. . . About Pseudoscience
and Fringe Science

In the Name of Science (1952), republished as Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (1957)

Science: Good, Bad and Bogus (1981, 1983, 1989)

How Not to Test a Psychic

The New Age: Notes of a Fringe Watcher* (1998, 1991)

On the Wild Side* (1992)

Weird Water and Fuzzy Logic* (1996)

Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?* (2000)

The Jinn from Hyperspace* (2008)

When You Were a Tadpole and I Was a Fish* (2009)

*In part, collections of his SI columns,

. . . About Science

Relativity for the Million

The Ambidextrous Universe

The New Ambidextrous Universe

Great Essays in Science (ed.)

. . . On Other Topics

Mathematics, Magic, and Mystery

The Scientific American Book of Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions

The Annotated Alice

The Annotated Ancient Mariner

Aha! Insight

The Sixth Book of Mathematical Games from Scientific American

Mathematical Carnival

Aha! Gotcha

Order and Surprise

The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener

The Magic Numbers of Dr. Matrix

Knotted Doughnuts and Other Mathematical Entertainments

The No-Sided Professor (short stories)

The Wreck of the Titanic Foretold? (ed.)

Time Travel and Other Mathematical Bewilderments

Gardner’s Whys and Wherefores

Penrose Tiles to Trapdoor Ciphers

The Healing Revelations of Mary Baker Eddy

Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery

The Universe in a Handkerchief

The Center for Inquiry Libraries at CFI’s headquarters in Amherst, New York, have approximately twelve linear feet of papers donated by Martin Gardner. The papers are arranged as created by Gardner himself: three drawers of materials are organized alphabetically by name; the remaining drawers are organized by topic, including all the various fields of skepticism, the paranormal, religious criticism, etc. Approximately 450 books are similarly categorized. No books or papers concerning Gardner’s mathematical interests or his Scientific American columns are located at the Center, unless they relate to the above topics.

Martin Gardner, the polymath writer, critic, and skeptic who is widely regarded as the father of modern skepticism, died May 22, 2010, in Norman, Oklahoma, at the age of ninety-five. He helped found our Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (then CSICOP) and wrote for this magazine since its inception. (His final “Notes of a Fringe Watcher” column appears on page 10.) Throughout his life, Gardner wrote knowledgeably about an astonishing range of topics with a combination of clarity, wit, and critical intelligence that delighted readers worldwide. Those who knew him regarded him as a dear friend, a modest man, and a national intellectual treasure. In a celebration of his life, writings, and mind, we here present invited tributes from a number of noted skeptics and scholars. We begin with two of his closest friends and colleagues, Ray Hyman and James Randi. Like him, they were founding fellows of CSICOP and original and longtime members of its executive council.

—The Editor

Exposing Crackpots and Charlatans

ROBERT CARROLL

Martin Gardner’s writings on the paranormal and pseudoscience profoundly influenced a generation of writers, including me, as can be seen by the many references to his works in The Skeptic’s Dictionary. He introduced us to a bizarre world populated by the likes of L. Ron Hubbard, Rudolf Steiner, Edgar Cayce, Bridey Murphy, and a host of other characters on the fringe. He taught us that crackpots and charlatans are dangerous. They should not be ignored but instead thoroughly exposed for what they are by detailed critical analysis.

My introduction to Gardner was through his Scientific American column on brain teasers and logic puzzles. When he gave up writing that brilliant and much-missed column, Douglas Hofstadter picked up the mantle. My obsession with Gardner’s writings on the paranormal and pseudoscience began after reading a Hofstadter column titled “World Views in Collision: The Skeptical Inquirer versus the National Inquirer.” Hofstadter’s panegyric to CSICOP and SI is one of the seminal essays in the history of scientific skepticism. Every skeptic should keep it at the ready for inspiration and revitalization. (The essay, reprinted in Hofstadter’s Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern, includes an account of Gardner’s split with Marcello Truzzi over how best to deal with Immanuel Velikovsky and other pseudoscientists.)

