Robert Anton Wilson's "The New Inquisition"
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
you don't want to have to scroll through it, hit that N key NOW.
When Ed posted his bit about how Martin Gardner encourages book
burning, I was struck by the fact that I'd seen it before. Others, on
local BBSes, have also made the claim, and nearly all of them cited
Robert Anton Wilson's _The New Inquisition_ as the basis for their
deep resentment of Gardner. The following essay sort of grew as more
people kept claiming that the book 'really exposed CSICOP for what it
is,' and as more and more of the book was revealed as shoddy,
misguided, and at times defamatory.
So, here goes...
An Appraisal of Robert Anton Wilson's _The New Inquisition_
by Brian Siano
I've one into some of this on occasion on other BBSes, so
here I go again with my standard talk about Robert Anton
Wilson's _The New Inquisition_. I get the feeling it's going to
be a standard post, mainly because Wilson's book is about the
only widely-read critical examination of CSICOP, and because
Wilson has a substantial readership. I get the feeling I'll have
to talk about the book more often in the future.
I'm working not only from my own observations about the
book, but from two reviews of it. One review, by Jim Lippard,
appeared in the newsletter of the Phoenix Skeptics, and the other
by Robert Sheaffer appeared in the Fall 1989 issue of _The
Skeptical Inquirer_. I'm not making any claim that the following
is original with me; I'm just synthesizing three points of view.
Robert Anton Wilson has written a lot about conspiracy
rumors and bizarre historical oddities that may or may not be
evidence of some deeper, potentially more sinister reason behind
it all. In his fiction, it works out really well, mainly because
he's free to improvise even stranger oddities and expand on
certain important philosophical issues. In both fiction and
non-fiction, he writes in an amusing half in jest, half
_am-I-joking-or-not?_ tone. He practices what he calls a
guerrilla ontology, using metaphors as well as anecdotes to jog
his audience into what he claims is avoiding dogmatism and
preconceived beliefs.
However, Wilson also points out that not everything he says
is to be taken seriously, and that it's up to his audience to
make up their own minds about it. Making their minds up, however,
may throw them back into one of Wilson's loathed 'reality
tunnels,' world-views which limit what one sees (and, by
extension, what one understands) like horse blinders. (This is
also a nice 'escape clause' for Wilson when his 'facts' and
arguments are shown to be false.)
Wilson's fictional books (The _Illuminatus_ and
_Schrodinger's Cat_ series, as well as other single novels) are
entertaining reads, full of conspiracy theories, wild science
fiction, funny plays on words and events, and an engaging
intellectual playfulness. _The New Inquisition_ is loads of fun
to read, and large chunks of the book are playfully written in a
perfect imitation of Charles Fort's style. But, when Wilson turns
his hand to a nonfiction subject as CSICOP, the playfulness turns
into a rancid hectoring. And Wilson seems unable to note the
distinction between fiction and reality.
Sheaffer, in his review, points out that Wilson demonstrates
an extensive knowledge of Neitzschean philosophy. I would
recommend Wilson's essay on the notions of truth, which he wrote
as a 'sneaky' true-or-false quiz; it was published in the Whole
Earth's _Fringes of Reason_ book. Truth is a slippery target, as
we all know, and much of Wilson's work is devoted to showing how
slippery it is-- or doubting whether it exists or not. In this
regard, Wilson's book is worthwhile in its cautions against
dogmatism and claiming certainty about one's knowledge.
Also, in breezing through the book, one can't help but find
a lot of interesting tidbits on the relationships between
knowledge, the structure of one's reasoning methods, and the
structure of one's language. It's a difficult subject to tackle,
and Wilson handles it amirably. As a discussion on the limits and
problems of knowledge, certain passages of _The New Inquisition_
are not a bad introduction. (One problem with it, though; there
are few references for further reading, no index, and Falcon
Press could use a couple of good proofreaders.)
