum mail. > I'm not aware of any polemics or mudslinging by others, either. Best to re-read recent forum postings. > Keep in mind that other people have a right to their opinions, and a right to express them. Having an opinion contrary to yours doesn't automatically qualify as either polemic or mudslinging. Absolutely true, but irrelevant. Polemics and mudslinging are what they are without regard to various opinions. > You, in fact, seem to me to be the person who does most of both on this forum. Care to give a few specific examples? > And, by the way, insisting 'I do too have the facts and you don't' does not share the facts. True, and that's exactly why I didn't do that, but instead listed numerous additional sources of information. > I'm not convinced that a list in the magazine of the board & consultants is a membership list. No organization lists its members in that fashion, as a list of all the members. The people this other gentleman claimed are CSICOP committee members are plainly listed in the magazine as "Fellows... names listed for identification only" and "Scientific and Technical Consultants". I merely pointed this out. As I said, you can see for yourself. > If you do have the facts, how about presenting them to the rest of us? In a simple, unemotional manner without denigrating anybody else? Saying that someone is incorrect is not denigrating him, and I have more than amply presented the plain facts. Why is this resisted so strongly and called "emotional"? Best Regards, Rick M. There are 2 Replies. #: 254703 S10/Paranormal Issues 13-Mar-92 12:49:21 Sb: #254677-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 Heh, heh, heh. It's fascinating to see you ask "why is this resisted so strongly and called emotional" just after I was trying to explain that human nature interferes with the scientific method, and its rules of evidence. There is a tendency to see emotionally held positions by others, but not one's own. And in many cases it is genuine too. #: 254924 S10/Paranormal Issues 13-Mar-92 23:42:00 Sb: #254677-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 I think Fabian's comment covers it all. #: 254704 S10/Paranormal Issues 13-Mar-92 12:49:26 Sb: #254413-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Do you know of ANY magazine that DOES understand correctly and does NOT misquote? I am a writer and I can tell you that it's really luck when they do it right. There is 1 Reply. #: 254922 S10/Paranormal Issues 13-Mar-92 23:35:06 Sb: #254704-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 I'm a writer, too, among other things. And speaking from experience, no magazine or newspaper, including the NY Times, has ever written about my work & not made some mistake. I'm not going to try to speak for EVERY magazine. Some at least try harder than others. #: 254965 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 02:30:04 Sb: #254691-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 (X) Part of being a scientist is the acceptance of the responsibility to use true scientific rules of evidence. Hundreds of thousands of scientists are 'intrinsically capable of continuous questioning'. Those who aren't mature enough don't stay in the field very long. DUPLICATING AN EFFECT PROVES NOTHING UNLESS THERE IS STRONG CORROBORATING EVIDENCE THAT THE METHOD USED TO DUPLICATE THE EFFECT WAS USED TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL OBJECT. I put that in caps because it seems self-evident but the problem keeps turning up. Even an atheist can't automatically rule out the existence of a historical Jesus who inspired followers, whatever one might personally think of the rest of the claims made for him. There were plenty of similar characters around. (There still are.) Too many valid questions about the shroud received inconclusive answers. A lot of harm is done. Paranormal phenomena are experienced by people. First, if evidence isn't presented by credible witnesses, because for whatever reason they're reluctant to present it, reliable conclusions can't be reached. Secondly, when people experience paranormal phenomena, it can be terrifying. Open discussion of paranormal phenomena by people who experience them is impossible without shrill disbelievers jumping in to tell them it's fraud, they're nuts, & demand that they prove it. This forum is an outstanding example of that. There are times when people desperately need to know that others have had similar experiences. I despise censorship. It has always been antithetical to scientific advancement, and to the advancement of knowledge of any kind. I don't care whether it's the church, self-interest in the scientific community, as in the attacks on Pasteur, or self-appointed CSICOPs. There are 2 Replies. #: 255091 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 13:04:51 Sb: #254965-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) 1. Yes. That was my point. Those who understand science do accept questioning and come forward with evidence, even if not popular. As you can see from my last message, I was telling the guy that it's the paranormal claimers that tend not to want to subject to questioning, and the evidence not coming forward this way is not of much concern. 2. Yes. I agree on duplication too. This goes back however to my reality/psychology argument. Sometimes people take shortcuts, others just do a sloppy job, in other cases exact duplication is not possible or affordable. But this is why the scientific process must be open and only collective results judged. The major problem with the paranormal claims is that they are DEFINED as not being testable directly, i.e. if a skeptic is present, it does not work. Not exactly conducive to science, is it? 3. I am not ruling out an historical Jesus. But I've seen no scientific evidence which is convincing to me, and I am not sure if such can be obtained, given the circumstances. However, such a Jesus would no longer be a paranormal claim anyway, so the whole point goes away. 4. Re paranormal experiences, you are prejudging the issue, which is not scientific. You ASSUME that they ARE experienced, CREDIBLE. Now, CSICOP came up and says yes, fine, we'll respect that, we are willing to scientifically check every such claim, regardless of credibility level, but you find fault with them trying to "prove those experiences wrong". The fact is that ALL cases forwarded, NONE could withstand scientific scrutiny. You interpret that to mean that ONLY the "credible" ones did not come forward. That is not reasonable to me. More reasonable is to have a working assumption of very low paranormal probability, then wait for a case that withstands scrutiny. Otherwise the harm would be indefinitely higher. 5. I have no idea what censorship you're referring to, and if there's any I deplore it. CSICOP is not in the psychology/comforting business, and they do not PROVE people nuts, they try to DISPROVE paranormal claims. If you have technical problems with their methods, let's hear them. There is 1 Reply. #: 255263 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 20:02:43 Sb: #255091-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 You didn't get what I'm saying at all. 1. It's impossible to even estimate the level or volume of paranormal experiences because people are afraid to talk about them. It's not that people wouldn't submit to credible and reasonable scientific inquiry; people do that all the time in medical research, and people don't suddenly stop being people just because they've had a paranormal experience. It's that what they're asked to submit to isn't credible and is extremely hostile. As any epidemiologist would tell you, under those circumstances the lack of data should be of extreme concern. 2. I repeat: duplication of an effect has no bearing whatsoever on the original event or artifact. Duplicating an effect is in no way scientific evidence of anything. (How do you think we catch forgeries, huh?) The effect being duplicated may or may not have been created by the method used to duplicate it. This has nothing to do with reality/psychology. It has to do with wasted effort, if one is trying to use it as scientific proof of anything. Duplicating an effect is NOT testing anything. 3. There is historical evidence of a historical Jesus. The Roman historian Josephus wrote about him, among other arguments for this. I don't see why this would require scientific evidence. I also don't see why whether or not a 'historical' Jesus would or would not be a 'paranormal' Jesus has anything to do with anything. Either the shroud is old enough & was a grave cloth, or it isn't. 4. I don't assume that phenomena which are defined as paranormal are experienced by credible people. I know it. I didn't make any of the claims or assumptions you attribute to me. I'll admit that I don't believe that CSICOP would publish any 'research' which did withstand scientific scrutiny. And I am going to investigate the level of their 'science'. I don't think scientific objectivity is their goal. I'm not going to assume a 'very low paranormal probability'; i'm going to assume that we don't know the level. There is 1 Reply. #: 255283 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 21:12:39 Sb: #255263-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) RE: The shroud. I read, in a novel called *The Body*, what struck me as a reasonable deduction that the image on the shroud is not that of Jesus. I don't recall the author's name, and the book is over at the house, but I'll look it up if you or anyone here wants to know. Also, I haven't checked the author's alleged facts and can neither endorse nor dispute them. I just think it's an interesting bit of reasoning and am passing it along for what it's worth: 1. Nowhere in Christian literature or tradition is there any physical description of Jesus. Had there been anything remarkable about his appearance, e.g., had he been unusually tall or short, surely that would have been noted and we would know about it. Since there are no references to his appearance, we can assume that it was unremarkable. 