CSICOP Founder exposes its misdeeds!
WWu777
Skeptics,
I bet you guys thought that your beloved organization CSICOP, publisher of the
Skeptical Inquirer, had no dark side to it. Well guess again! One of its own
founders, Dennis Rawlins, exposes the truth about its aims and how it knowingly
distorted facts and statistics to support its debunking, which led to his
leaving it! This account tells of its beginnings. It is very long though,
about 30 to 40 pages, so I can't paste the whole thing in just one post. I'll
just paste the URL below and the introduction to it. To read the rest of it,
go to the URL.
(http://www.psy.uva.nl/resedu/pn/res/anomalouscognition/starbaby.html)
STARBABY
EVER SINCE it came into being the Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) has proudly
proclaimed itself the scourge of the "new nonsense": astrology, ESP,
UFOs and other phenomena of which it does not approve. Its
pronouncements on these and other subjects have received widespread
attention and uncritical acceptance in the news media.
Critics such as Fate, professional parapsychologists and moderate
skeptics like former CSICOP cochairman Prof. Marcello Truzzi,
sociologist at Eastern Michigan University, have questioned the
Committee's commitment to objective, scientific investigation of
paranormal claims and have accused some CSICOP spokesmen of
misrepresenting issues and evidence. But such dissenting views were
little noticed by media writers eager to headline sensational --
although frequently unsupported -- debunking claims.
The story that follows, written by a man who is himself skeptical of the
paranormal, confirms what critics of CSICOP have long suspected: that
the organization is committed to perpetuating a position, not to
determining the truth. -- The Editors.
I used to believe it was simply a figment of the National Enquirer's
weekly imagination that the Science Establishment would cover up
evidence for the occult. But that was in the era B.C. -- Before the
Committee. I refer to the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
Claims of the Paranormal" (CSICOP), of which I am a cofounder and on
whose ruling Executive Council (generally called the Council) I served
for some years.
I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk.
But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make
a career of opposing occultism.
(Continued. Go to URL above to view rest of article.)
Haunter
>http://www.psy.uva.nl/resedu/pn/res/anomalouscognition/starbaby.html
I must say, this is quite an eye-opener! Thanks for the link. There's
so much information there, damning to CSICOPs credibility, this is
going to take a detailed reading, so I'm bookmarking it for later.
KACHING!
--< >
Haunter: The Cognitive Dissident
White Crow Society:
http://www.whitecrowsociety.com
Haunter's Personal Stories of the Paranormal:
http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/3549/stories.htm
Photo/Art Gallery of Dreams and Weirdness:
http://www.legendsmagazine.net/pan/rayn/rpm/
Gary Shannon
WWu777 wrote in message <20000608085030...@ng-me1.aol.com>...
>CSICOP Founder exposes its misdeeds!
>
When a "psychic" like Uri Geller is caught cheating that is a tacit
admission on his part that he can't really do what he claims he can do.
When a skeptic is caught cooking the data that is a tacit admission on his
part that he can't successfully debunk EVERY claim that comes across his
desk.
Skepticism is an important part of the quest for truth. But so is open
inquiry. And fraud happens in BOTH extremist camps. Somebody has to have
the guts to stand squarely in the middle and doubt the claims make by
extremists of both types.
Thanks for the post.
--gary
John Thomas
wwu...@aol.com wrote on 6/8/00 5:50 AM:
> CSICOP Founder exposes its misdeeds!
>
> Skeptics,
> I bet you guys thought that your beloved organization CSICOP, publisher of the
> Skeptical Inquirer, had no dark side to it. Well guess again! One of its own
> founders, Dennis Rawlins, exposes the truth about its aims and how it
> knowingly
> distorted facts and statistics to support its debunking, which led to his
> leaving it! This account tells of its beginnings. It is very long though,
> about 30 to 40 pages, so I can't paste the whole thing in just one post. I'll
> just paste the URL below and the introduction to it. To read the rest of it,
> go to the URL.
>
> (http://www.psy.uva.nl/resedu/pn/res/anomalouscognition/starbaby.html)
>
Jim Lippard discussed this issue on sci.skeptic a few years ago. I've
always found Jim to be one of the least dogmatic Skeptics and his comments
(with those of Jan Willem Nienhuys) bear reposting.
>
> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
> Subject: Mars Effect (Re: "Crybaby")
> Message-ID: <20JAN199...@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu>
> From: lip...@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
> Date: 20 Jan 1992 21:06 MST
> Distribution: world,local
> Organization: University of Arizona
> Nntp-Posting-Host: uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu
> News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
> Lines: 102
>
> Not too long ago, a copy of Philip Klass's article, "Crybaby"
> was posted to sci.skeptic and the BITNET SKEPTIC mailing
> list. This article is an unpublished response to allegations
> made by former CSICOP executive council member Dennis Rawlins
> in his October 1981 Fate magazine article, "sTARBABY," in
> which he accuses CSICOP of a "cover-up" regarding Michel
> Gauquelin's "Mars Effect." The impression that appears to
> have been given to some people by Klass's article is that
> CSICOP really did nothing wrong, but Dennis Rawlins did. It
> has also been pointed out that Fate magazine refused to print
> Klass's article, but I have also heard that the Skeptical
> Inquirer also declined to print it.