Hofstadter’s essay inspired many teachers to become followers of SI, which inevitably led us to become followers of Martin Gardner’s many inquiries. In fact, many of us became somewhat fanatical about our inquiries into what Gardner called “wild beliefs.” We can’t stop investigating and writing about them. Thanks to Martin Gardner, James Randi, and others of like spirit, we won’t be quiet until the last bit of bogus science is buried with the last charlatan claiming paranormal or supernatural powers.

Robert Carroll is emeritus professor of philosophy at Sacramento City College and creator of The Skeptic’s Dictionary Web site. He is a CSI fellow.

Visits to Martin

BRYAN FARHA

It was serendipitous that Oklahoma City University (where I teach) brought in James Randi to speak several years ago. While here, Randi asked me to take him to visit his beloved friend, Martin, in nearby Norman, Oklahoma. Martin had been in an assisted living center there since 2002. Randi introduced us, and this began my personal connection to Martin.

Since that day, I periodically visited Martin in his room. Two visits stand out. On one occasion the visit was professionally motivated because an author asked me to interview Martin for his book. About midway through, Martin turned the tables and he became the interviewer. I was surprised at his sudden interest in me. What stood out most was his inquiring about my beliefs and view of religion—just before I was going to ask him similar questions on the same subject. He sensed my frustration in not knowing exactly how to “label” my beliefs. After giving him a lengthy explanation, he said, “I know how to label your beliefs.” He continued, “You’re a philosophical theist, like me.” It was great to finally be able to concretize my position. Until that time, I really didn’t know what to call it. When my interview of Martin concluded, I went home and immediately Googled the term. The first thing I found was
a Wikipedia definition. The end of the entry now states, “Martin Gardner (1914–2010) was a contemporary defender of philosophical theism.” It was obvious Martin knew what he was talking about.

The other visit that stood out was personally motivated; I took my nine-year-old nephew, Cole, to meet this extraordinary man. Martin amazed Cole with visual illusions, which were displayed throughout his room. Particularly eye-catching to Cole was the “Paper Dragon” illusion—designed for a special gathering honoring Martin. He had a very effective way of using entertainment as an educational tool. It certainly worked for Cole. Although Cole may not have had a full appreciation for the magnitude of Martin’s brilliance, one day he will.

As close as my proximity to Martin was, I’m sorry I didn’t visit him more often—my loss. I’ve had many favorite issues of the Skeptical Inquirer over the years. I suspect this issue will climb to the top of my list.

Bryan Farha is a professor at Oklahoma City University, where he coordinates the graduate program in applied behavioral studies, and is editor of Paranormal Claims: A Critical Analysis.

The Connoisseur of Paradox

JOHN ALLEN PAULOS

A connoisseur of paradox, Martin Gardner had a fittingly paradoxical career. Although he majored in philosophy and took no mathematics courses after high school, he probably did more to stimulate an appreciation for, curiosity about, and discussion of mathematical ideas than scores of us mathematics professors.

I remember reading his books on recreational math as an undergraduate and being eager to explain the puzzles in them to whoever would listen. In a couple of cases I even used them to win small bets. Over the years we exchanged a couple of book blurbs, a benign log(arithm)-rolling that was a signal honor for me, and we also corresponded a bit about his novel The Art of Peter Fromm and other topics, jokes in particular. Once he sent me a letter with some quite funny, quite non-G-rated examples. Later, in the Scientific American, he published a very elegant illustration of a religious hoax I proposed based on Kruskal’s theorem.

His interests ranged from Lewis Carroll and the philosophy of mathematics to scientific hoaxes and popular culture. Even in his last essay for the Skeptical Inquirer (March/April 2010) published in his lifetime, he took on Oprah Winfrey’s pseudo-cures. A modest man, a clear-eyed skeptic, and an expositor extraordinaire, he was a cogent beacon of sanity to the end.

John Allen Paulos is professor of mathematics at Temple University and author of such books as Innumeracy, A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper, and Once Upon a Number. He is a CSI fellow.

