Fundamentalist Skeptics In The News
Illustration from FATE magazine, October, 1981
In light of the recent announcement by the James Randi Educational Foundation that they are will be withdrawing their one million-dollar ESP challenge, I was reminded of this excellent 1981 article by Dennis Rawlins. It is long and detailed, but reveals some of the forces at work in the early days of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal (CSICOP.) The reasons for Marcello Truzzi’s early exit from the group become obvious: some of the founding members were apparently more worried about their preconceptions and personal image than any real research into paranormal claims.
Rawlins’ article is an insider’s look at one of CSICOP’s early investigations into the so-called “Mars Effect”: the idea that people born under a certain astrological sign would exhibit talent in athletics. When it was found that a scientific examination of the data actually confirmed this, some members of the governing board (including Randi) first pushed for a repeat of the statistical number-crunching, and then actually tried to cook the data before releasing the report findings.
Of course, the confirmation of the Mars Effect could have been a coincidence, but CSICOP was apparently unwilling or unable to repeat the experiment with other astrological theories does little to restore faith in their aims or methodology, at least in the early 1980s.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, January 9th, 2008 at 10:00 am and is filed under Beliefs, Breaking News, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
- Related News Stories:
- Examples Of Alien Writing »
- “New” Ufology »
- Fundamentalist Skeptics Apparently Dumber »
- Snarly UFO (and other) Skeptics »
- Against Scientism »
- Micah, UFOs & Skeptics »
- A Scientist Examines UFOs »
- UFO Skeptics Caught, Admit to Hoax »
- The UFO “Repeaters” Phenomenon »
- Why Should Anyone Be Interested In UFOs? »
|
Jan 09 2008 
January 9th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Having read some of the psychological reasoning behind why they thought the Hill abductions amounted to nothing, I could only think that some of it was, in fact, actually less likely than an alien abduction in itself.
Stuff like saying that our perception of the alien greys are a subconscious artefact of the white man’s need for supremacy over black people seemed a tad ludicrous, to say the least.
And I can’t help remembering the very first thing my college Psychology Professor said at the beginning of the first lecture… than all of this might be a load of crap!
January 9th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
To be fair, the Randi challenge remains open for 2 more years. Since no one has even come close to claiming the money, they are simply saying that the hypothesis that there exists any repeatable psychic ability will have failed the test if no one claims it by then.
One could claim that psychic abilities exist but aren’t available on demand, but a different test would be required for that claim.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I didn’t know that weird sociological angle on the Hill Abduction case stemmed from the Skeptics…. sometimes they definitely have some creative merit. I liked Dennis Stilling’s take — when he “out-skeptiked” the skeptics by turning their fake investigation schemes back on themselves. George P. Hanson’s article on the Skeptics is more scathing as he describes them basically as a psychological front for science as a whole. This goes back to the attacks on Mesmer by Ben Franklin, etc. I find it fascinating that these “rationalists” were fanatic members of secret societies much like the Skeptics operate. Professor David F. Noble’s book “The Religion of Technology” is an apt description of what the skeptic mentality really represents — how science itself is based on a vast group hallucination — the military-industrial-research psychological complex.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I agree with Drew..Hansen’s chapter on csicop is fabulous, and I believe it’s even online at his site in its entirety. It seems the lives and dynamics of the megaskeptics may be just another whole can of highly strange worms.
Thanks for posting the link to this article…looks like a smart astrology site. I don’t know nothin about astology, and learning the basics is one of my new years resolutions. I’m starting here.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Some of these comments are an example of the logical fallacy of “us vs them” or polarizing the issue. That in itself is a proselytizing religious tactic and not an honest scientific one. Just like in religion where not everyone who calls themselves a Christian or a Muslim is one, so too not everyone who calls themselves a scientist or a skeptic is one.
A skeptic is simply any person who doubts any claim given in the absence of evidence — and doubting a claim given in the absence of evidence is the only logically proper thing to do.