> I have recently taken the time to re-read the materials
> which I possess (a partial list is given at the end of this
> article) on the "Mars Effect" controversy, and I think that
> this impression is quite mistaken. I do not wish to defend
> Rawlins against some of the attacks in "Crybaby," but I do
> wish to point out that a number of Rawlins' charges in
> "sTARBABY" are not addressed by Klass, and these charges do
> amount to wrongdoing on the part of CSICOP members.
> I do think that (with the publication of Abell, Kurtz, &
> Zelen's 1983 "Mars Effect" reappraisal) CSICOP has admitted
> most of this wrongdoing and (with the publication of Suitbert
> Ertel's "Mars Effect" article in the latest issue of the
> Skeptical Inquirer) is now on the right track regarding fair
> and open discussion of the "Mars Effect."
>
> There were two tests that CSICOP had involvement in: the
> Zelen test (which began before CSICOP and was published in
> The Humanist but involved a number of CSICOP executive
> council members and fellows) and the U.S. champions test
> (which was conducted by CSICOP and published in the Skeptical
> Inquirer). In this message I address only the former.
>
> The Zelen test was proposed by CSICOP fellow Marvin Zelen in
> order to test a possible objection to Gauquelin's "Mars
> effect." The test was conducted by Gauquelin and showed that
> the critique failed (i.e., that the "Mars effect" still
> stood). Klass writes, "The only way in which CSICOP, or
> persons affiliated with it, could be guilty of Rawlins'
> charges would be if they had refused to publish Gauquelin's
> results or had intentionally altered the data in his report.
> NEITHER OCCURRED. Nor did Gauquelin accuse CSICOP or its
> members of trying to 'cover up' his results or altering the
> data of this first test whose calculations he himself
> performed, although there were some differences of
> interpretation of the implication of these results." Klass
> goes on to say that Gauquelin did accuse *Rawlins* of
> "distortion and misrepresentation."
> All of this ignores what Rawlins actually charges on pp.
> 6-11 (esp. pp. 10-11) of "sTARBABY": That Kurtz et al., in
> their critique of Gauquelin's results in the Zelen test,
> misused and misrepresented the statistics in order to claim
> that the test did NOT eliminate the objection to the "Mars
> effect." (Kurtz et al. recanted, at least partially, in "The
> Abell-Kurtz-Zelen 'Mars Effect' Experiments: A Reappraisal"
> in the Spring 1983 Skeptical Inquirer.)
> Klass points out that Kurtz et al. criticized Gauquelin
> on the grounds that "the 'Mars effect' only appears in Paris,
> not in Belgium or in the rest of France," but fails to point
> out that this post-hoc division of the data resulted in two
> parts, "one very small and [therefore] very unreliable; and
> one consistent with a Mars effect, but a little too small to
> achieve significance." (The quotation is from Eric
> Tarkington in an astrological publication, Phenomena vol. 2
> no. 2; quoted in Curry (see refs. below).) This division of
> the data was also criticized by Elizabeth Scott, a
> statistician for the skeptical side, and by Rawlins, who had
> been opposed to the Zelen test for some time.
> Klass also fails to point out that Kurtz et al. dropped
> female sports champions (there were 9) from consideration in
> their critique of Gauquelin's results, without a clear
> rationale for doing so. Of those 9, 3 demonstrated the "Mars
> effect."
> Rawlins asked for CSICOP corrections to these errors,
> but they were not forthcoming until two years after
> "sTARBABY" was published. This is what his talk of a "cover
> up" refers to.
>
> Partial list of sources
> Rawlins, "sTARBABY"
> Klass, "Crybaby"
> Patrick Curry, "Research on the Mars Effect," Zetetic Scholar
> #9 (Feb/Mar 1982):34-52.
> Richard Kammann, "The True Disbelievers: Mars Effect Drives
> Skeptics to Irrationality," Zetetic Scholar #10
> (December 1982):50-65.
> Jeremy Cherfas, "Paranormal-watchers fall out over the Mars
> effect," New Scientist 92(29 Oct 1981):294.
> Michel Gauquelin, "Mars effect," New Scientist 93(7 Jan
> 1982):40.
> Paul Kurtz, "Mars effect," New Scientist 93(11 Feb 1982):395-
> 396.
> Patrick Curry, "Mars effect: last word," New Scientist 93(4
> Mar 1982):601.