However, when Wilson brings in David Hume as a reference, he
begins to show holes in his knowledge. Correctly, Hume has
demonstrated the impossibility of demonstrating causality from
observations of objects in the physical world, and Wilson
explains this well. But he also says that CSICOP has claimed to
have such knowledge. CSICOP includes such philosophers as Paul
Kurtz, Sidney Hook, Antony Flew and Paul Edwards on its masthead,
and it's doubtful that they're as ignorant of Hume as Wilson
thinks. Also, Hume's essay "On Miracles" urges extreme skepticism
in examining paranormal claims, but this is conveniently
overlooked by Wilson.
In "The New Inquisition," Wilson attacks what he calls the
'citadel' of science, an unholy alliance of scientists devoted
towards imposing only their Western-materialist world view upon
the world. (Sheaffer wonders, "Try telling modern-day Japan,
Taiwan, or Singapore that science is an arbitrary expression of a
Western world-view!") Wilson, at times, speculates as to whether
CSICOP has a vested economic interest in debunking paranormal
claims. (I've suggested to CSICOP that they set up a BBS for
themselves, and they tell me they can't afford one-- an
investment of perhaps a thousand dollars or so. Can't be much of
a financial interest at stake here.)
Somehow, Wilson sees CSICOP as the hit-men of this
world-view, and he exerts a lot of 'wicked sarcasm' (in his term)
to illustrate his contention that CSICOP is guilty of baseless
attacks, dogmatism, debunking without investigation, and a
fanaticism rivalling that of Christian Fundamentalists. Oh, yeah,
he also links CSICOP to the military-industrial complex by the
end of the book.
While Wilson seems to have an adequate intellectual grasp of
the philosophical issues involved, he doesn't seem to extend his
intellectual understanding beyond the game-playing point. He
knows enough to say that nothing is 'absolutely' known, and he
even makes a step towards understanding that the process of
understanding is a process of continual revision of ideas that
one currently holds. This is what science _is_. What Wilson is
content with, however, is using this philosophical insight to be
able to say to others, "You don't know _for sure_, do you? Can
you _prove_ it?" Even tacitly accepting a particular idea or
theory, according to Wilson, becomes the embrace of an all-
smothering dogma.
Bear in mind that this technique (which is, essentially,
what Wilson bases his entire book upon) demands that one's
opponent accomplish the impossible; to prove that something is
absolutely, incontrovertibly true beyond a shadow of all doubt,
reasonable or otherwise. Since those whom Wilson has chosen as
opponents are unable to do the impossible, he uses this as a
wedge to denounce other people for even so much as stating an
opinion-- for having an opinion is now condemned as 'dogma.'
This, however, doesn't stop Wilson from accusing Martin Gardner
of encouraging book burning, or claiming that Randi doesn't
actually investigate psychic claims.
(Side note: I.F. Stone's excellent book _The Trial of
Socrates_ faults Plato's dialogues for similar reasons. In the
dialogues, Socrates encounters some poor shlub, engages him in
conversationm, and suddenly the fellow is pressed to define such
concepts as beauty, truth, or virtue. The other guy can't really
define it without Socrates finding an exception to the proposed
rule, of course. So by the end of the dialogues, Socrates is
declaiming on what virtue and truth _really_ might be, while the
shlub in question is reduced to saying, "I cannot but agree with
you, Socrates." Please recall that, after establishing this
philosophical vacuum-- where opposing opinions were measured
against unattainable absolutes of truth or reason-- Plato would
write _The Republic_-- a recipe for the rule of the many by the
'enlightened few,' philosopher-kings.)
(One of the reasons that Socrates was tried was because many
of his students were participants in uprisings against Athenian
democracy, that established the vicious dictatorial rule of the
Four Hundred in 411 b.c., and the Thirty in 403 b.c. Many
Athenians held him partially responsible for these reigns of
terror.)
One person who comes in for Wilson's abuse in a big way is
Martin Gardner, author of _Fads and Fallacies in the Name of
Science_ and _Science: Good, Bad and Bogus_. Wilson continually
terms Gardner as the 'leader' of the inquisition against Wilhelm
Reich, even though the most I've found to that effect is a
reasonably even-handed essay in _Fads and Fallacies_-- much of
which was based on articles that had appeared in Harper's_.