Characterizing the Hermit Scientist

SCOTT O. LILIENFELD

I had been deeply interested in scientific skepticism for a solid fifteen years before I read Martin Gardner’s classic book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, first published as In the Name of Science in 1952. In fact, for quite some time I had resisted reading it. No book that old, I assumed, could possibly offer much to us today. Moreover, I thought, Gardner’s examples must surely be outdated.

Nothing, I soon discovered, could be further from the truth. Indeed, on finally reading Fads and Fallacies, I was amazed by how fresh and relevant it is to modern skepticism—and to the psychology of pseudoscience. As all dedicated skeptics know, in this book Gardner delineated the core characteristics of the “hermit scientist,” whom we might regard as the prototypical pseudoscientist. For Gardner, the hermit scientist (1) “considers himself as a genius,” (2) “regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads,” (3) “believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against,” (4) “has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best established theories,” and (5) “has a tendency to write in complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.”

These psychological attributes ring as true today as they did nearly sixty years ago. Although some of the lyrics of the song may have changed (Hollow Earthers, orgone theorists, and Lyksenkoists are no longer central foci of skeptical inquiry), the music hasn’t. In contemporary psychological lingo, we might say that Gardner hit upon many of the features of pseudoscientists that predispose them to confirmation bias: the tendency to seek out evidence consistent with one’s hypotheses and to deny, dismiss, or distort evidence that isn’t. When one reads Gardner’s twenty-five remarkable case studies of thinking gone haywire, it is not difficult to discern a common thread running through their enormous surface diversity: the persistent refusal of proponents of pseudoscience to allow contrary evidence to penetrate their web of beliefs. More than anything else, Gardner’s first book is a powerful cautionary tale of the perils of intellectual hubris.

I regard Fads and Fallacies as the most significant work in the history of scientific skepticism, as its message remains every bit as pertinent to the vexing problem of pseudoscience today as it was in the 1950s. Gardner’s passing gives all of us an opportunity not only to mourn the loss of one of the founders of the modern skeptical movement but to revisit the wisdom and insights he imparted so many years ago.

Scott O. Lilienfeld is professor of psychology at Emory University, editor in chief of The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, and lead author of 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology. He is a CSI fellow and SI consulting editor.

The Friend I Never Met

CHRISTOPHER C. FRENCH

I never had the pleasure of meeting Martin Gardner, but I feel as if I have known him as a friend for decades. Over a long and prolific career, he published over seventy books and countless newspaper and magazine articles. These include his regular column for the Skeptical Inquirer, “Notes of a Fringe Watcher,” which ran for almost twenty years and his “Mathematical Games” column, which ran in Scientific American for some twenty-five years.

I cannot claim to have read everything that this great man ever wrote, of course, but I may well have more books on my bookshelves written by him than by any other author. When I try to think back to the first publication of his that I ever read, I simply cannot remember which one it was. Memory is a funny thing, as Martin Gardner well knew, and it feels to me as if his books have been in my life for as long as I can remember, like those really good friends that we all take for granted.

By a process of deduction, I can work out that I must have read his collections of recreational mathematics columns from Scientific American, published under such titles as Mathematical Circus, many years before I read his skeptical classic Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. The former books entertained and educated me. They made math fun—at least for a self-professed nerd like me!

But Fads and Fallacies had a much more profound impact on me than those stimulating collections of brainteasers. It was one of the first books on skepticism that I read, along with James Randi’s Flim-Flam! and The Truth About Uri Geller and David Marks and Richard Kammann’s The Psychology of the Psychic. The truth is, dear reader, that until well into early adulthood I was . . . well, I guess I have to come clean . . . a believer in the paranormal! The book that actually opened my eyes to the wonderful world of skepticism was James Alcock’s Parapsychology: Science or Magic?, but I quickly followed that excellent volume with the skeptical works of Gardner, Randi, Marks, and Kammann.

One thing is notable about all five of these books: they have all withstood the test of time wonderfully. Indeed, all five are still on reading lists for the course on anomalistic psychology that I teach as part of the BSc Psychology program at Goldsmiths College, University of London (along with lots of more recent texts, of course!). But it should be borne in mind that all of those classics but one were written in the early 1980s. Fads and Fallacies is now well over half a century old and is still well worth reading. It is, of course, somewhat depressing that most of the fads so devastatingly critiqued in this wonderful volume are still going strong today.