>
>
>
> Jim Lippard Lip...@RVAX.CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
> Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZRVAX.BITNET
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721
>
> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
> Subject: Re: Mars Effect (Re: "Crybaby")
> Message-ID: <31...@tuegate.tue.nl>
> From: wsa...@rw5.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
> Date: 21 Jan 92 10:02:28 GMT
> Reply-To: wsa...@urc.tue.nl
> Sender: ne...@tuegate.tue.nl
> References: <20JAN199...@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu>
> Distribution: world,local
> Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
> Lines: 18
>
> In article <20JAN199...@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu>
> lip...@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>
> [long and interesting post deleted, in which Rawlins's main grief is
> explained clearly: the Zelen test (a rather superfluous check on a
> conjectured demographic explanation of the Mars effect) gave the result
> that could be expected all along (to wit: that explanation doesn't hold
> water), and subsequently CSICOP-VIPs tried to squirm out of it by improper
> use of post-hoc statistical arguments].
>
>
> Good post! What a pity it will be ignored and far into the future
> again and again people will say either "CSICOP tried to cover up data
> and sTarbaby exposed them" or "There was no cover-up as Crybaby showed".
> The real truth: "there was a cover-up, not of data, but of people's
> sillyness, and it was exposed by a raving jerk and finally admitted" will
> have to be repeated over and over over again.
>
> JWN
>
These posts, with a host of valuable links to other skeptical subjects
can be found on Jim's Skeptical Information page at
http://www.discord.org/skeptical/ Many of the critiques of CSICOP and
organized Skepticism are reprinted and discussed there.
-John Thomas
Gary Shannon
>
>Skeptics,
>I bet you guys thought that your beloved organization CSICOP, publisher of
the
>Skeptical Inquirer, had no dark side to it. Well guess again! One of its
own
>founders, Dennis Rawlins, exposes the truth about its aims and how it
knowingly
>distorted facts and statistics to support its debunking, which led to his
>leaving it! This account tells of its beginnings. It is very long though,
>about 30 to 40 pages, so I can't paste the whole thing in just one post.
I'll
>just paste the URL below and the introduction to it. To read the rest of
it,
>go to the URL.
>
>(http://www.psy.uva.nl/resedu/pn/res/anomalouscognition/starbaby.html)
>
The true skeptic doubts what he reads. Do you skeptics doubt what you read
in Skeptical Inquirer? You should.
I would strongly urge everyone to read this entire article. It demonstrates
the incredible lengths to which *some* skeptics will go to defend the
dogmatic party line and corupt scientific method to make it appear that
their unsubstantiated claims have any basis in fact.
Skeptics, find out why your leaders have dupped you into thinking that all
skeptics think alike by supressing contrary views in their own ranks in the
fear that "such criticism would create dissension and "confuse" the
readers." (The words of the Skeptical Inquirer editor.)
Aren't you glad you have those marvelous paragons of scientific virture to
do your thinking for you? How would you know what to believe if they didn't
tell you?
--gary
Night Child
> When a "psychic" like Uri Geller is caught cheating that is a tacit
> admission on his part that he can't really do what he claims he can do.
>
> When a skeptic is caught cooking the data that is a tacit admission on his
> part that he can't successfully debunk EVERY claim that comes across his
> desk.
>
> Skepticism is an important part of the quest for truth. But so is open
> inquiry. And fraud happens in BOTH extremist camps. Somebody has to have
> the guts to stand squarely in the middle and doubt the claims make by
> extremists of both types.
>
> Thanks for the post.
>
> --gary
As a skeptic, I would just like to be the odd man here and
say that I totally agree with this post. There are rational
skeptics (a philosophy) and there are debunkers (a dogma).
Which is not to say that CSICOP hasn't provided a great
deal of good information exposing fraud. It's just that when
you form a kind of club around skepticism you get these
kinds of "protective" acts to defend a dogma, when from
the philosophical perspective it doesn't need protection...
it stands on it's own as the only rational position.
PZ Myers
<reb...@rio.com> wrote:
> WWu777 wrote in message
> <20000608085030...@ng-me1.aol.com>...
> >CSICOP Founder exposes its misdeeds!
> >
> >Skeptics, I bet you guys thought that your beloved organization
> >CSICOP, publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer, had no dark side to it.
> > Well guess again! One of its own founders, Dennis Rawlins, exposes
> >the truth about its aims and how it knowingly distorted facts and
> >statistics to support its debunking, which led to his leaving it!
> >This account tells of its beginnings. It is very long though, about
> >30 to 40 pages, so I can't paste the whole thing in just one post.
> >I'll just paste the URL below and the introduction to it. To read
> >the rest of it, go to the URL.
> >
> >(http://www.psy.uva.nl/resedu/pn/res/anomalouscognition/starbaby.html
> >)
> >
>
> The true skeptic doubts what he reads. Do you skeptics doubt what
> you read in Skeptical Inquirer? You should.
Tsk, tsk. Of course. I certainly don't treat SI as gospel. Why would you
think anyone would?
>
>
> I would strongly urge everyone to read this entire article. It
> demonstrates the incredible lengths to which *some* skeptics will go
> to defend the dogmatic party line and corupt scientific method to
> make it appear that their unsubstantiated claims have any basis in
> fact.
>
> Skeptics, find out why your leaders have dupped you into thinking
> that all skeptics think alike by supressing contrary views in their
> own ranks in the fear that "such criticism would create dissension
> and "confuse" the readers." (The words of the Skeptical Inquirer
> editor.)
>
> Aren't you glad you have those marvelous paragons of scientific
> virture to do your thinking for you? How would you know what to
> believe if they didn't tell you?
Amazing. Do you notice that you are telling us to doubt what we read
from one source, while treating another source as if it were absolute,
utter, unimpeachable truth? Rawlins' story is biased and misleading,
just as is the SI take on the event. SI wasn't as bad as Rawlins makes
them out to be, and neither were they without blame in their clumsy
handling of this business.
Your sanctimonious outrage is more than a little misplaced.
--
PZ Myers
Gary Shannon
PZ Myers wrote in message ...
<snip>
>Amazing. Do you notice that you are telling us to doubt what we read
>from one source, while treating another source as if it were absolute,
>utter, unimpeachable truth? Rawlins' story is biased and misleading,
>just as is the SI take on the event. SI wasn't as bad as Rawlins makes
>them out to be, and neither were they without blame in their clumsy
>handling of this business.
>
>Your sanctimonious outrage is more than a little misplaced.
>
>--
>PZ Myers
Point well taken. By way of an excuse, I'm in a particularly pissy mood
tday. I'm just getting sick and tired being called a kook for believing
that, after long and careful study, there is a germ of truth in some claims
made by some paranormal researchers.
My argument is not with the thoughtful skeptic who addresses the issues and
is willing to engage in reasoned debate on those issues. My cheif gripe
right now (again probably attributable to my pissy mood) is those
self-righteous self-proclaimed pseudo-skeptics who declare ALL such
pehnominon as fradulent. Ap priori, and without even a hint of willingness
to actually consult the studies they condemn out of hand.
Again and again I hear the demand on this NG from sekptcis: show me the
proof. Cite me some cites. And every time I do cite the cites and quote
the articles the pseudo-skeptic bashers and flamers never reply to the post.
It's clear they DON'T WANT the cites they are asking for. They only want to
attempt to humilate the claiment by making it appear that such cites don't
exists. Well they do exist. And the failure of the psuedo-skeptic to
respond when they are presented for review only underlines the fact that
they didn't really want to look at the reports in th first place. They have
their dogma firmly in place, and refuse to consider alternatives. I might
as well go over to some fundamentalist christian NG and argue for the
non-existance of God. Who would listen? What a waste of breath on my part.
Just as I'm wasting my breath on the fundamentalist skeptics here. They
have their fingers plugged firmly into both ears.
--gary
Gary Shannon
Night Child wrote in message <1105_96...@the.bit.bucket>...
>>
>As a skeptic, I would just like to be the odd man here and
>say that I totally agree with this post. There are rational
>skeptics (a philosophy) and there are debunkers (a dogma).
>Which is not to say that CSICOP hasn't provided a great
>deal of good information exposing fraud. It's just that when
>you form a kind of club around skepticism you get these
>kinds of "protective" acts to defend a dogma, when from
>the philosophical perspective it doesn't need protection...
>it stands on it's own as the only rational position.
>
Thank you. The voice of reason in a sea of pro-paranormal kooks and
anti-everything pseudo-skeptics.
How refreshing to know that there are others who are willing and able to
think for themselves.
--gary
Doug Weller
says...
> Tsk, tsk. Of course. I certainly don't treat SI as gospel. Why would you
> think anyone would?
>
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Matt Kriebel
wwu...@aol.com (WWu777) wrote:
> CSICOP Founder exposes its misdeeds!
<snip>
The sTARBABY FAQ, written by yours truly under the guiding hand of Jim
Lippard. I'm afraid Jim's FTP source has moved and I do not know the
rpesent location.
A sTARBABY, Mars Effect Mini-FAQ
This mini FAQ centers around the controversy involving
Gauquelin/Rawlins/sTARBABY controversy that many paranormal advocates
have used
and misrepresented over the years in order to smear and attack CSICOP
and
skeptics in general.
Q: Who was Gauquelin?
Gauquelin was a psychologist/statistician who has put forth the 'Mars
Effect'
idea and tested it with his collected data. It is around his work that
the
controversy centers.
Q: Is the 'Mars Effect' for real?
Doubtful, but murky. Nevertheless the purpose of this FAQ is to clear up
misrepresentation of the controversy centering around his work. Not the
validity of his work.
Q: Who was Dennis Rawlins?
A former member of CSICOP,astronomer and the writer of the article
sTARBABY.
Rawlins is a skeptic who broke with CSICOP over the Gauquelin issue.
Q: What was sTARBABY?
An article by Rawlins that appeared in FATE magazine October 1981. It is
very
critical of the members of CSICOP and accuses them of cover-up. However,
this
is quite misleading and even more misleading are the lines (not written
by
Rawlins) preceding the article 'They call themselves the Committee for
the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. In fact they
are a
group of would-be debunkers who bungled their major investigation,
falsified
the results, covered up their errors and gave the boot to a colleague who
threatened to tell the truth.' This misleading intro was written by
Jerome Clark, not Rawlins.
Q: Did CSICOP fake data?
No. Despite the claims of many paranormalists, CSICOP had not faked
data on
the Mars Effect . In fact, Rawlins never made this accusation.
Q: So who did fake data?
No one. As far as is known.
Q: Was Rawlins ordered by CSICOP to do a study on the Mars Effect and get
results that 'falsified the Mars Effect by any means'?
No, Rawlins did the data crunching for a study done by Zelen, Kurtz and
Abell.
He, Gauquelin, and the three above all wrote reports on the results.
Rawlins'
report was probably the most accurate but was hindered by Rawlins
unneeded
use of ad hominems.
Q: So why was there a problem?
The problem started when the results of these studies re-affirmed the
validity
of Gauqulein's baseline for chance. This had been in dispute and was the
reason for all of these reports. Basically, it had been proposed (by
Zelen
in 1975) that Gauquelin's 'Mars Effect' was the same for both normal
folks and athletes that the study was checking on. But the studies came
back saying that Gauquelin's baseline was proper.
But then, Zelen,Kurtz, and Abell started to criticize the subsamples of
the sports champions. But in doing so they reduced the samples to
numbers
too small to test any significant Mars Effect. This is where they erred,
and
Rawlins took them to task for it.
Q: Isn't that the same as data faking?
No. Its poor analysis and bad criticism. That is what the are guilty of
and
the ignoring of criticism of their criticism.
Q: Didn't they cover this whole thing up?
No. Because they admitted their mistakes in _Skeptical Inquirer_ in
1983. Late,
certainly, but hardly the result one would expect after something has
been
allegedly 'swept under the rug'.
Q: Didn't Rawlins call them out on their bad analysis?
Yes, but he handled it poorly. Also of note is that he more vociferously
attacked Gauquelin's analysis of the data. In fact Rawlins was also
attacking Gauquelin. Many paranormalist advocates tend to conveniently
forget
that part.
Q: Didn't CSICOP censor his criticism of CSICOP's work in the _Skeptical
Inquirer_?
No, the only 'censoring' was the deletion of inappropriate _ad hominem_
attacks
on Gauquelin and others. These were appropriate deletions and the
scientific
criticism of CSICOP *and* Gauquelin was still fully intact.
Q: Doesn't _Skeptical Inquirer_ quash or censor articles and letters
that disagree with their status quo?
No, several articles critical of CSICOP have been printed in _SI_.
Rawlins
article was intact, as were several articles on the Mars Effect from
Gauquelin.
While _SI_ does have a bias (as do most magazines), they certainly gave
plenty
of airplay to the Mars Effect controversy from *both* sides.
In addition, _SI_ let Rawlins have 5 1/2 pages, completely uncensored
to show
that they were not covering anything up. Rawlins wasted the effort in
order to
rant. So much for the 'cover-up'.
Q: Didn't CSICOP kick Rawlins out after a secret meeting because he
wasn't
keeping the status quo?
No, the 'secret meeting' as claimed by some was actually the CSICOP
annual meeting. Rawlins did not attend this meeting and claims it was
because he was not sent airfare.
During this meeting Rawlins was not re-elected to the executive coucil.
This
was mostly likely due to his absence. Rawlin's however, maintains that
'Mars Effect' was the sole reason for his not being re-elected.
Doubtless it
did play a part but mostly because Rawlins was apparently behaving way
out of
line at this point. Nobody wants such a person in charge, controversy or
no.
Later, the vote for the CSICOP Fellows was held by mail. In this ballot
Rawlins' name was on the ballot but you had to read carefully to realize
it
said that it was adding Paul Edwards to replace Dennis Rawlins. This
led to him not being re-elected to the CSICOP fellows.
There is some controversy around this decision. But CSICOP maintains
that
they did this because Rawlins refered to CSICOP as a 'fraud' on BBC's
'Horizon'
but this was not apparent from anything on the ballot.
>Rawlins writes that "Abell doesn't add that this tape was an out-take &
so not
>properly in Kurtz's possesion" in a footnote to his phone transcript,
10/6/81
>p.f3. Rawlins doesn't deny that he said it; surely such a remark was the
>business of CSICOP to know about whether or not it was actually aired
-JJL
Q:But Rawlins claims that he was kicked out!
Rawlins claims his resignation was conditional on publication of his
resignation letter, but his resignation was accepted without such
publication.
Q: Isn't Rawlins behavior due to frustration with CSICOP lack of
response to
his criticism?
Yes, partially at least.
Q: Doesn't that show how bad CSICOP is?
No, it shows that CSICOP can have internal problems and politics just
like
every other organization in the world. This was the problem mentioned in
sTARBABY for the most part. But paranormal advocates prefer to stick
with the
misleading 'data fakery' attack since that lie tends to put the CSICOP
internal
politics in a nastier light.
CSICOP has had problems in dealing with criticism especially from
*skeptics*. There can be no denying this. But it is a matter for CSICOP
and
other skeptics to deal with. Not a subject for inaccurate cat-calls from
paranormal advocates.