How can you conspire to hide something that is supposed to be everywhere? That is so silly. I do not need Randi to tell me the obvious truth that there is no demonstrable evidence that ESP actually exists outside of our imagination. I am not going to base my confidence in the existence of ESP based on a rumor that Randi is taking place in a conspiracy to hide evidence of the existence of ESP from the world, I am going to base my confidence in the existence of ESP based on what everyone around me can demonstrate, and the fact is that not a single one of you out there or anyone else I know can demonstrate any ESP. Like the vast majority of paranormal phenomenon, ESP is based only on storytales, and fairytales, and hearsay.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
“I do not need Randi to tell me the obvious truth that there is no demonstrable evidence that ESP actually exists….Like the vast majority of paranormal phenomenon, ESP is based only on storytales, and fairytales, and hearsay.”
I’m sure you’ve taken a hard look at the work of J.B. and Louisa Rhine? To make such a definitive statement you’ve certainly looked at much of the research? Or is it all just “so silly” you don’t need to waste your time?
January 9th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Everyone:
In various posts on the site, I have always tried to differentiate between skepticism as a banner carried by those who hide behind it to advance a personal belief system, and those who actually let the data speak for itself. That’s why I use the term “fundamentalist skeptic.” It’s also why I said “some” when referring to the CSICOP governing board.
Those like Martin Gardner, Joe Nickell, and Randi seem like fundamentalist skeptics to me. Researchers like the late Marcello Truzzi and Dr. Bernard Haisch seem more like dictionary-definition skeptics. Unfortunately, the fundies tend to be the loudest and get most of the press.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
disowned,
Error corrected-see post. Thank you!
January 10th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I think Randi does a lot of good work. He’s exposed some really evil frauds and scam artists like Uri Geller, Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn, among others. These are people who are doing real harm. There’s nothing wrong with debunking, when it’s bunk.
I’m vaguely familiar with Joe Nickell’s investigative work as well. I haven’t seen any cases in which he reached an unfounded conclusion.
Over time, investigating frauds takes its toll. Disbelief can harden into prejudice. Debunking can become a reflex. Michael Shermer, among others, has warned against this, but we’re dealing with emotions here.
The fact that the prize money has been unclaimed for all these years really does send a strong signal, although reasonable persons could differ on what that signal is.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:03 am
The fact itself that the money remains unclaimed does send a strong signal, I would argue that it’s the entire purpose of the offer in the first place.
However, the ’strong signal’ it sends (paranormal powers do not exist) relies on the complete ignorance of the dynamics involved within and around it.
Starting with a premise and working from there is as stupid and non-scientific as some of the ridiculous paranormal powers brought before the jref for consideration.
If one was rich enough, a similar prize could be offered with the premise that the paranormal exists, and there could be a strong signal the other way.
Thank god he exposed Benny Hinn–I was almost out of money. Boy was my face red.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
“I’m sure you’ve taken a hard look at the work of J.B. and Louisa Rhine?”
Yes I have. What I noticed right away was that they conducted statistical studies, not scientific experiments. As anyone who has taken statistics knows, statistics can only prove correlations, not causes. That leaves Rhine’s work incomplete and scientifically inconclusive.
“To make such a definitive statement you’ve certainly looked at much of the research?”
Yes I have. If ESP actually existed, why is it that we have had almost 80 years to develop a theory of ESP since the Rhine’s, yet that 80 year old study is still the most quoted “recent” progress made on the issue? Even if we were to pretend that Rhine’s (and others) data demonstrated ESP exists, it is an extremely weak ability — so weak and random that it is basically non-existent.
“Or is it all just ’so silly’ you don’t need to waste your time?”
No, it is just that I actually understand what I read. Notice how in the Rhine studies that no one single person could be found with ESP, therefore the ESP had to be “inferred” from multiple nameless subjects who somehow could only randomly and inconsistently show extremely weak ESP abilities? In other words, pick any one particular person in an ESP study and they will fail to display ESP, but pick a hundred people and hunt for statistical anomalies that do not belong to any one person and then you can “find” ESP.