2. In the first century c.e. the average man was about five feet two inches tall. Since there was nothing remarkable about Jesus's appearance, we can assume that his height was within the range of normal - say no shorter than five feet and no taller than five feet four or so. 3. The image on the shroud is of a man who was five feet ten inches tall. --Terry There is 1 Reply. #: 255362 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 23:52:39 Sb: #255283-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 Actually, that's not correct. There was an extremely strong tradition of the physical appearance of Jesus & the rest of the 'cast' which persisted from early Christian times to the early Renaissance. In fact, the tradition persists today among Eastern church icon painters. The rules for depicting them were extremely strict & can be found in handbooks. I haven't read the rules for years, so I can't quote them; look at some Byzantine paintings. The tradition was based, supposedly, on 'eye witness' accounts; or at least on accounts of those who had spoken to eye witnesses. #: 255092 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 13:05:01 Sb: #254965-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Again, I suggest you 1st educate yourself on CSICOP's research and if you find them at fault, let's discuss it. What they are doing is precisely trying to avoid the things you're talking about, so that this accusation of intimidation and discouragement is not forwarded as a reason why paranormal claims never seem to withstand scrutiny. As I was telling you, what I found to be the problem with them is that they go out of their way to investigate the least credible claims, which I would not do, and be happy to call the claimers nuts or profiteers, or whatever. I think credible people think twice about what may seem to them some inexplicable experience, not because they're intimidated from coming forward, but because they are intelligent enough to question their assumptions of what happened themselves. There is 1 Reply. #: 255264 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 20:02:55 Sb: #255092-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 I think CSICOP's 'research' is a wonderful illustration of the ancient Chinese law of opposites. If one strives too hard in one direction, one is in serious danger of achieving the opposite. In their determination to fight pseudoscience & irrationality (as defined by them) they have become pseudoscientific & irrational. Yes, credible people do, in fact, qwuestion their assumptions of what happened to themselves. Credible people would also like to be able to discuss things that happen to them without being put through a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition. I take it you've never experienced anything inexplicable. I hope you do, and soon. Then you'll have some idea of how unsettling it can be. #: 255185 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 15:59:49 Sb: #254691-CSICOP revealed Fm: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 Fabian, But scientists BELIEVE in gravity! And so many other things. And isn't it true that a scientist has to formulate a theory and BELIEVE in it in order to test it? I mean, if he formulates a theory and doesn't believe it, he's not going to go to the trouble of testing it, is he? Guy walks down a circular staircase and gets a flash of insight into DNA. That's science? IMHO, the religious and metaphysical must also be approached scientifically. One should question what he does until all questions are answered. "Seek and ye shall find." Isn't that as true for scientists as it is for theists? Malcolm #: 254966 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 02:30:19 Sb: #254706-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 (X) A UFO is simply a flying object that isn't identified. It's irrational that reporting phenomena puts people's jobs at risk, not the other way around. I really don't need any kind of organization to tell me whether anything is or isn't what I think it might be, and I strongly suspect that you don't need an organization to give you that kind of information, either! If we give organizations that kind of authority, we'd still believe that the world is flat. What's an extraordinary claim? At one time, the claim that the earth revolved around the sun was extraordinary. Heresy. I'm not accusing CSISOP of anything; I haven't been able to get hold of their publication yet. The title of their publication seems to me to indicate that their stance is negative. Scientific investigation is neutral; isn't it amazing to have to point that out? I'm not the one who's being inconsistent. And what in the world does 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' mean? Why is this demand only applied to certain kinds of phenomena? Ten or so years ago, the claim that an unknown virus was beginning to kill everyone infected by it was an extraordinary claim; no special rules of evidence were set up before one could investigate the AIDS virus. The fact of the matter is that A LOT of paranormal claims have withstood the test of science, if one looks at this historically. Magnetism and electricity are so accepted that it's boring. Hypnotism is used as a medical technique. Quite recently, 'healing' was renamed the 'placebo effect'. The tendency is, once something has been scientifically explained, to then make the unspoken decision, 'Oh, well, then that wasn't really paranormal,' That is not legitimate. Undoubtedly ALL phenomena now considered paranormal will eventually 'withstand the test of science', as science develops in scope. The error lies in the assumption that science is somehow now complete, our present level of knowledge is the final word. There is 1 Reply. #: 255093 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 13:05:13 Sb: #254966-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Meryl, seriously, I think you are doing your own positions - which are basically valid - a disservice because you do not have a very good notion of what CSICOP does. Ditto for lumping together magnetism and all that with paranormal claims. The reason why magnetism and other things withstood the test in the LONG RUN is precisely because they were continuously subjected to what CSICOP tries to do with paranormal claims (which did not!). I suggest you first educate yourself on that, THEN if you think there's a problem with what they do, let's discuss how your arguments APPLY TO THEM. Otherwise, I can only agree with you in the abstract, so what? For example, I know of no one in CSICOP who assumes science is complete, but this does not mean that paranormality is, therefore, a VERY LIKELY phenomenon. Of course their stance is negative. Again: science can only disprove, it can NEVER prove (only paranormal claimers think that once they think they experienced something, they "proved" a larger thing). And again, there is a psychological incompatibility between the need to question and to believe. If you can show HOW their negative expectations affected their investigations, then yes, I would be concerned. But working hypotheses are legitimate as long as they don't affect the methods. There is 1 Reply. #: 255265 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 20:03:14 Sb: #255093-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 I have several advanced degrees in several fields, and I'll take care of my own education, thank you. Let me ask you in what fields of science you regularly read REAL scientific journals? How familiar are you with various kinds of scientific data? Are you familiar with the philosophy of science? How can you say 'science can only disagree, it can NEVER prove'? That kind of statement is antithetical to science as the rest of the world knows it. Would you really say that one can't prove that the earth revolves around the sun? Working hypotheses are the basis from which one chooses one's methods of investigation. Of course working hypotheses affect one's methods. I think the notorious 'Mars Effect' case is apretty good illustration of that. #: 255183 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 15:59:23 Sb: #254706-CSICOP revealed Fm: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 Fabian, -> The fact of the matter is that there is not ONE paranormal claim that has withstood the test of science. This seems an entirely pompous statement. In my own case, telepathy is a standard part of life. Most of the time it happens with my significant others. It has even sometimes distressed those who didn't "believe in" telepathy. I have one friend with whom the channel is always open and sometimes I have trouble telling us apart! Now this is so common and mundane that it does not need to "withstand" any "test of science" any more than a sneeze or a bowel movement does. I don't have to have my sneeze velocity measured to validate for me; though maybe someone else does. But why should I care? Malcolm #: 255094 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 13:05:23 Sb: #254874-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Michael McDowell 76207,1247 (X) I was aware you may not know what I'm talking about, which is part of the problem here. Do you have any background in science? "Treated" by whom? The press, the public? Yes, that's a problem, but you can't blame the scientific community for that, and certainly not CSICOP. In fact, what CSICOP did was to say forget about how the world is treating your claims, WE are taking it seriously, let us investigate. And I don't think that CSICOP would treat her badly for seeing SOMETHING INEXPLICABLE. 