However, the fact remains that there was no fakery of data. Only bad
scientific
criticism. Hardly something to condemn CSICOP over. Especially
considering that
they have admitted their mistakes and have given all critics their say
in the
manner.
Q: Wait! You can't be right, because Robert Anton Wilson said in 'The
New
Inquisition' the it happened like this... (blah, blah, blah)
R. Wilson has often been wanting for facts in many cases he talks about.
A
case in
point would be where he comments in 'T.N.I.' that Randi's criticisms of
the
Targ-Puthoff experiments consisted of just shouting complaints in
writing.
Wilson seems to have completely ignored the several *chapters* in
Randi's
'The Truth about Uri Geller' where Randi systematically takes apart the
experiments performed with diligence and research into the methods of T
& P.
Q: Well then who does know about this stuff?
Jim Lippard has probably the best insight to the whole mess. You can
visit his ftp site at ftp.skeptic.com/pub/lippard and read more thorough
articles on this affair. The information on this FAQ comes predominantly
from the work J. Lippard has done on it. He welcomes reasonable
inquiries on the subject.
>Other people who are quite well informed on this issue include
>psychologist
>Suitbert Ertel, Ken Irving (both pro-Gauquelin) and Mathematician Jan
>Willem Nienhuys of the Dutch skeptics -JJL
Q: So why didn't he write the FAQ?
I'm only guessing here, but my guess is that Lippard only had to answer
this problem about once a year. More recently, however, this sTARBABY
misinformation has been popping up again and again. Lippard's work in
the meantime has shifted more over to alt.religion.scientology from
sci.skeptic. So it goes.
A final word from Jim Lippard:
>I'm not afraid to criticize CSICOP where it is merited. And they did do
>some criticizable stuff regarding the Mars effect and its handling of
>Dennis
>Rawlins. But in general, they have not gotten a fair shake in
>descriptions of
>this controversy by advocates of the paranormal. -JJL
Matt Kriebel
got...@netaxs.com
--
Matt Kriebel * The Hessian Page
got...@netaxs.com * http://www.netaxs.com/~gothic/Hessian.html
*********************************************************************
Big Brother doesn't think you are worth watching
PZ Myers
Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <myers-E0ADB8....@netnews.netaxs.com>,
> my...@mac.com says...
> > Tsk, tsk. Of course. I certainly don't treat SI as gospel. Why
> > would you think anyone would?
> >
> Certainly its readers don't, see the letters page!
Especially after that recent issue in which they listed the 'top
skeptics of the century'...and proceeded to name all the current top
brass at CSICOP. It was so self-serving that it was embarrassing.
--
PZ Myers
Kevin Burnett
There are a bunch of letters about that in the current issue.
--
Kevin Burnett, Skeptical Extremist http://www.catnip.org/
"DOS is Disk Operating System. It's needed by the disk, not by your operating
system." -- Richard the Stupid, demonstrating his amazing knowledge of
computers.
Gary Jones
<del...@nightc.usa.net> writes
>On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:26:27 -0700, "Gary Shannon" <reb...@rio.com> wrote:
>Somebody has to have
>> the guts to stand squarely in the middle and doubt the claims make by
>> extremists of both types.
>>
>
>say that I totally agree with this post.
I don't think you're expressing anything skeptics would have any problem
with. CSICOP is an organisation composed of people, and people have
prejudices, blindspots and ambitions. Only a fool would suggest that
everything CSICOP has ever done or written is beyond criticism. But as a
source of information, CSICOP still seems to be a thousand times more
reliable, balanced and persuasive than the stuff Winston and his kind
seem to find convincing.
I won't be cancelling my subscription to SI just yet.
--
Gary Jones
PGP public key available from servers (DH/DSS key ID: 0x11EAE903)
Home page: www.bohr.demon.co.uk
WWu777
>Amazing. Do you notice that you are telling us to doubt what we read
>from one source, while treating another source as if it were absolute,
>utter, unimpeachable truth? Rawlins' story is biased and misleading,
>just as is the SI take on the event. SI wasn't as bad as Rawlins makes
>them out to be, and neither were they without blame in their clumsy
>handling of this business.
>
>Your sanctimonious outrage is more than a little misplaced.
>
>--
>PZ Myers
But the point is that if CSICOP has been caught cheating deliberately, then
that means it isn't about searching for truth, but debunking and disproving
everything out of materialistic paradigms.
Winston
WWu777
>with. CSICOP is an organisation composed of people, and people have
>prejudices, blindspots and ambitions. Only a fool would suggest that
>everything CSICOP has ever done or written is beyond criticism. But as a
>source of information, CSICOP still seems to be a thousand times more
>reliable, balanced and persuasive than the stuff Winston and his kind
>seem to find convincing.
>
>I won't be cancelling my subscription to SI just yet.
>
>--
>Gary Jones
You think CSICOP is more convincing than Princeton, Nature, UCLA, Foundations
of Physics (a scientific journal), etc.? Why?
Winston
WWu777
>so much information there, damning to CSICOPs credibility, this is
>going to take a detailed reading, so I'm bookmarking it for later.