Wilson seems to feel that the burden of proof is on Gardner, who
was writing from secondhand sources (as many writers do,
including, apparently, Wilson, who cites Fortean phenomena
continuously). Wilson also doesn't mention that the FDA's actions
against Reich were motivated by claims that orgone therapy could
cure cancer.
The FDA claimed that Reich was pushing orgone therapy as a
cancer cure. However, Reichians argue that Reich had never made
such a claim, and that this claim came out of the series of
articles referenced by Gardner. Personally, I'm reserving
jugement on this; the tenor of the 50's was enough to motivate
book-burnings with little justification, but the Reichians have
also had 30 years to excise reference to 'cancer cures' in their
materials. In other words, I have doubts about both sides of the
story. Either way, Wilson is holding Gardner responsible for
articles written by other people, and the actions of a U.S.
Government office.
Wilson caps this off by working up a great lather over
Gardner's alleged fanaticism, getting to the Final Point of
dramatically describing the burning of Reich's books... and then,
after describing Gardner as an unswerving dogmatist, he lamely
admitting that Martin Gardner didn't have anything to do with the
book-burning and even opposed it.
Apart from this hysterical attack on Martin Gardner, Wilson
also makes much hay out of the FDA's burnings of Reich's
notebooks and copies of his books that were confiscated during a
raid on his property. How this relates to CSICOP-- which as
founded nearly twenty years later, and which to my knowledge has
never advocated burning books-- I'll never fathom. If Wilson had
accused Gardner of burning Jews in gas ovens, he couldn't be less
accurate.
James "The Amazing" Randi has been a target of Wilson's
scorn for years. One early essay by Wilson (the title escapes my
memory, but it's in his book _Right Where You Are Standing Now_)
described Randi on a panel discussion of parapsychology; the
essay is revealing in that, while most of the parapsychologists
are described in admirable terms, as decent struggling
scientists. and are given some voice in Wilson's essay, Randi
himself is not quoted. Wilson is content to characterize Randi as
a pigheaded man whose debunkings are restricted to "You're wrong"
and "That's fraud." Let's put it bluntly; when Wilson writes
about people he doesn't like, he paraphrases them rather than
quoting them directly. Not very ethical, that.
Wilson still hasn't learned the principles of fair
journalism. In _The New Inquisition_, Wilson misrepresents
Randi's investigations of the Resch poltergeist and Uri Geller.
Here is Wilson's reportage of Geller and Randi in its entirety:
"See especially the interminable diatribes of CSICOP's James
Randi against Drs. Puthoff and Targ, physicists of Stanford
Research Institute, who allowed Uri Geller into their laboratory
and then reported that which Mr. Randi, who was not there,
_knows_ passionately could not have happened."
If Wilson had bothered to read Randi's books, he would have
found that Randi tracked Geller's methods for years, examined
videotapes of Geller in action, watched Geller perform for _Time_
magazine at close range, has duplicated all of Geller's feats,
has interviewed associates of Geller's who have confirmed his use
of trickery, and lots of other important information. He also
fails to mention Targ and Puthoff's unwillingness to release any
substantial data on their testing of Geller to other scientists,
or the testimony of many who have seen Geller cheat at what he
does. But getting the facts straight, or reporting them in a
responsible manner, is apparently not one of Wilson's trademarks
when it comes to CSICOP.
It's also amusing to note that these two poor, persecuted
parapsychologists are notorious for their failed 'remote-viewing'
experiments with Ingo Swann. Targ and Puthoff claimed that their
psychics were able to accurately describe locations several miles
away; and that their verbal descriptions, purged of obvious cues,
were matched to photographs of the sites by a panel of
independent judges in a double-blind test. Investigation showed
that, not only weren't the transcripts purged of cues, but that
the list of sites wasn't randomized. See _The Psychology of the
Psychic_ by David Marks and Richard Kammann for further details.
Also note that Wilson ignores this particular debunking of Targ
and Puthoff.