99% of the paranormal claims are nothing like this, they are obvious crappola and CSICOP should be lauded for dignifying those with research. Look, you can hold whatever opinions you want about paranormal stuff. But unless you can offer specific examples of how the methods used to investigate those claims were flawed, they really mean nothing. This is the fundamental problem with most claims: they are just "allergic" to skepticism per-se, even though there's nothing specific which can be pointed out as flawed in their investigation. And I know exactly why. There is 1 Reply. #: 255130 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 14:47:15 Sb: #255094-CSICOP revealed Fm: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 Michael McDowell has a considerable background in science, on a professional level, as well as a Ph.D. in English and several successful novels and screenplays to his credit. You're walking on quicksand here. #: 255184 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 15:59:32 Sb: #254705-CSICOP revealed Fm: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 Fabian, Of course he's serious! They ARE not at all different. The former are only more obviously questionable TO YOU (or others who choose to disbelieve). Between the last message and this one, I sneezed. Honest! Maybe someone should send a team to investigate the truth of the matter? Malcolm #: 255053 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 11:06:20 Sb: #254701-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Michael McDowell 76207,1247 (X) You've got it wrong, my friend. If people do not forward evidence because somebody wants to investigate it, than it's not the investigators' problem. Now, if you can show that the investigator is not up to par, that his methods are flawed, then you have a case. But as far as I can tell there is not one such case in CSISOP, and most of the claims proved to be fakes (although perhaps not so in the minds of those making them). Forget Federal agencies, it's irrelevant, and there is no serious scientist who would reject a claim based on governmental claims alone; that would NOT be science. But if every extraordinary claim would be judged on the sheer merits of the perceived quality of the person making them, you would be out of science too, period. There could be all sorts of explicable reasons for what intelligent, honest people claim, and one should not be so eager to accept the possibility of extraordinary phenomena. And there is continuous evidence that the most intelligent people can be fooled, or get illusions not less than any other man. The point is that questioning somebody's extraordinary claim is NOTHING BUT how science operates. If you are unwilling to accept that, than you deny science, and that's fine, but understand that that is what you do. What is somewhat bothersome is that Meryl, who makes a living off disproving fakes (a form of extraordinary claims) does not understand why CSISOP would wanna do the same (for no profit) with others. There are 2 Replies. #: 255100 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 13:25:55 Sb: #255053-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 It is very much the investigator's problem if the investigator doesn't have good data. If the investigator doesn't have enough sense to know the data isn't good, or is skewed, then the investigator is doing pesudoscience, not science. If the investigator conducts 'investigations' based on biased assumptions, that isn't science, either. There are plenty of people running around in the art field, too, screaming 'Fake! Fake!' There is no important work of art that hasn't been called a fake. Art is not a level playing field. There is such a thing as genius & inspiration. No act of God or law of nature dictates that an artist make every work exactly the same way. The really great, important works are usually technically different in some aspect, both from the other work of their period & even from other work by the same artist. Even living artists can find themselves defending their own work against charges that individual works are fakes. Every important discovery is called a fake by some scholar & then someone like me has to put together the evidence for and against the work. Science doesn't necessarily answer all the questions in the art field, either. There are plenty of other valid methods of investigation. Historical research often provides the most important evidence. I don't make a living off disproving fakes. I have identified some fakes and demonstrated the methods used and the data obtained. I have had to spend far more time disproving other people's pseudoscientific methods for calling works fake. And laying a scientific basis of methods and data to use for this kind of work. If I find CSICOP is pseudoscientific, then that's what I'll proceed to do to them. I could use a change of scene. I've had this discussion on this forum before, and don't necessarily feel like spending my money and my time repeating myself again and again. #: 255129 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 14:47:10 Sb: #255053-CSICOP revealed Fm: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 RE: "Now, if you can show that the investigator is not up to par, that his methods are flawed, then you have a case. But as far as I can tell there is not one such case in CSICOP. . . Well, I'll give you one. When Ed Walters and his controversial Gulf Breeze, Florida, UFO photos made the news, my friend Phil Klass immediately "debunked" them without any investigation at all, his method amounting to no more than attempted character assassination. Phil announced that Walters was a charlatan, and was a "familiar figure in the bars of Gulf Breeze". Having never met Walters or been to Gulf Breeze, or even bothered to find out anything about them from reliable sources, Phil had no way of knowing that there are no bars in Gulf Breeze. It's in a dry county. Phil used the same method to"debunk" the Lonnie Zamora UFO landing case - a case that is accepted as genuine not only by CUFOS but by the U.S. Air Force. This is one of many UFO cases that my wife and I have discussed with Phil over meals and drinks, and he has no scientific argument at all. In most cases his argument boils down to this: "If *I* had seen what this person claims to have seen, *I* would not have behaved as this person claims to have behaved. Therefore this person did not see what he claims to have seen." When CSICOP favorably reviewed my brother's book *Science and Creationism* (Prometheus Books 1990), it didn't even get his name right. (Ronald L. Ecker). #: 255090 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 13:04:36 Sb: #254922-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Perhaps they do, but the result is always who has done the least bad work. #: 255186 S10/Paranormal Issues 14-Mar-92 15:59:55 Sb: #254677-CSICOP revealed Fm: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 Gee, Rick. Do you have to take weenie pills each day or does it just come naturally? Malcolm #: 255379 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 01:34:53 Sb: #CSICOP revealed Fm: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 > 'Can't be too careful about fifteen-year-old public information. Rick, I agree completely that one should really check the _facts_ at the source. I am appalled at how frequently True Believers will accept the most blatant nonsense and error from their gurus without even doing elementary checking of easily available facts. Certainly all of this can be resolved by checking the By Laws of CSICOP, Inc. That way we can all find out who has been spreading error and falsehood and who has been telling the truth. It would be a bit troublesome for each of us to contact the NY Secretary of State's office for that, so why don't you just post the relevant section of the By Laws for us. Surely you must have a copy, or perhaps one is on file with the Bay Area Skeptics. It is Article 4, Section 2. Regards, Richard Broughton There is 1 Reply. #: 255563 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:05:28 Sb: #255379-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 I am confused now. Who are accepting blatantly stuff, the skeptics, or those who make paranormal claims? There are enough ignorants on both sides. But as a rule of thumb, I know on whom I would put my probabilistic trust. #: 255380 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 01:35:16 Sb: CSICOP revealed Fm: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 >The conclusion proceeds from a false premise, and is therefore worthless. ALL of CSICOP's officers _consistently_ know and state the plain, simple, non-controversial fact on this matter. For fifteen years, it has always been the exact same answer. Kapech? Yup, I kapech, at least as far as agreeing that they may have been saying the same thing over and over again for fifteen years. I am glad that you keep emphasising the unanimity of CSICOP officers on this point and that this is what you apparently regard as one of the indisputable _facts_ about CSICOP. I guess the proof will be there for all to see when you post the relevant text from CSICOP's By Laws as we are all hoping you will. You _may_ want to call them now, Rick. Perhaps you might want to call Phil Klass, too. I understand he had offered a challenge to anyone who could demonstrate that the Fellows and Consultants were the members of the committee: $100 to a charity of choice. I also understand that a favorite charity of one Mr. Tom McIver is $100 better off. Just an unverified rumor, Rick, but you might want to check it out. Regards, Richard Broughton #: 255381 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 01:35:51 Sb: #CSICOP revealed Fm: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 >This is completely wrong, as you would know if you consulted the original writings, instead of just quoting derivative works from habitual and careless CSICOP-bashers. Completely wrong, eh? Rather categorical, but not unexpected. How do you know what I am quoting? Seems to me as you are making malicious and unsubstantiated allegations about the quality of my scholarship. What are your facts? As a matter of _fact_, I have right here beside me: 1) The original sTARBABY article by former founding member of the CSICOP Executive Council, former associate editor of Skeptical Inquirer, and planetary motion specialist Dennis Rawlins in which he claims that CSICOP not only demonstrated gross scientific incompetetance but also engineered a "Watergate" style cover-up in its handling of a study to test Gauquelin's Mars Effect claim. (Rawlins is no friend of the paranormal!~) 2) Crybaby, CSICOP's response written by Philip Klass (but never received the official endorsement of the Executive Council which is why Fate refused to publish it.). CSICOP Fellow Richard Kamman described Crybaby thusly, "Although it offered to refute the cover-up charge, it ignored practically every specific point that Rawlins had made. Instead it offered a blatant _ad hominem_ attack on Rawlins' motives and personality, bolstered with rhetorical ploys--including crude mis-quotation." 3) "Research on the Mars Effect" by Patrick Curry (a historian of science). This was a detailed analysis of the CSICOP investigation of the Mars effect that was done independently of Rawlins, but came to the same conclusions about CSICOP's handling. Published in _Zetetic Scholar_, 70+ references, much of it correspondence between the principals. Plus nine commentaries. 4) "The True Disbelievers: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality" by Richard Kamman, CSICOP Fellow (who resigned in disgust over this), psychologist and severe critic of parapsychology. Long, two-part analysis of the Mars Effect controversy and CSICOP's handling of its own investigation which concludes, "When the whole record is examined over five years, there is almost no instance in which merit wins out over There are 2 Replies. #: 255382 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 01:36:06 Sb: #255381-CSICOP revealed Fm: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 self-serving bias." Published in ZS. 5) "Inside the starbaby coverup: The planners' private words." Privately circulated document by Rawlins which documents the campaign to discredit and harass him citing correspondence, conversations and published documents. 5/11/83. There's more, but I think the point is made. I doubt these documents are uploaded here, but if any really needs a copy of a published item, let me know and I'll see what I can do. rumour that you've been displaying in these parts.) I think I'll let the readers of this thread be the judge of that, Rick. Regards, Richard Broughton #: 255550 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:03:31 Sb: #255381-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Richard Broughton 72070,1677 Richard, I am not familiar at all with the Mars Effect and this controversy. Appears it's something I would certainly like to look at, as I am keenly interested in science methods. Any way you would be kind enough to mail me copies of the CSICOP research and the reactions you refer to? You see, if the exchanges in SI were usually like this it would have been worth reading. But it is usually weak cases which, even if the investigation is not that strict, it's still obvious what is nonsense. #: 255545 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 13:40:34 Sb: #255263-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Meryl, Well, _I_ wouldn't "submit to credible and reasonable scientific inquiry" for my telepathy. Why should I? I'm not only not trying to convince anyone, I'm not even interested in how they feel about it particularly. Any more than I'm interested in proving to someone that I can communicate orally or in writing. Malcolm There is 1 Reply. #: 255657 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 17:02:56 Sb: #255545-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 If the scientific inquiry were credible and reasonable, you wouldn't have to submit to it. Telepathy has been too well documented for that! #: 255553 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:04:05 Sb: #255263-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) I understand, but am not persuaded. The problem is precisely that: people are advancing stories about personal experiences which CANNOT be OBJECTIVELY replicated by others AT WILL. That makes it difficult to investigate scientifically. So what appears to you as as "hostile" is nothing but the nature of the beast. I have seen a whole lot of "scientific studies" done by paranormal proponents who relaxed ALL scientific requirements just to be able to support the claims. Well, heck, what do you know, they did! When the relaxations were dropped, guess what, no more "proofs". That prompted the "powerful" to complain that the sheer presence of a magician or skeptic creates "bad vibes" and kills the phenomena. Give me a break. You are ABSOLUTELY wrong about duplication, and you also misunderstand what it means. If you do not believe in duplication, you are out of science. That's OK, if that's where you wanna be. But you cannot have it both ways. What makes catching of forgers scientific is that ANYBODY, following the SAME EVIDENCE and METHODS that one has used to find a forgery will come to the same conclusion. If you conducted your research in secrecy and simply declared that based on it you caught a forger (or not) that would NOT be science, even if accurate! It is nothing but the fundamental value of duplication in science that allows you to criticize CSICOP or anybody else on their poor or inexistent research. If you don't see "why a scientific evidence is required", and consider Josephus enough, there is nothing for me to say. But my point was that as a paranormal i ssue, THAT Jesus is not an issue at all. The God Jesus, and the claims made as to the TRANSFER OF THE IMAGE to the shroud are. There is 1 Reply. #: 255656 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 17:02:45 Sb: #255553-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 O.K. So you're the only person in the world who understands science. Can't argue with that. I will not give ground on the issue of duplication. That is not equivalent to repeating someone's experiment, which is an absolute requirement of science. When duplicating an experiment one has full knowledge of the method by which the experiment was originally conducted. When duplicating an effect, one has no knowledge of the original method used to create the effect. It is totally unscientific to duplicate an effect and then assume that's how the original effect was created. There is also absolutely no scientific requirement that it be possible to duplicate anything at will. I can't duplicate a quasar or black hole at will. Can you? #: 255554 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:04:14 Sb: #255263-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) ANYBODY WHO DOES NOT ASSUME BUT !KNOWS! THINGS, AND PARTICULARLY THE ACCEPTS CREDIBILITY OF PEOPLE AS SCIENCE, IS NOT ACCEPTING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AS CURRENTLY DEFINED!!!! Anybody who does accept it is serious enough to admit they !DK ANYTHING!, but have only working hypotheses that seem to be useful, and have withstood the sound, collective set of systematic public attempts to disprove them. Here is what I suggest: take the best credible case you can think of, which has been unfairly "disproved" by what you claim pseudoscience, and where both the claim and the investigation have been documented in writing, let us read the evidence on both sides, then let's discuss the implications. That would be the best way to deal with this stuff. But I have to be frank and tell you that, given your concept of science, I have grave doubts. #: 255557 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:04:36 Sb: #255264-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) That may well be. As I said, reality and human nature has nasty effects on scientists too. But even if true - and I have seen nothing IN WRITING to proove that, except personal ccounts - it does NOT prove paranormal claims to be true. It may only prove that they have been incorrectly investigated, or not investigated at all. So Meryl, if CSICOP messes up, it does not mean that your position on science is correct. #: 255558 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:04:47 Sb: #255185-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 You are wrong again. Scientists do NOT believe in gravity. They have observed phenomena and hypothesized about a force called gravity, then conducted research to see if its empirical implications could be defeated. OVER AND OVER AGAIN they could not, and the experiments have been in the public domain and open for scrutiny. As long as they cannot disprove any of its implications they have a WORKING HYPOTHESIS that gravity is a valid theory. They don't KNOW gravity to be true, it's just an useful assumption which predicts reality well. Let me reiterate: it is I who said that the psychology of constantly questioning oneself is a difficult one for humans, so scientists frequently succumb to too much beliefs in their theories, encouraged by the reality of careers, grants, notoriety, etc. But that is precisely why REPLICATION is so crucial, and why science is a collective, open, ongoing endeavor, not judged on this or that scientist at a particular time. Yet this is what you deny. The flash of DNA insight is great, but what will determine it as part of science is the empirical tests of its IMPLICATIONS by many. I don't want this to turn into personal matters, but I see no way out of warning you and that you don't have a correct understanding of science, and it is handicapping your position. In order to identify pseudo-science you must first understand what science IS. I don't think you do. #: 255559 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:04:55 Sb: #255265-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Then it is a mystery to me where you got the positions on science you have. I do no longer read scientific journals, but in my former academic incarnation I was. One of my concentrations in my Ph.D. program was in research methods, including philosophy of science. In fact, I got so interested in it, that it almost excluded anything else from my span of attention. That statement is NOT antithetical to science. The only way you can do science is to formulate an empirically testable hypothesis and devise tests for it AND ITS IMPLICATIONS (this is important!!!!). As long as they DO NOT FAIL the tests, you assume there is no basis to discard it, you assume it true i n a practically useful sense, but NOT ever totally proven. Hypotheses are a probabilistic matter, depending on how DIRECTLY they can be tested. There are claims which have a prob. of close to 1 (such as the earth around the sun you mention), or close to 0 (somebody having had sexual intercourse with a martian, or reading minds ability). Neither is a full 1 or 0, though, but nevertheless they are not exactly equivalent, as you seem to suggest. #: 255560 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:05:06 Sb: #255183-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 That is such nonsense. 1st: you must accept the scientific method as a basis for rules of evidence. If you do not, we cannot have an intelligent dialogue, because we are talking past each other, using different concepts of what the rules of evidence are. You seem to be out of science, and that's fine, but then don't argue with me on scientific grounds. 2nd: "in my own case" is NOT scientific evidence, and neither is "standard part of life", which is truly pompous. Do you have any specific WRITTEN evidence of a paranormal phenomena which HAVE withstood the test of SCIENCE, as defined by the scientific community? If so, let's see it, that would be a valid, scientific refutation of my claim. 3rd: if you do not have sound experimental controls, anybody can claim everything and there is no way to disprove. This is precisely why all paranormal claims, including telepathy, do not withstand scientific test. 4th: There are many possible logical explanations of what you consider to be "telepathy", and people can genuinely BELIEVE (or be delluded by, if you will) anything. That's what scientific controls are for. As to your last comment, I cannot respond to it without sounding insulting, so I will refrain. #: 255561 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:05:13 Sb: #255130-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 (X) I am not impressed with any "considerable backgrounds in science", "novel and screenplays successes", whatever that means. I have personally interacted with professors, Ph.D. students and scientists for about 15 years and I can tell you that it is apalling how little understanding of the scientific method, or philosophy of science they have. It is NOT the "popular" (read ignorant) notion of science I espouse. I can only judge by a person's quality of argument and evidence. So who is on quicksand here is highly questionable. Note that I do not throw my qualifications around (unless asked for them), although they are quite impressive. There is 1 Reply. #: 255707 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 18:49:59 Sb: #255561-CSICOP revealed Fm: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 Re: "I am not impressed with any 'considerable backgrounds in science'... Then why did you ask Michael if he had any, and why are you berating me for providing you with solicited information? Re: "Note that I do not throw my qualifications around (unless asked for them), although they are quite impressive. I hope they are more impressive than your condescending sophistry. #: 255562 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:05:19 Sb: #255184-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 1st, it is not ONLY to me! That is ludicrous too. 2nd, I think the damage in anybody believing the "sneeze matter" is so low, that I am willing to let those who wana believe in it, do. 3rd, I am refraining from responding what I really wanted to, because I don't want to fall into the trap of being accused of "character assassinations". If you really believe in what you say you do, I think you have enough problems as it is. #: 255551 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:03:43 Sb: #255100-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Meryl, again, you are making valid points that do do not happen to be relevant to what I was saying. 1. You are lumping together collecting bad data with badly interpreting data. They are not the same. 2. If somebody does it KNOWINGLY, then that is indeed wrong. But ultimately, whether it is, or just genuine mistake, the COLLECTIVE, OPEN scientific process of replication and testing will prove it wrong. So, you cannot ensure each individual effort is correct, only the long-term collective outcome. 3. I am not familiar with the area of art fakes, but I have no reason to question what you say. The point is that when what seems to be a work of art appears, we want to PROVE it is one indeed. The only thing that we CAN do, though, do is try to DISPROVE it is not. As long as we cannot, we make a working assumption that it is an original, but we still have not really PROVED it. The cases where there is direct and incontrovertible evidence are rather rare in most cases, e.g. shroud. Moreover, you always - whether you deny it or not - have a hypothesis prior to testing. The real question is how it affects your tests. If somebody can show that it did - that's what science is all about. 4. That is absolutely right: FIND them pseudoscientific. Do I believe that can be such? You betcha. This is precisely why I prefaced everything with how reality and psychology interferes with true science. And they do so for ALL of us, nobody escapes, so one has to question onesel too all the time. Tough to do. Much easier to do to others. There are 2 Replies. #: 255621 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 16:21:59 Sb: #255551-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 This is ridiculous. All you have to do to prove that a work of art is a work of art is to look at it. #: 255655 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 17:02:35 Sb: #255551-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 I've been doing some rapid research of my own this weekend, and I now know a lot more than I did before. The Skeptical Inquirer is not a refereed journal. It is ideologically based, with a major axe to grind. I can't take it seriously as a scientific publication. I don't find it amusing as an unscientific publication. CSICOP was founded to attack the paranormal & by extension the New Age movement. Its major activities have centered on gaining publicity for itself & on intimidating the media to try to prevent serious discussion of the paranormal. This is profoundly documented; the most recent documentation being 'CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview' by George P. Hansen in the Jan. 92 issue of the 'Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research' which is, by the way, a refereed publication. As such, CSICOP, and its off-shoot groups or organized Skeptics, closely parallels the Right to Life movement. Both are ideological, and both were formed at about the same time, from the same kind of impetous. Both make scientific claims. The activities of both groups are essentially propagandistic & political. One important difference is that, at least, the Right to Lifers aren't sitting in abortion clinics claiming, 'You ain't pregnant. There's no such thing as pregnancy.' I am not going to submit to organized harassment. I am not responding to any more messages from you or other organized Skeptics. #: 255552 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:03:53 Sb: #255129-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 (X) If that WERE the case - and if you are asking me here to believe you without investigation, which would be the same you're accusing Klass of - then I would accept that as pseudoscience. I would then insist on a real scientific investigation, if possible, to draw any conclusion. But I would still maintain my skeptical working HYPOTHESIS. I DK what is "accepted as genuine". I could not vouch for what USAF accepts as genuine. I am talking about science here. The fact that somebody does not do it, or does it poorly does NOT prove the claims. It only means that they are still unverified. Phil Klass is not important per se. His is just one input into many others which in the LR will reveal the truth. And if he PUBLISHES the type of arguments you describe, he will open himself to the same criticism as he has for others. This is precisely why I do not ever ever consider anything but WRITTEN material as basis for discussion. I can also understand what Klass says about drawing conclusions from an experience. There IS something called "scientific" or "skeptical" temperament, and it is not difficult to detect it or its absence. But it should not be substituted for scientific investigation. There are 2 Replies. #: 255708 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 18:50:07 Sb: #255552-CSICOP revealed Fm: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 >. . . if you are asking me here to believe you without investigation, which would be the same you're accusing Klass of. . . No, it's not the same, and you're evading the subject. Klass libeled a man about whom he knew nothing whatsoever except that the man claimed to have taken photographs of UFOs. That he lied - and whether anyone believed him - is quite important because a man's reputation is involved. What I told you is an easily verified fact, and it matters not to me whether you believe it or not. But the subject, from which you digress, is not whether Ed Walters's UFO photos are genuine or fake - (and I believe them to be fake) - but CSICOP's methods and credibility. As I think I message made clear, and in reply to your request for an example of poor work by CSICOP, I consider its methods both sloppy and dishonest, and its credibility nonexistent, and I gave verifiable examples. >I could not vouch for what USAF accepts as genuine. Neither can I, but I assume the USAF can. The Zamora UFO landing incident is presented as genuine in an Air Force Academy textbook. That's enough to persuade me that the AF accepts the incident as genuine. That acceptance by the AF does not constitute scientific proof is both true and irrelevant - and this is a point that you can't seem to grasp./split #: 255709 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 18:50:15 Sb: #255552-CSICOP revealed Fm: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 This is not a science forum. As its name indicates, it is a paranormal forum. We come here to exchange and discuss news, ideas and opinions about seemingly paranormal events. We do not come here to be harassed and made sport of by skeptics, and particularly not by self-appointed experts who waste our time and money with long and meaningless sermons about what science is or isn't, and how dumb we are for not accepting their definitions and explanations of things that they claim don't exist in the first place. Given your mindset, and your self righteous insistence that you and only you can define the words and concepts discussed here, it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. You can't lose an argument because you define the terms. Why are you here? #: 255556 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:04:29 Sb: #255362-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Maybe, but that is totally irrelevant to the issue of the shroud, as I just answered Terry. #: 255555 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 14:04:23 Sb: #255283-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 (X) Be that as it may, there is much more relevant evidence on this than a novel, or the absence os Jesus msmt in history. The controversy evolved around the METHOD OF TRANSFER of the image to the shroud, which seemed to be inexplicable. Well: 1st: there is a letter by a priest from the time the shroud was created that informs his bishop it WAS A FAKE, implying he knew how it was done. 2nd: a certain method has been suggested and emulated to create similar images, which is known to have been used in the times in which the shroud originates. True, not identical images, but similar enough to assume that an artisan of those days and aging could have done better. 