Rhine could not name any one person with ESP and so far no one ever will. I will believe in telepathy when researchers start naming names of people with telepathy, instead of hiding behind statistics. I will believe in telekinesis when a researcher can place a pair of stationary dice on a table and someone can come along and move the dice with their mind power alone. The same can be said of the other alleged paranormal “abilities” that humans have such as remote viewing, telergy, clairvoyance, etc. In the meantime, the only logically proper thing to do is to doubt their claims.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:28 am
“I will believe in telekinesis when a researcher can place a pair of stationary dice on a table and someone can come along and move the dice with their mind power alone.”
So, in other words, you’ll believe in the paranormal when it ceases being paranormal.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
“So, in other words, you’ll believe in the paranormal when it ceases being paranormal”
If the paranormal exists, it will cease to be paranormal when it is finally discovered to exist. Maybe you could say that paranormal currently is just another word for imaginary or wishful thinking.
January 11th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
So when consciousness itself is finally proven to exist, what will happen then?
________________
The paranormal will never be proven to exist. It’s measured within a system that is not compatible with its features. Some people choose to devalue it because of that, others find it valuable on its own terms. You can argue and argue around the issues, but it’s fairly a pointless debate, because the arguments are based essentially on different planets.
I find the whole homeopathic controversy is a great way to understand these disagreements. Scientist and debunkers claim the remedies only work because they have a placebo effect, so the remedies are devalued.
But within the naturopathic, homeopathic, etc., modalities, a placebo effect is actually desireable, and quite the entire point. So, the ‘placebo conclusion’ is therefore seen to both prove and disprove the remedies, depending on your reference point and belief systems.
———————-
I do understand where this idea of ‘wishful thinking’ comes in, however, I think it’s extremely shortsighted to dismiss an entire world history of folklore and experience. To buy into the tired old programming of low status (‘fictions’ etc. as you have previously stated) vs. high status (science) is rather pedestrian, common, and pretty much misses the point of real inquiry.
January 12th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“So when consciousness itself is finally proven to exist, what will happen then?”
I do not know.
“The paranormal will never be proven to exist”
My point exactly.
“It’s measured within a system that is not compatible with its features”
What in the world does that mean?
“It’s fairly a pointless debate, because the arguments are…”
…not based on facts. No one can argue with facts, but since the paranormal is based on belief instead of facts, any argument on the paranormal could go on and on forever — if not nipped in the bud with some facts first (or lack thereof).
“Scientist and debunkers claim the remedies only work because they have a placebo effect, so the remedies are devalued…So, the ‘placebo conclusion’ is therefore seen to both prove and disprove the remedies, depending on your reference point and belief systems”
Either you misunderstand their arguments or you are corresponding with people who are not practicing science. Homeopathic remedies are valued highly as a placebo because placebos are highly valued, but there can be no guarantees that a placebo will work for anyone at all since it depends on blind faith belief. That makes it unreliable and unpredictable. Yet no real scientist will say that placebos do not work, it is just that they do not work very well because as soon as the person stops believing in the placebo, it stops working. One cannot predict what one will believe or if they will stop believing. This does not happen with non-placebo remedies. Yet at times, the only thing that we have to offer that does work, poorly as it does, is the placebo. A point one percent hope is better than none at all, but the goal of science is to find something much better than a placebo.
“I think it’s extremely shortsighted to dismiss an entire world history of folklore and experience”
It would be shortsighted but that is not happening with me here. The paranormal is good fodder for psychologists — and psychology is a science too. What people believe about the world — true or false — tells us more about people than it does the world.
“To buy into the tired old programming of low status (’fictions’ etc. as you have previously stated) vs. high status (science) is rather pedestrian, common, and pretty much misses the point of real inquiry”
Good thing I am not doing that either. The thing is, I have the ability to tell the difference between reality and fantasy; fiction or fact; cure and placebo. There would be nothing wrong with believing in invisible pink elephants that make the world go ’round and can successfully cure you of some diseases, but it would be wrong to make the mistake of thinking that if blind faith belief in invisible pink elephants works for that one person that it therefore will work for everybody else because it will not — and it demonstrably never has.