>KACHING!
I know. It's about 30 to 40 pages long, so I'd copy and paste it into a text
or Word file!
Winston
WWu777
>source of information, CSICOP still seems to be a thousand times more
>reliable, balanced and persuasive than the stuff Winston and his kind
>seem to find convincing.
>
>
By the way, do you think calling everyone outside of your belief system
"deluded", "charlatan", "fantasy prone", "crazy", etc. reflects a balanced
view? lol
Winston
Matt Kriebel
wwu...@aol.com (WWu777) wrote:
> >
> >Amazing. Do you notice that you are telling us to doubt what we read
> >from one source, while treating another source as if it were absolute,
> >utter, unimpeachable truth? Rawlins' story is biased and misleading,
> >just as is the SI take on the event. SI wasn't as bad as Rawlins makes
> >them out to be, and neither were they without blame in their clumsy
> >handling of this business.
> >
> >Your sanctimonious outrage is more than a little misplaced.
> >
> >--
> >PZ Myers
>
> But the point is that if CSICOP has been caught cheating deliberately,
They weren't. Rawlins never claimed that.
You are misrepresenting his article.
Sherilyn
wwu...@aol.com (WWu777) wrote:
> >
> >Amazing. Do you notice that you are telling us to doubt what we read
> >from one source, while treating another source as if it were
> > absolute,
> >utter, unimpeachable truth? Rawlins' story is biased and misleading,
> >just as is the SI take on the event. SI wasn't as bad as Rawlins
> > makes
> >them out to be, and neither were they without blame in their clumsy
> >handling of this business.
> >
> >Your sanctimonious outrage is more than a little misplaced.
>
> that means it isn't about searching for truth, but debunking and
> disproving
> everything out of materialistic paradigms.
Yes, they're an organization for the scientific investigation of claims
of the paranormal, as their name suggests. Searching for truth would
be a little ambitious. "Debunking disproving everything out of
materialistic paradigms" is pretty close to the meaning of the
phrase "scientific investigation" of a claim; you've grasped what
they're about very well.
So, what's wrong with that, exactly?
--
Email handle is time-encoded to foil spammers.
Use recent handles only. Filter on domain name only.
http://www.sherilyn.org.uk/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gary Jones
<wwu...@aol.com> writes
>
>You think CSICOP is more convincing than Princeton, Nature, UCLA, Foundations
>of Physics (a scientific journal), etc.? Why?
>
You carefully use bits from selected studies that suit your purposes and
then name drop the above institutions as if to suggest that they, as
publications and institutions, routinely support your views. That is
dishonest and pathetic.
If, on the other hand, you honestly believe that Nature is a great
herald of the psi revolution, then it must really confuse you that John
Maddox, editor emeritus of Nature, is a Fellow of CSICOP.
I retain my default assumption of non-belief until persuaded otherwise
by convincing, replicated studies by sceptical researchers (and the
stuff you post and re-post and re-post and re-post is NOT persuasive).
(Still waiting for a retraction or justification of your quantum
mechanics claims.)
Scott Craver
>
>But the point is that if CSICOP has been caught cheating deliberately, then
>that means it isn't about searching for truth, but debunking and disproving
>everything out of materialistic paradigms.
Hi Winston,
What must you then conclude about Uri Geller, who
has been caught cheating deliberately?
BTW, an interesting article about CSICOP, also focussing some
on claims of dogmatism, can be found in Douglas Hofstadter's
book _Metamagical Themas_. The article describes a rift between
CSICOP and some other skeptics who thought CSICOP was too
strict in its dismissal of some paranormal issues.
>Winston
-S
WWu777
>
>You are misrepresenting his article.
Did you even read it?
WWu777
>of the paranormal, as their name suggests. Searching for truth would
>be a little ambitious. "Debunking disproving everything out of
>materialistic paradigms" is pretty close to the meaning of the
>phrase "scientific investigation" of a claim; you've grasped what
>they're about very well.
>
>So, what's wrong with that, exactly?
Why do you ask such an obvious question? If someone is not looking for the
truth but promoting an agenda, then they are not as credible or honest as
someone who is a true skeptic who looks for the truth. Duh!
WWu777
>
> What must you then conclude about Uri Geller, who
> has been caught cheating deliberately?
>
>
I don't know if he has conclusively or not. I'll have to check up on that. But
the point is that a lot of what Geller does cannot be explained.
> BTW, an interesting article about CSICOP, also focussing some
> on claims of dogmatism, can be found in Douglas Hofstadter's
> book _Metamagical Themas_. The article describes a rift between
> CSICOP and some other skeptics who thought CSICOP was too
> strict in its dismissal of some paranormal issues.
Thanks.
Winston
Gary Jones
<wwu...@aol.com> writes
>
>> BTW, an interesting article about CSICOP, also focussing some
>> on claims of dogmatism, can be found in Douglas Hofstadter's
>> book _Metamagical Themas_.
>
Just in case you don't bother to follow this reference but just assume
its an attack on CSICOP, here are the words Hofstadter uses to close the
article: "..anything that helps to make our quick decisions more
informed while not impairing their quickness is of tremendous
importance. I view the Skeptical Inquirer as serving that purpose, and I
heartily recommend it to my readers."
Matt Kriebel
wwu...@aol.com (WWu777) wrote:
Several time.
It does not say what you think it does.
Did you read it?
Gary Shannon
WWu777 wrote in message <20000610065546...@ng-me1.aol.com>...
I would agree. In their defense, however, if they approach debunking
honestly, and something shows up that they can't debunk, well then we've got
something. In that respect they serve a valuable purpose.
--gary
Lorrill Buyens
Guinness Book of World Records, "Gary Shannon" <reb...@rio.com> ate
seventeen helpings of lutefisk, then belched:
>WWu777 wrote in message <20000608085030...@ng-me1.aol.com>...
>>leaving it! This account tells of its beginnings. It is very long though,
>>about 30 to 40 pages, so I can't paste the whole thing in just one post.
>I'll
>>just paste the URL below and the introduction to it. To read the rest of
>it, go to the URL.
>>
>>(http://www.psy.uva.nl/resedu/pn/res/anomalouscognition/starbaby.html)
>Skeptics, find out why your leaders have dupped you into thinking that all
>skeptics think alike by supressing contrary views in their own ranks in the
>fear that "such criticism would create dissension and "confuse" the
>readers." (The words of the Skeptical Inquirer editor.)
We have no leaders. We're too skeptical of anyone who claims to be
one.
>Aren't you glad you have those marvelous paragons of scientific virture to
>do your thinking for you? How would you know what to believe if they didn't
>tell you?
Prob'ly by deciding what sounds sensible and has evidence, and what
doesn't, for myself, just like I've always been doing since I stopped
being a "believer..."
--
| Doctor Fraud |Always believe six|
|Mad Inventor & Purveyor of Pseudopsychology |impossible things |
| Weird Science at Bargain Rates |before breakfast. |
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
Lorrill Buyens
Guinness Book of World Records, "Gary Shannon" <reb...@rio.com> ate
seventeen helpings of lutefisk, then belched:
>Again and again I hear the demand on this NG from sekptcis: show me the
>proof. Cite me some cites. And every time I do cite the cites and quote
>the articles the pseudo-skeptic bashers and flamers never reply to the post.
>It's clear they DON'T WANT the cites they are asking for. They only want to
>attempt to humilate the claiment by making it appear that such cites don't
>exists. Well they do exist. And the failure of the psuedo-skeptic to
We argue against what we can see and know how to. Some of us have
poor newsfeeds. Some of us don't have the knowledge or scientific
training to debate what you say. Some of us undoubtedly think they
don't have to/shouldn't argue with "believers." Some of us could care
less whether parapsychology is validated or not.
We're *people*, not a block of cheese. You can't judge all of us by a
part of the whole.
>Just as I'm wasting my breath on the fundamentalist skeptics here. They
>have their fingers plugged firmly into both ears.
Proof?
James J. Lippard
>In article <20000608085030...@ng-me1.aol.com>,
>wwu...@aol.com (WWu777) wrote:
>
>> CSICOP Founder exposes its misdeeds!
>
><snip>
>
>The sTARBABY FAQ, written by yours truly under the guiding hand of Jim
>Lippard. I'm afraid Jim's FTP source has moved and I do not know the
>rpesent location.
No, my stuff is still at ftp://ftp.primenet.com/pub/lippard
Also see http://www.discord.org/skeptical/Critiques/
--
Jim Lippard lippard...@discord.org http://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Matt Kriebel
lippard...@discord.org wrote:
> In article <gothic-5311F4....@news.netaxs.com>, Matt Kriebel
> wrote:
> >In article <20000608085030...@ng-me1.aol.com>,
> >wwu...@aol.com (WWu777) wrote:
> >
> >> CSICOP Founder exposes its misdeeds!
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >The sTARBABY FAQ, written by yours truly under the guiding hand of Jim
> >Lippard. I'm afraid Jim's FTP source has moved and I do not know the
> >rpesent location.
>
> No, my stuff is still at ftp://ftp.primenet.com/pub/lippard
Hmmm, I got an FTp error last time I tried. Nice to see that I don't
have to hunt it down and change the FAQ.
kes...@mindspring.com
news:20000610065546...@ng-me1.aol.com...
> >Yes, they're an organization for the scientific investigation of claims
> >of the paranormal, as their name suggests. Searching for truth would
> >be a little ambitious. "Debunking disproving everything out of
> >materialistic paradigms" is pretty close to the meaning of the
> >phrase "scientific investigation" of a claim; you've grasped what
> >they're about very well.
> >
> >So, what's wrong with that, exactly?
>
> Why do you ask such an obvious question?
Winston's cute, but not very well trained. He's so often caught skimming
that I'm convinced he knows no other way to read. Yet, it doesn't stop him
from feigning indignation whenever he's pinched in the act.
Michael.
Scientium.com