3rd: the scientific investigation could not rule out the possibility in 2, (some material was found to be possibly paint), even though conclusive evidence would require a techniques not yet available. Now, under this set of circumstances, it is incomprehensible to me that anybody would hold a "paranormal transfer" hypothesis with any degree of strength. There is 1 Reply. #: 255628 S10/Paranormal Issues 15-Mar-92 16:31:13 Sb: #255555-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 What evidence do you have that the message from the priest wasn't a fake? #: 256085 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 14:06:26 Sb: #255545-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 (X) That is OK with scientists too, Malcolm. It's only public claims made for either profit, or to convince the public, that science is interested in. Nobody can or should force you to test your beliefs. However, let me point out to you that if something like telepathy was happening to me I would have been intellectually very keen in understanding and testing it. The attitude "why should I" is not characteristic of science and, again, you can choose to be outside of it, as long as you do not claim you're in. #: 256087 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 14:06:52 Sb: #255656-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) No, that is not what I said. There are MANY others who understand it, and even better than I do. But MANY MORE don't, and you appear to be one of them. I could refer you to better authorities, but since you question most of the scientific community anyway, what's the point? You are right in your assumptions, but wrong in your conclusions about REPLICATION (not duplication). It is true that one needs the full knowledge of the method. And HOW does one acquire it? By PUBLICNESS of the method and circumstance, so that other can either criticize the method, or replicate it. The problem with most paranormal claims is that they involve phenomena which (a) can occur only when the person is alone (b) when there are no controls (c) when a skeptic or magician are in the room, etc., or all sorts of "by-definition" control-defeating conditions. Now, how under these circumstances is there ANY methodology to evaluate/judge/replicate escapes me. If you read the CSICOP/members writings you would see cases of people claiming powers which would not subject themselves to tests, or which could not display the power when they did. The writers describe their method and you can evaluate and criticize it at will. But what you cannot do is claim, like you did last time, that replication is not anything in science, because that is ludicrous. As I said, there are things which cannot be EXPERIMENTALLY tested DIRECTLY. We then do tests of implications, and attach probabilities of <1 when there is no controlled environments. But this does NOT mean, like you imply, that it does not matter whether the TESTS should not be controlled, documented or replicated at all even when they obviously can be. There is 1 Reply. #: 256104 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 14:39:42 Sb: #256087-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 I am not going to put up with your harangues & harassment. Don't address any more of your ridiculous postings to me. #: 256089 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 14:07:09 Sb: #255621-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Oh, really? You mean, there are NO disagreements whatsoever about what IS a work of art in general, and a specific item in particular? Art is art, and science is science. Let's not confuse the two, shall we. What needs to be proven is usually whether it's a GENUINE work of art, not a fake (the fake can be in itself a work of art, but that's a different point). Some art may go into deciding that, but a LOT of science. In fact, I am just reading an interesting article in the W Post on the scientific research done on a Polish DaVinci work. #: 256114 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 15:03:33 Sb: #255621-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Alex Krislov [SL13] 76703,243 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Meryl, "All you have to do to prove that a work of art is a work of art is to look at it"? Huh? I think you and Fabian are talking about two different things. He seems to be addressing art forgery, which is what I, too, thought was under discussion. But if I, for one, look at a well-done forgery of Blue Lady, I gravely doubt I'd know it to be a fake. --Alex There is 1 Reply. #: 256146 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 16:33:53 Sb: #256114-CSICOP revealed Fm: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 To: Alex Krislov [SL13] 76703,243 (X) What Fabian said is: 'The point is that when what seems to be a work of art appears, we want to PROVE it is one indeed. The only thing we CAN do, though, is try to DISPROVE it is not.' Sorry, but that reads to me as saying that all works of art should be immediately suspect, and that's silly. That's not talking about forgeries. If you looked at an excellent forgery of the Blue Lady for sale, (more probably a copy -- no forger would waste his time duplicating a well known painting) you'd immediately know something is wrong because you know that painting already exists elsewhere. You do have to be careful in the marketplace; know your dealer, and when in doubt talk to a museum curator before you spend a lot of money. If you want to buy art, educate yourself on the artists you like, including what their work normally sells for. In the art market, you usually get exactly what you pay for. There are no bargains. If you spot a Raphael for $3,000, it's undoubtedly a late copy. This is true in every country. A copy is not a forgery, by the way. #: 256090 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 14:07:20 Sb: #255655-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Gee, that's funny. For a person accusing others of ideological bent, you seem to do a lot of attacking just based on what you perceive to be the context and motivation of CSICOP. Have you read ANY of the articles based on research and can you point out their flaws? That would be refereeing its content, no? SI was never CLAIMED to be refereed, and a scientifically trained person should be able to read it, understand the distinction, and be skeptical, that's all. Incidentally, for a person so concerned with flaws of the scientific community, you should not be as eager to trust refereed journals either. I can refer you to some interested books on what some of the refereed world is capable of too. And which of the refereed journals, BTW, does support paranormal claims, can you tell me? Forgive me, but I have no better reaction to your equating pro-Life with skeptics, and pregnancy with paranormal events than: poppycock. #: 256091 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 14:07:30 Sb: #255708-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 (X) No, it IS the same and I did NOT evade the question, you just don't accept or understand my answer. 1st, I said that IF he did those things, he is guilty of all that. 2nd, since it is only on your claims that I have to go by, I stand behind the similarity of rules of evidence. Remember that I expressed my preference for PUBLIC evidence? 3rd, IF he did that - again, based only on your word - he is only one CSICOP member, and as I started my arguments here, reality and psychology interferes with pure science all the time. That's why it's SKEPTICISM that is being so much emphasized. 4th, you would still have to demonstrate some the research done by CSICOP people (be they members, consultants, fellows, whatever) is flawed in similar ways. 5th, I do not base my working hypothesis on the paranormal ONLY on CSICOP. So even if turns out that ALL CSICOP activities are a mess - which I do not believe - the only thing I will say is that there is still no scientifically validated evidence of paranormal phenomena. But you can choose your own hypothesis, OK? #: 256092 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 14:07:38 Sb: #255708-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 (X) Irrelevant? C'mon, let's be serious. 1st I have Meryl here telling me you should NEVER EVER let organizations and govt dictate what is the truth (that's because she refers to the govt's disbelief in the paranormal). 