So-called Skeptics
John Powell
Skeptical groups such as the Bay Area Skeptics.
History: On the Fido Skeptics Echo there was a brief discussion of
testing paranormal claims and mention of the Bay Area Skeptics and
mention that they only do testing _in_ the Bay Area. After some
follow-up discussion I wondered (aloud) why they would only test in the
Bay Area and found that the requirement was more strict: The subject
must actually _reside_ in the Bay Area. Since this didn't make much
sense to me given the possibility that someone from halfway around the
world, on their own dime, might decide to come to the Bay Area to be
tested, I questioned an official from the Bay Area Skeptics (Rick Moen)
about this. His reply was that I should ask Robert Steiner, who laid
down the requirements.
Letter I sent to Robert Steiner:
================================
March 7, 1993
Robert A. Steiner
Box 659,
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Dear Mr. Steiner;
In recent conversation with Rick Moen regarding the 'testing'
activity of BAS (Bay Area Skeptics) he mentioned that you established
the various testing policies/procedures including the stipulation that
volunteers must reside in the Bay area.
If you have a few moments would you please describe the concerns
that led to that particular stipulation? Thank you very much in
advance.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Steven J. Powell
=================================
His reply, scrawled/printed in pen on bottom portion of my original letter:
===========================================================================
3/13/93
Dear Mr. Powell:
We are Bay Area Skeptics.
We function in the Bay Area.
We live in the Bay Area.
We work in the Bay Area.
We travel in the Bay Area.
We do our investigations in the Bay Area.
Thank you for inquiring,
Sincerely, Bob Steiner
=============================================================================
You may draw your own conclusions/impressions regarding these folks...
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
<Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence>
--
John Powell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John....@f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Thomas Kettenring
> The following is an example of what it is like dealing with so-called
> Skeptical groups such as the Bay Area Skeptics.
> Letter I sent to Robert Steiner:
> ================================
> In recent conversation with Rick Moen regarding the 'testing'
>activity of BAS (Bay Area Skeptics) he mentioned that you established
>the various testing policies/procedures including the stipulation that
>volunteers must reside in the Bay area.
>
> If you have a few moments would you please describe the concerns
>that led to that particular stipulation? Thank you very much in
>advance.
Of course a more sensible way of putting that would have included
emphasizing the word "residing" as opposed to "being tested there". It's
easy to miss. You could try again instead of losing patience and
developing (or expanding) prejudices on the basis of a single letter.
Mr. Steiner's performance is not much better though.
> You may draw your own conclusions/impressions regarding these folks...
[..]
> <Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence>
Yes it is. Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence, but Absence of
Evidence is Evidence of Absence. That is, if there are *no* clues
pointing to the hypothesis that it was you who had the Kennedys killed,
that's a clue pointing to the hypothesis that it was not you.
--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
The extraterrestrials don't even know this planet has native inhabitants.
Their government doesn't tell them.
John Powell
-=> Quoting David Bloomberg to John Powell <=-
JP> The following is an example of what it is like dealing with so-called
JP> Skeptical groups such as the Bay Area Skeptics.
DB> Are you implying that all skeptic groups act the same?
Whatever gave you that impression? I don't recall directly stating
such so it is a fair bet that I didn't directly mean such... <grin>
JP> History: On the Fido Skeptics Echo there was a brief discussion of
JP> testing paranormal claims and mention of the Bay Area Skeptics and
JP> mention that they only do testing _in_ the Bay Area. After some
DB> GASP! Imagine that! The *BAY AREA* Skeptics doing testing in and for
DB> the *BAY AREA*. Amazing! What will they think of next?
What indeed???
JP> You may draw your own conclusions/impressions regarding these folks...
DB> I conclude that if you wanted to actually be tested, and not just make
DB> trouble, you could write to James Randi.
I don't recall saying that I wanted to be tested. (Did you get this via
an 'impression' as well?)
By the way, what exactly is "make trouble" in the scientific sense?
Apparently I made a heinous error when I assumed that I would not have
to spell it out. I conclude that it was I who made this error because
you and Steiner reacted in nearly the same manner.
So I will spell it out. Before I do that I want to let you know that
you can bail now and use Rick Moen's excuse whenever he found himself
backed into a corner (paraphrasing): 'Your message was too long, I don't
have the time.'
Let's pretend there's this fellow named Fred who manages a Radio Shack
in Peoria. Lately Fred noticed that if he thinks about it real hard he
can make blue lightining-like bolts shoot out of his fingertips for a
distance of up to 20 feet. His aim is even getting pretty sharp and he
can usually zap the cat from the other side of his modest living room.
Fred has saved some money and has some vacation scheduled and he decides
to drive to beautiful San Francisco for a few weeks. While visiting
places of interest and seeing the local sites he becomes aware of a
meeting of the Bay Area Skeptics. (Perhaps he read the meeting
announcement in the Personals section of the SFE?)
Fred arrives at the meeting several minutes early. He's tan, rested and
excited! He asks around and is eventually directed to an official of
the Bay Area Skeptics. Fred explains, in gross layman terms of course,
this newly developed ability of his and, and, and....
And _WHAT_ Dave? He doesn't live in San Francisco so they won't test
him is that right?
That is what the rules say. Steiner wrote those rules. I simply asked
Steiner: "If you have a few moments would you please describe the
concerns that led to that particular stipulation? Thank you very much
in advance."
Why is that such a difficult question? Why does the mere asking of the
question constitute a "make trouble" accusation?
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
<Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence>
--
John Powell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John....@p0.f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG
