What CSI(COP) Is About
Image copyright: FATE magazine
I linked to an article in the recent UFO Hoaxers post, but no one seemed to notice. It is a little-known but important look into the origins of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal (CSICOP- now CSI-Committee For Skeptical Inquiry.)
In the early 1970s, french astrologers Michel and Francoise Gauquelin published a statistical study which claimed to prove that people who were born with Mars rising or transiting were more likely to be good at sports. One of CSICOPs first projects was to prove that this claim was due to selective sampling (among other factors) and prove that a proper statistical analysis would negate at least this example of “pseudo-science.”
Physicist Dennis Rawlins was enlisted as someone qualified to debunk the “Mars Effect,” but originally found that the Gauquelins’ calculations seemed to check out. He revised this with new and more accurate calculations, but by then, CSICOP had already published the work of other members which debunked the Mars Effect with faulty equations and a mistake in their original public challenge to the astrologers. When Rawlins tried to point out that they should come clean with their mistake, he was bullied by the governing committee and eventually “fired” from his position with them.
Rawlins’ account of the episode was published in the October, 1981 issue of FATE magazine. It is long and complicated (as indeed were the events leading to his ejection from CSICOP) but is important reading for those interested in the psychology of some fundamentalist skeptics. Another founding member, Dr. Marcello Truzzi, was banished for similar objections to CSICOP practices.
Particularly revealing is Rawlins’ introduction to the article, although I urge you to be patient and read the entire story:
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. I now believe that if a flying saucer landed in the backyard of a leading anti-UFO spokesman, he might hide the incident from the public (for the public’s own good, of course). He might swiftly convince himself that the landing was a hoax, a delusion or an “unfortunate” interpretation of mundane phenomena that could be explained away with “further research.”
The irony of all this particularly distresses me since both in print and before a national television audience I have stated that the conspiratorial mentality of believers in occultism presents a real political danger in a voting democracy. Now I find that the very group I helped found has partially justified this mentality.
There are particularly illuminating passages about founding members Paul Kurtz, James Randi and Phillip Klass.
This entry was posted
on Friday, April 24th, 2009 at 12:23 am and is filed under Beliefs, Conspiracies, Science, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- Fundamentalist Skeptics In The News »
- Inconvenient Facts About Abductions »
- Penn & Teller - Masters Of Deception »
- Kelly-Hopkinsville Creatures Were OWLS?! »
- After The Martian Apocalypse (review) »
- Skepticism Is Not A Dirty Word »
- An Alien Who’s Who »
- Another Factor In The Hill Abduction »
- Could Nazca Lines Have Been Made By Astral Projection? »
- UFO Skeptics Caught, Admit to Hoax »
|
Apr 24 2009 
April 24th, 2009 at 3:32 am
Randi and his ilk are akin to religious fanatics. Just as it’s pointless to try and have a dialogue with a true believing fundamentalist it’s pointless to attempt a dialogue with the dishonest Randi/Dawkins cultists. Just ask Rupert Sheldrake. These dogmatists have no interest in the truth- their only desire is to blindly push their belief driven agenda.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“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 it wasn’t the “Scientific Establishment” that tried to cover up evidence for the “occult”, it was CISCOP. Furthermore, it had nothing to do with the occult because if the Mars Effect were real, it would be a science, not the occult. Of course, that doesn’t let Michel Gauquelin off the hook either. Like most people who are in the habit of self-deluding themselves, statistics is the perfect way for someone to lie to themselves and others: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” (Benjamin Disraeli).
One reason people like to use statistics as a means to back up their blind faith in something is because they do not understand it, but more importantly, neither do the vast majority of people they talk to about it. Scientists are required to understand statistics, unlike CSICOP or the vast majority of readers of this blog. So let me make this short and sweet…
1) Statistics cannot prove causes, they can only prove correlations
2) Statistical experiments are inappropriate to phenomenon that are not statistical by nature. Group behavior is a statistical phenomenon. Falling apples are not. The average height of an ocean wave is a statistical phenomenon. The freezing point of pure water is not.
Clearly not every single person born when the planet Mars is either rising or culminating in the sky, has been an “eminent athlete”, only a “statistically significant” minute percentage over those of other planetary influences. Then there is the matter of what constitutes an “eminent athlete”, since that term is a matter of personal opinion and not an actual physical quality or measurable parameter. It is a vague, ambiguous, and therefore unscientific parameter to use. Furthermore, Gauquelin’s criteria for determining what made this one position of Mars more important than any of the other positions was the same nonsense certain people have tried to use to unsuccessfully prove the existence of ESP. If ESP worked, there would be no need to hide behind nameless, faceless statistics, you would just simply demonstrate ESP. If there are all these people out there that can move dice using mind power alone, then by all means have them roll dice using their mind power alone. Don’t sit there and roll the dice for them and take a statistical sampling of their guesses and try to call it “psychokinesis”. According to the “theory of ESP”, there should be absolutely no difference between testing one single person and testing hundreds, so why do all believers of ESP refuse to test just one person? I’ll tell you why, because no one can actually tell if any one person has ESP or not, so they have to hide behind a statistically nameless, faceless crowd if they want to maintain their delusion…
…just like the believers that want to believe that CSICOP is thee entire Scientific Establishment or that there is such a thing as the Mars Effect.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
“so why do all believers of ESP refuse to test just one person? I’ll tell you why, because no one can actually tell if any one person has ESP or not, so they have to hide behind a statistically nameless, faceless crowd if they want to maintain their delusion.”
That statement is nowhere near true and I find it hard to believe that anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of the subject would say such a thing. I tell you what Sage; I’ll kindly take the time to educate you on the matter and give you the names of at least ten individuals who have been extensively tested if you will provide me with the quotes of the three people you mentioned in the UFO Hoaxers thread (Birnes, the pilot, and Rense), where all three said (or so you claim) that there is no way the lights in New Jersey could be a hoax.
To prove my sincerity the first name I’ll give you is a freebie- Matthew Manning.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:08 am
These guys are _despicable_ whatever their incarnation, however they operate, and whenever they appear. Still, they are appallingly easy to take down just on their face, and I did such right here:
http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/2006/08/csicopia-intellectual-bankruptcy-from.html
among several other places, later on for an article in UFO Magazine! I was glad to do it. See, they are a needless hurdle to relevance, rationality, and a more real world, IMO. Moreover, for me they typify the most turgid and indolent of revolting intellectual industries as I pointed out poetically to a ponderously poetic Docca Plait, a _lesser_ klasskurtxian light, here:
http://ufomagazine.squarespace.com/ufo-magazine/2009/4/1/skep-toad-abcs.html
Again, glad to do it. It feels like a blow against an evil empire, but perhaps I’m not being clear enough with regard to my feelings, eh?
alienview@roadrunner.com
> http://www.AlienView.net
>> AVG Blog — http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e — http://www.ufomag.com
April 25th, 2009 at 3:17 am
“Statistical experiments are inappropriate to phenomenon that are not statistical by nature. Group behavior is a statistical phenomenon. Falling apples are not. The average height of an ocean wave is a statistical phenomenon. The freezing point of pure water is not.”
So what does determine the statistical nature of a given phenomenon—or, better yet, the applicability of statistical science to the nature of a given phenomenon?
April 25th, 2009 at 3:38 am
“That statement is nowhere near true”
Just because you say so? Your say so is not an example of either a fact or logic.
“[I will] give you the names of at least ten individuals who have been extensively tested. If you will provide me with the quotes of the three people you mentioned in the UFO Hoaxers thread”
I do not make deals. Either you have the names or you do not. Aside from that, if you want to discuss the UFO Hoaxers some more, go back to that thread and continue your discussion there where it belongs. Your childishly transparent attempt to set yourself up with a way out of this thread if (when) you start to lose your argument in this thread, would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.
“To prove my sincerity…”
You have already did that in the UFO Hoaxers thread when you proved you were not sincere.
“The first name I’ll give you is a freebie- Matthew Manning”
I did not ask for just names, I asked for names of people that actually can scientifically demonstrate ESP. Claiming to have ESP does not scientifically prove they have ESP. All you are proving by that is you are gullible and you don’t know what science is.
Matthew Manning has never scientifically demonstrated any psychic powers. Although I’m sure Matthew has been scientifically tested for ESP, I have already pointed out the logical fallacy of that approach. No, what I was clearly talking about was real science and real science is about DEMONSTRATION, not TESTING. Do you even know the difference between those two?
Why don’t you invite Matthew here and prove his psychic powers for us to see for ourselves? Sure he can “heal” a few psychosomatic people here or there, but I can see that magic trick take place at hundreds of Pentecostal Born Again Believer Conventions every year. It is not at all convincing or scientifically conducted unless you are a gullible believer in that sort of stuff to begin with. What other psychic powers does Matthew have? Oh, right! He can stop poltergeist activity. Of course, it isn’t hard to “stop” something that has never been demonstrated to exist outside the minds of believers. I suppose if Orkin has guaranteed dinosaur control then Matthew is allowed to have guaranteed poltergeist control.
If this is any example of what the rest other nine names are like, you have no argument. Just because someone claims to have psychic powers or has been “tested” for psychic powers or everyone believes they have psychic powers, does not mean they can actually demonstrate any psychic powers.
April 26th, 2009 at 7:23 am
“So what does determine the statistical nature of a given phenomenon—or, better yet, the applicability of statistical science to the nature of a given phenomenon?”
Statistics is just a way to MODEL phenomenon that is chaotic, random, or unpredictable. The height of ocean waves is chaotic, a falling apple is not.
April 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Today I went to see a demonstration from a University of Alabama professor who said he is in the “vein” of James Randi. He did some card tricks and some spoon bending and then pronouned it all a hoax. Of course it was and everyone knew it. He then said since there have been NO studies remotely showing esp and he could do magic “tricks” that ESP just didn’t exist. Now I understand I’ve simplified it here but lets just say I was severly disapointed. He used all the randi arguments. The old “If ya can’t speak French ya can’t have Telekinesis between and American and a french speaking person. The old argument that since the “future” hasn’t happened you can’t predict it so it can’t be true. I think some of the research of Doctor Kaku would blow this guy away. Anyway, I’m not saying I can prove E.S.P. because quite frankly I can’t. But the same old “it can’t happen so it can’t be true.” mess of the so called skeptics is getting old.
April 26th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Scuse the typos and spelling above. It’s just that everyone sets up staw men and knocks em down. When in reality the research of people like Ian Stevenson and J.B. Rhine and Rupert Sheldrake while not entirely convincing does make it hard to buy the old “there is no research 0r evidence at all routine. Also, the links Greg shared in the last week or so to the papers (sorry Greg it’s getting late and I’m to lazy to find the exact post tonight)written by serious researchers may not prove PSI but it does prove their are valid folks out there looking into it. And they do it without silly card tricks and smirks on their faces.
April 26th, 2009 at 11:50 am
“Statistics is just a way to MODEL phenomenon that is chaotic, random, or unpredictable. The height of ocean waves is chaotic, a falling apple is not.”
OK. But what about applying statistics to the rate of falling apples in a whole orchard?
April 29th, 2009 at 2:18 am
“But what about applying statistics to the rate of falling apples in a whole orchard?”
You would be laughed out of the scientific community for applying a technique where it doesn’t apply. The only time you would use statistics for falling apples is for determining error range — not the speed of the falling apples.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:21 am
“I think some of the research of Doctor Kaku would blow this guy away”
Dr Kaku doesn’t have any research. He is an author who likes to SPECULATES on what might be, not what is.