2nd I have you telling me that AF's book inclusion is some sort of evidence for something - I still DK what (because it seems to believe a paranormal claims). I mean, who CARES what an AF book says. They just had a piece on TV on how many textbooks are full of hundreds and thousands of mistakes, and they come from the private, NOT govt market! #: 256093 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 14:07:49 Sb: #255709-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 (X) Is this a private or public forum? My impression is that it is public. If so, it does not have any sort of restrictions as to whether one does believe in paranormal or not to discuss the subject. I understand how comfortable it is to have a "yes" environment, where everybody agrees with you, and nobody questions you. But I will submit to you that when I by chance discovered this forum, the 1st thing I saw was a caricature of science, and an attack on the whole scientific community based on sheer ignorance. That was offensive to me, as a scientist, as much as my opinions may be to you. The difference is that I never INITIATED PERSONAL insults, you guys did. I use concepts and words that are publicly defined and agreed on. It is you guys who seem to have no well-defined, testable definition of anything, and you just simply attack a science strawman out of frustration that, correctly, it does not take you seriously. Now, there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. I thought that it would be useful to you to at least UNDERSTAND what science is, before you opine on it. But attacking from a state of ignorance, while refusing to learn, borders on the latter. That's not an in sult, just a statement of fact. #: 256349 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 23:13:51 Sb: #255560-CSICOP revealed Fm: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 Fabian, -> You must accept the scientific method as a basis for rules of evidence. No, I don't. You do! _You're_ the scientist; I'm the Zen trickster. If I get some info telepathically IT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE I NEED! I don't have to do anything about rules of evidence, any more than you would for a phone call from a colleague asking you to go to lunch. I am definitely NOT arguing with you on scientific grounds (or even arguing generally). I'm just presenting a philosophical viewpoint that differs wildly from your own. 2nd: I didn't present "in my own case" or "standard part of life" as being scientific evidence. It's just my own testimony and I present it as such. Also, whether there is written evidence of anything will not change my testimony at all. Nor am I interested in making a "valid, scientific refutation" of your claim. Claim as you will. Study documents as you will. Determine and conclude what you will. Be it unto you as you will. 3rd: Sound experimental controls. Well, I'm not performing experiments! I'm just living. (Can't resist ) Consider the kind of work that DaVinci might have done if he'd had a dozen art critics looking over his shoulder while he painted. (HAR! Sorry, couldn't resist.) -> There are many possible logical explanations of what you consider to be "telepathy". Yes! And the simplest and most logical is that it IS telepathy! Whatever it might be called or whatever it is, it is what it is; and I have to deal with it. Not important to me what others think about it. And that's the whole point I intended to make to you in this exchange: that often those who have "paranormal" experience have no interest in proving it to someone. I might tell you I'm a good guitar player. You may or may not believe me and I may or may not be interested in demonstrating it to you. And establishing it before a panel of music judges may not be interesting to me if my only desire is to be better at it (or rather, if my desire is NOT for recognition). [ MORE ] #: 256350 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 23:14:03 Sb: #255560-CSICOP revealed Fm: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 [ continuation ] Malcolm #: 256348 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 23:13:07 Sb: #255562-CSICOP revealed Fm: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 Fabian, Oh, I know it's not only you. That's why I put the parenthetical information in. My point is that if YOU had experienced meeting aliens, you would be less disinclined to doubt that testimony coming from others. Michael was just making the point that otherwise credible people suddenly become less than credible depending on what they talk about and that a person's credibility _shouldn't_ be in question just because their experience extends to the non-standard. Course, I'm sure that you understand that but don't agree. Malcolm #: 256347 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 23:12:49 Sb: #255558-CSICOP revealed Fm: Malcolm O'Brien 76703,4243 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 Fabian, -> Scientists do not believe in gravity. Well, I look forward to that day when I meet a scientist who says, "We have a working hypothesis that gravity is a valid theory, but personally, I don't believe it." :) If replication is so crucial, why aren't today's physicists bouncing apples off their heads? Empirical tests of implications WOULD NOT EXIST were it not for that flash of insight. What was that? Can it be quantized? Duplicated? Replicated? And yet a lot of scientific work proceeded from it. And what about the scientists doing the work? Don't they have a desire to know? A goal? Even a predisposition that is different from that of a painter? What bothers me is scientists putting aside their human nature or, rather, downplaying the absolute NECESSITY of their philosophy or metaphysics or whatever you want to call what goes on inside their heads. I used to be totally into science but I let it go cause it seemed to be handicapping me even more. Now it's my nature to be a Zen trickster, to put vegetable concepts into a CuisineArt, show the provider the V-8 juice and ask them, "What does it look like now?". Most will try to separate the carrots from the celery. I express; not to establish or uproot convictions, but only to offer such as a possibility. To prompt new thought. Any convictions established or uprooted may or may not be ones I've ever thought of before. I think I know what science is: the reigning dogma of our day. As far as I'm concerned, all are as welcome to it as they are to any other dogma. And I truly wish that it serves the purposes for which they adhere to it. At this point, it occurs to me that you may take this in a perjorative sense. None such is intended (even though I occasionally tease in such a way). Malcolm #: 256088 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 14:06:59 Sb: #255707-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Terry Ecker 71207,1165 (X) Uhuh. I always can predict who is gonna get personal/resort to invectives, by sheer inability to sustain a substantive argument. Congrats on validating my theory. I asked Michael to see if he had ANY scientific background. I treat people who OUGHT to know better differently. My judgement is based on what the person says, and the quality of argument/evidence, but the level and style of my response varies based on the background. I think that condescending sophistry is your attempt to "warn" me of being on quicksand here because of somebody's "impressive" background (yet vague), not when I asked a person simply if he had any scientific background. #: 256094 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 14:08:00 Sb: #255628-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) I DK what priest you're talking about. But I think that whatever you meant, I can safely respond that scientists never claim they KNOW ANYTHING with complete certainty, only paranormal believers do. What we have is only the lack of ability to disprove certain hypotheses. Anything for which we generally use the term "true", we mean IT DIRECTLY, AND AS MANY OF ITS PREDICTABLE, TESTABLE IMPLICATIONS (the more the better) have withstood sc. tests. Until one does not withstand, we will "assume that it is true for all practical purposes". (Incidentally, quantum theory is controversial in the scientific community for this very reason: its complexity, and unintuitive, hard to understand nature makes some scientists (Einstein was one) uncomfortable, but it has withstood all tests thrown at it and so until there is a disproving one, we regard it as usefully valid). Similarly, we say that paranormal events are either defined as untestable, or when submitted to controlled tests, they failed. Therefore, we have NOT proved them to be untrue, but rather that they were either untested scientifically, or failed the tests. And since there is no other method known to be an alternative to science, until we find ONE case which withstands scientific tests, we will "assume that it is not true for all practical purposes". These are working hypotheses, based on usefulness. #: 256086 S10/Paranormal Issues 16-Mar-92 14:06:38 Sb: #255657-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Meryl Johnson 73770,1015 (X) Really? So it's no longer just CSICOP, you are declaring ALL scientific inquiry "incredible and unreasonable" if it does not support telepathy, which is "obviously valid". Quite a strange criterion for judging science. "Telepathy well documented"? Oh, sure. But how about "validated" in controlled experiments? But lemme ignore that. If that were true, wouldn't it suggest that there is SOME scientific inquiry which WAS credible and reasonable? And wouldn't that contradict your position that one should not submit evidence in the first place because ALL scientific inquiry is not? The only other possibility is that the "documenting" inquiry was NOT scientific, and that one SHOULD submit to that. Well, gee whiz, no wonder you'll get plenty of documentation. Lookit, Meryl, you can choose to believe whatever you want. But I think you are confusing abuse of science by some who should know better with validity of paranormal claims. Even if the former were true - and you have not shown me one bit of evidence yet even for CSICOP - it would only mean that those claims were not yet scientifically tested at all, it would NOT mean that they were validated "by default" so to speak. You have fallen victim to the exact problem you accuse scientists of: you WANT to believe, and you rationalize it. #: 256916 S10/Paranormal Issues 17-Mar-92 22:36:33 Sb: #CSICOP revealed