January 12th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
You can’t figure out why traditional scientific methods are incompatible with the paranormal? That’s pretty astounding, based on your claim to be familiar with the history of parapsychology. It’s literally too much information to cover in a blog post. I would suggest again scrapping your wikipedia resources and actually delving into the literature surrounding parapsychology to find an answer for yourself.
But for one, measuring paranormal occurences or claims is innately problematic. That does not mean they do not exist. My example of consciousness is relevant here too perhaps–although it is the reason we can have this conversation, and the reason that ’science’ and its measurements exist, its nature is a mystery in itself, and cannot necessarily even be measured. It can be said then, that its features are not compatible with science. The scientific method assumes and depends upon physical observation of some sort. Therefore, the term ‘physical science,’ which is what you apparently choose to use as your beautiful king shit yardstick. It’s one way of measuring things, valuing, understanding, etc. It’s not the only way, however.
There is meaning in other things, and other methods to understanding. And it doesn;t have to depend on ‘belief.’ It’s a grim world you have drawn–this ‘facts and beliefs’ offering. You seem to insist on some bizarre binary system, and that is just as much a belief as the angels/love and light agenda. Where does experience and emotion fit into this dichotomy? History?
Your understanding of placebo is rudimentary at best. Placebo does not necessarily equal ‘fake.’ I used the homeopathy example not to start an argument about it, but as an analogy. If all that was required for the body to initiate a healing response was to’believe’ in a remedy, then there would not be 100s of different remedies for different ailments, and they would not work on infants, etc. It is much more complex, but of course that is not going to fit into your binarism belief system.
January 13th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“You can’t figure out why traditional scientific methods are incompatible with the paranormal?”
What is there to figure out? I can tell a con job from the real deal without having to figure anything out and the paranormal is an example of a con job. Science only studies things that actually exist outside of our imaginations and, like you confessed, the paranormal will never be proven to exist. You can add the boggie man and invisible pink elephants to that list too, since they too are much like the mystical, magical paranormal fantasy.
“That does not mean they do not exist”
Of course they exist, but they only exist in your imagination.
“Therefore, the term ‘physical science,’ which is what you apparently choose to use as your beautiful king shit yardstick. It’s one way of measuring things, valuing, understanding, etc. It’s not the only way, however”
It is the only way that has been demonstrated to work so far. For example, in the last 100 years or so, the physical sciences has given us the light bulb, telephone, television, computers, automobiles, running water, central heating and cooling, refrigerators vaccinations, and put a man on the Moon — in other words, it has practically remade an entire new civilization. So what has your alternate method done for humanity in the last 100 years? How about the last 1000 or even 10,000 years? I can answer that for you: absolutely nothing. All we have are the poorly told excuses for why paranormal abilities only exist for the blind faith believer when no logical thinking types are around.
“Your understanding of placebo is rudimentary at best. Placebo does not necessarily equal ‘fake’”
Your understanding of my understanding is bogus. I never said placebos meant fake. In fact I said the opposite. Go back read what I wrote but this time pay attention.
“It’s a grim world you have drawn–this ‘facts and beliefs’ offering. You seem to insist on some bizarre binary system”
I do no such thing, you are the only one doing any insisting here. Furthermore, the world is a wonderful place just like it is and it just so happens that this world is like a place of ‘facts and beliefs’.
“that is just as much a belief as the angels/love and light agenda”
So you say.
“Where does experience and emotion fit into this dichotomy? History?”
Read some history and see for yourself where it fits. It is all there.
“If all that was required for the body to initiate a healing response was to ’believe’ in a remedy, then there would not be 100s of different remedies for different ailments, and they would not work on infants, etc”
Not everyone has or wants to have the same beliefs so even if belief had a 100% cure rate, the number of beliefs that would accomplish that would be uncountable.
Homeopathy is great for curing psychosomatic illnesses, but outside of that, the cure rate is zero. As for infants being “cured”, if people can imagine themselves having diseases that do not exist anywhere outside of their imagination, then why not be able to imagine infants having diseases that also do not actually exist anywhere except in their imagination? It would be easy to ‘cure’ an infant of a disease that really did not exist.