“But the same old ‘it can’t happen so it can’t be true.’ mess of the so called skeptics is getting old”
The pursuit of truth never gets old and the truth is, it isn’t true because it never happens.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:31 am
I can take the laughs. Usually the people who laugh first are the ones who are trying to hide their own insecurity
PS: FINALLY UFO Mystic’s back!!! This is becoming disturbingly frequent, guys.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:44 am
I think Doctor Kaku can stand his own agaisnt an amauter magican. That being said maybe I didn’t make myself clear. I am a skeptic. But by skeptic I don’t mean code word for atheist. I mean an actual person who has to see it myself to beleive it. For instance (I won’t go into it here)I have had my own experiences (which I don’t try to shove down others throats)that make me consider the so called paranormal on some level. On the other hand I have never seen an alien. So I am exremely skeptical of their existence. I don’t think everyone who has had the expereince is lying. But I would have to acutally see something like that to truly beleive in it. My disapointment with the good professer last week had to do with his simple card tricks and his statements which were not “I’ve looked at the research and don’t beleive it.)But rather his sweeping “The research doesn’t exist” statements. I really don’t care if you think we go into oblivion or into Nirvana or heaven or hell. The fact is (and I know it’s a tuff one for both the fundi and the athiest)we don’t know what happens to consciness (scuse muy spellin)at death. I hope and I have my reasons to beleive that we are more than the chemicals in our bodies. But I freely admit I don’t know. Yet!
May 1st, 2009 at 8:49 am
“I can take the laughs”
You haven’t done any scientific research, so how would you know?
“Usually the people who laugh first are the ones who are trying to hide their own insecurity”
That is a nonsense philosophy, not a fact. Besides, I was speaking metaphorically, not literally.
May 1st, 2009 at 9:45 am
I don’t have to see something to know it exists. I haven’t personally seen the top of Mount Everest for myself, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suspect that you too haven’t personally seen the top of Mount Everest for yourself, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist either. Nobody has ever seen a black hole, dark matter, or cosmic strings, but does that mean none of those things exist? No, of course not. So if we both haven’t personally seen ET for ourselves, does that mean ET doesn’t exist? No, of course not. So the person that calls themself a skeptic and says they don’t believe in something because they haven’t seen it for themselves, isn’t really being a skeptic but are resorting to a logical fallacy. You cannot scientifically or logically justify a belief in something just because you have or have not seen it for yourself. On the other hand, just because you have seen something doesn’t mean it exists either — that is what delusions, illusions, and hallucinations are all about. The point is, what you or I see or do not see is not a fact, but testimony, and testimony should never be confused with an actual fact. Testimony that cannot be backed up with facts is nothing more than storytelling.
Let’s take this to the next level. So how do we know if Mount Everest exists or not, if we have not personally seen it for ourselves? Let me rephrase that…how do we know if Mount Everest exists or not, if we have not directly verified it for ourselves? I will tell you how, because there are two kinds of evidence — direct and indirect. We can know these things exist via indirect evidence. That’s because real life things interact with other real life things. So what if you wanted to see a UFO or ET for yourself? That’s a problem because no one can do that. There is no evidence, either direct or indirect. It is all based purely on faith, not fact. The logically proper thing to do when presented with a claim in a vacuum of evidence, is to disbelieve, but that would not make one a skeptic (one who disbelieves everything they have not seen for themselves), but rather a person who is skeptical of claims given in a vacuum of evidence.
Psychologically speaking, people take truth to mean ‘any idea that someone believes’. They believe that just believing in an idea makes it true, but “truths” in this sense often have little or nothing to do with facts. Facts are parts of the real world, independent of what people think or believe, independent of whether or not people know they exist, independent of whether they are accepted or not, believed or not, or even liked or not. The vast majority of the UFO community believe in the idea of storytales of UFOs, and skeptics believe in the idea of storytales of doubting everything they haven’t seen for themselves. Neither stance is truthful, factual, convincing, scientific, or logical.