Fm: Vic Weatherford 76646,352 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 (X) Actually, it is a very scientific position to take. She's not interested in wasting her time with the discussion, so she cut it off. Very simple, and scientifically sound. Are you *sure* you understand science, Fabian? * Vic There is 1 Reply. #: 257255 S10/Paranormal Issues 18-Mar-92 13:23:16 Sb: #256916-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Vic Weatherford 76646,352 (X) Gee, that's funny. First I am being told here that the scientific community has a closed mind and does not want to genuinely listen. Then, as a scientist, I do try to clarify to a paranormal believer what the scientific community sees wrong with paranormal claims, and she is cutting me off, saying she is not interested. Trust me I will live, but as an implicitly declared better understander of science, you don't see ANY inconsistency here, not even a bit? (you heard of consistency, I assume). Seems to me this is exactly why a scientist would refuse to listen to paranormal believers, and she is on shaky grounds to criticize it. There is 1 Reply. #: 257751 S10/Paranormal Issues 19-Mar-92 04:03:08 Sb: #257255-CSICOP revealed Fm: Vic Weatherford 76646,352 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 (X) Fabian, You seem to be assuming that a good scientist would have to be willing to follow the path of inquiry you are interested in at the moment, since you are a good scientist, or he is not really being scientific. This is nothing more than the height of vanity. From #256670> This sounds like a really scientific position to take. < Instead of worrying about consistency, let's talk about absurdity. Do you see any in this statement? If not, then I will declare that perhaps you know less than science than you think. * Vic #: 256943 S10/Paranormal Issues 17-Mar-92 22:54:30 Sb: #CSICOP revealed Fm: Michael McDowell 76207,1247 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 (X) You're not talking about the paranormal, you're talking about a debating society. Even if that is interesting to others, it is not interesting to me. And I'm afraid, also, that in continuing this discussion with you here would succeed only in putting off some who might otherwise come forward with information that actually deals with the paranormal. It would be an interesting experiment in the openness of the scientific method if you initiated this same discussion on the Science Forum. Perhaps you can get them to come up with an experiment which would either convince your true believers that their belief was false, or else convince the skeptics that there is something to the paranormal after all. Suggest an experiment that is dignified, and some researchers who are skeptical of the skeptics to the degree they are skeptical of those who believe in the paranormal. For everyone: there are several files in the Issues Libraries relating to CSICOP, and they are instructive. I especially recommend the two archived threads relating to a UFO sighting on an icy lake. There is 1 Reply. #: 257254 S10/Paranormal Issues 18-Mar-92 13:23:08 Sb: #256943-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Michael McDowell 76207,1247 (X) 1. Science IS a debating society. That is the main point. If it is not, it is not science, but closed minds. Now, again, I am talking about GENUINE science, not necessarily that corrupted in practice by many. 2. Since you imply that you or others here are NOT interested in debate, I see no reason why the SCIENCE forum should be interested in the issues, although I personally would not mind it at all. 3. I have just visited there and somebody just came up with just such a test you're referring to for telepathy. I have not evaluated it myself, but the point is that I doubt believers will subject themselves to ANY tests proposed there, because they will be DEFINED as anti-paranormal, and refuse to come forward as you say. 4. As I said initially, there is reality/psychology which affects science. Well controlled research costs money, and scientists have priorities. They target research based on some probabilistic notion of what's important. Given the past experience with paranormal claims and the attitudes of believers toward science, they usually make a practical assessment that they must focus their research elsewhere. This is why CSICOP's offer to do it is quite important. 5. It is one thing to accept science, but claim it is being corrupted by scientists (with evidence), and another to say that science is irrelevant. Since you seem to take the latter position, you cannot expect scientist to treat you differently. There are 2 Replies. #: 257398 S10/Paranormal Issues 18-Mar-92 19:13:05 Sb: #257254-#CSICOP revealed Fm: Rick Moen 76711,243 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 (X) > As I said initially, there is reality/psychology which affects science. Well controlled research costs money, and scientists have priorities. They target research based on some probabilistic notion of what's important. Given the past experience with paranormal claims and the attitudes of believers toward science, they usually make a practical assessment that they must focus their research elsewhere. This is why CSICOP's offer to do it is quite important. In fact, CSICOP's journal in particular, and the organised skeptics' groups in general, are distinctive in that they are prepared to take psychic claims seriously, and will publish articles by articulate proponents of same, from all points of view. This is in sharp contrast to working scientists, who almost unanimously (with some honourable exceptions) are unfairly unwilling to give paranormal claims so much as the time of day. Similarly, refereed science journals will at long intervals publish token pieces on fringe-science claims (such as _Science's_ pieces, with rather condescending prefatory paragraph's, on Targ & Puthoff's research, and more recently on Jacques Benveniste's quasi-homeopathic claims), but basically also won't give such work the time of day. These background conditions make it all the more ironic that so many advocates of paranormal claims waste their time slinging mud at CSICOP (while inevitably denying that they are "CSICOP-bashing"), while passing over working scientists who _do_ tend to summarily dismiss them. However, this is easier to understand if you watch how many of these proponents habitually attack _one another_ on personal grounds: If you read the BBS UFO echos, or _MUFON Journal_ , for example, you'll see UFOlogists enthusiastically ripping one another up -- which may account for their perspective on what "bashing" is. Best Regards, Rick M. There is 1 Reply. #: 257600 S10/Paranormal Issues 19-Mar-92 00:01:02 Sb: #257398-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Rick Moen 76711,243 (X) I absolutely agree, and is exactly what I was trying to explain in more than one message. I did emphasize that CSICOP is the worst case that paranormals could pick to criticize, and it weakens their case considerably, giving a lot of ammo to those who don't pay attention to them. In fact, I must admit that having read several issues of SI I lost interest simply because I thought myself that they were paying too much attention to some obvious nonsense. I have yet to see one example here of flaws in CSICOP related/published findings which resulted in questionable results. I get: personal knowledge of CSICOP "attitudes", purported historical and ideological origins of CSICOP (with unwillingness to even read SI), flipflopping between acceptance and rejection of the scientific method as is convenient, incorrect notions of science, attempts to intimidate with inexistent scientific backgrounds, and personally-oriented dismissals. It is fascinating to see the total asymmetry between the criticism they apply to science and the total suspension of faculties when it comes to paranormal claims. #: 257759 S10/Paranormal Issues 19-Mar-92 04:03:39 Sb: #257254-CSICOP revealed Fm: Vic Weatherford 76646,352 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 (X) Fabian, I could be the greatest scientist in the world, but if an apple falls on my head, sciences explanation (or lack of) could very well be irrelevant to me. I could still be a scientist, even while exclaiming, "I don't care WHY it hit me, all I care about is it hurts!" * Vic #: 257141 S10/Paranormal Issues 18-Mar-92 08:03:18 Sb: #CSICOP revealed Fm: Sysop Ran Talbott 75300,2302 To: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 (X) Fabian, "Personal comments" are _never_ "fair game" around here: we have very explicit rules against making personal attacks. If you feel someone else has violated them, feel free to ask the Forum staff to intervene. But make no mistake about it: "(s)he started it" is never accepted as an excuse for one's own violations. Sysop Ran Talbott There is 1 Reply. #: 257256 S10/Paranormal Issues 18-Mar-92 13:23:24 Sb: #257141-CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Sysop Ran Talbott 75300,2302 (X) If that claim is not acceptable, then please make sure that you catch initiating messages as well as you caught mine, and respond accordingly. I reiterate that at least on a couple of occasions I explicitly refrained from stating genuine opinions because they were personal in character. This has not stopped others in the forum, though. #: 257257 S10/Paranormal Issues 18-Mar-92 13:23:32 Sb: #CSICOP revealed Fm: Fabian Pascal 73677,3306 To: Vic Weatherford 76646,352 (X) Sorry, but I was trying to explain to you that I sometimes infer logical conclusions from what people say explicitly, but given the nature of this medium words being used are not always 100% acurate. In this particular case, declared was "implicitly declared". Now, she could correct me by saying (1) I did not SAY that, to which I would have clarified my meaning (b) show me why that inference was unwarranted. She did neither, but simply preferred to cut me off. That's entirely her prerogative, but then she should not complain about the same thing being done to her. As to emotional involvement, you're accusing ME of this in a PARANORMAL forum? Are you serious? There is 1 Reply. #: 257752 S10/Pa