January 13th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Your logic is so skewed there is no response other than to simply point them out…but really what is the point in doing that ad naseum? I stick by everything I have stated in this and other conversations with you. Now we’re getting back into your delusionary system in which you attribute notions to me that I have never proposed. You ask what has *my* alternate theory given us? I have no alternate theory. I would ask: alternative to what? I have not one time proposed that I think one way of looking at things is preferable or more valuable, accurate, etc. over another. So obviously, I have no alternate system to offer. I have simply tried to point out the inadequacies of your pathetic, wanna-be-highbrow “science or nothing” mindset, but you cannot seem to truly follow an argument; you are so ready to make it conform against your ideals that you do not listen at all.
Your ramblings about homeopathy are laughable. Obviously, you know nothing of the subject, yet choose to go on about it. Those delusional babies and their wacky placebos! The only way that ridiculous theory would work is very unscientific–yet it seems pervasive in the skeptic agenda. Start with a conclusion, (the remedies do not work) and anything that then transpires will be conveniently swept into that framework. Whatever, rock on skeptoidy guy. Sheena is a punk rocker…sheena is a punk rocker…
January 14th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
“Your logic is so skewed there is no response other than to…”
…come up with some lame excuse why you could not come up with neither the logic nor the facts to refute any of my points and then spend the rest of your “argument” calling me names instead. That is not very mature or professional and since you have been reduced to attacking me instead of the argument, proves that you lost this debate a long time ago.
Just because I am pro-science does not mean I am anti-paranormal or even anti-homeopathy. Your mistake.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
My only mistake is actually usually being the only respondent to your posts–from now on I shall ignore them as most everyone else does.
I said before I stand by everything I have stated previously, and I only have nothing to add, because I see our argument is again taking a turn into your bizarro world of concoction. I let the arguments stand, and anyone wishing to see ‘my mistake’ you refer to can read the banter and decide who has deviated from logic, or who ‘lost the debate.’ I’ll take my chances.
And I’m not sure where the idea “professional” comes in here, in blog commentary!
January 16th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
“I see our argument is again taking a turn into your bizarro world of concoction”
Correction: Only your side of the argument is doing that, not mine. I simply pointed out that homeopathy, like placebo, only works for those who are psychosomatic (and as for infants being ‘cured’, I already pointed out that the infants cannot be cured of something that some hypochondriac only imagined the infant having). People who know what logic and facts are do not resort to attacking the person instead of attacking the person’s argument.
“From now on I shall ignore them as most everyone else does”
You can be just like everyone if you want to be, but most everyone else seems to be a coward, especially when it comes to answering hard questions about their blind faith belief systems.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:14 am
The fact is, “Sage”, no one responds to you because you are the one with the rigid belief systems, and also have a very obtuse demeanor and strange, nonsensical manner of argument. You’re not really listening, so conversing with you is pointless. Done.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Richelle,
Lots of people have responded to me, including you, so you are wrong about that.
As for my beliefs not meeting your personal expectations, and your appraisal of my personality traits without having ever met me — so what? That is your opinion and not a fact, so it means nothing to me…but I do wonder if you had any point to it all, other then name calling?
If I am supposedly not listening, why do you still ramble on and on, and why is it that you ramble on and on about me and not about the topic line of Randi and ESP or your subtopic of homeopathy? I am open minded to ANYTHING you say, if you can back it up with facts. All we have is your word. It would be so simple and obvious to cite a few Internet links to some scholarly articles about how homeopathy works as wonderfully as you claim it does, but you are unable to do that.
This is the third time in a row that I have had to tell you that I am not the topic of discussion here, it is James Randi and the non-existence of ESP or the effectiveness of homeopathy. You have refused to talk about those things in the last three posts so clearly you are the only one here not listening and it is a waste of time to talk to you, and not the other way around. So I have had my say and you have had none, and I rest my case…
January 20th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
The river Temarc in winter.