Through these works and others (notably, Science: Good, Bad and Bogus and the delightful Annotated Alice books), I felt that I did know Martin Gardner even though I never actually met him. I would like to have met him. I am sure I would have liked him. Like thousands of other fans around the globe, I will miss him.

It is not at all amusing when people are misled by scientific claptrap.

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (Dover), p. 6

There is a type of self-styled scientist who can legitimately be called a crank. It is not the novelty of his views or the neurotic motivation behind his work that provide the grounds for calling him this. The grounds are the technical criteria by which theories are evaluated. If a man persists in advancing views that are contradicted by all available evidence, and which offer no reasonable grounds for serious consideration, he will rightfully be dubbed a crank by colleagues.

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, p. 8

The modern pseudoscientist . . . stands entirely outside the closely integrated channels through which new ideas are closely integrated and evaluated. He works in isolation.

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, p. 11

Even when a pseudoscientific theory is completely worthless there is a certain educational value in refuting it.

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, p. 321

I’m not sure why I enjoy debunking. Part of it surely is amusement over the follies of true believers, and [it is] partly because attacking bogus science is a painless way to learn good science. You have to know something about relativity theory, for example, to know where opponents of Einstein go wrong. . . . Another reason for debunking is that bad science contributes to the steady dumbing down of our nation. Crude beliefs get transmitted to political leaders and the result is considerable damage to society.

“A Mind at Play,” interview in the Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 1998, p.36–37

Although “debunker” is often considered a pejorative term, I do not find it so. A major purpose of Skeptical Inquirer has always been to debunk the most outrageous claims of bogus science. I make no apologies for being a debunker. I believe it is the duty of both scientists and science writers to keep exposing the errors of bad science.

Did Adam and Eve Have Navels? (W.W. Norton), p. 2

For every example of a crank who later became a hero there were thousands of cranks who forever remained cranks.

Science: Good, Bad and Bogus (Prometheus), p. xiii

Cranks by definition believe their theories and charlatans do not, but this does not prevent a person from being both a crank and a charlatan.

Science: Good, Bad and Bogus, p. xiv

In discussing extremes of unorthodoxy in science I consider it a waste of time to give rational arguments. Those who are in agreement do not need to be educated about such trivial matters, and trying to enlighten those who disagree is like trying to write on water. . . . For these reasons, when writing about extreme eccentricities of science, I have adopted H.L. Mencken’s sage advice: one horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms.

Science: Good, Bad and Bogus,pp. xv, xvi

I cannot recall when or why I first became interested in pseudoscience. . . . Not being a scientist, but only a science journalist, I have always been intrigued by fringe science, perhaps for the same reason that I enjoy freak shows at carnivals and circuses. Pseudoscientists, especially the extreme cranks, are fascinating creatures for psychological study. Moreover, I have found that one of the best ways to learn something about any branch of science is to find out where its crackpots go wrong.

On the Wild Side (Prometheus), p. 7

As all magicians know, physicists are among the easiest people in the world to be fooled by magic tricks. They are so used to working with Mother Nature, who never cheats, that when confronted with the task of testing a psychic charlatan they have no comprehension of how to set up adequate controls. . . . Am I saying that all psychic researchers should be trained in magic, or seek the aid of magicians, before they test miracle workers? That is exactly what I am saying. The most eminent scientist, untrained in magic, is putty in the hands of a clever charlatan.

“Lessons of a Landmark PK Hoax,” Gardner’s first Skeptical Inquirer column, Summer 1983, p. 18; reprinted as “Project Alpha” in The New Age (Prometheus), 1991 paperback edition

I like to think I am unduly harsh and dogmatic only when writing about a pseudoscience that is far out on the continuum that runs from good science to bad, and when I am expressing the views of all the experts in the relevant field. Where there are areas on the fringes of orthodoxy, supported by respected scientists, I try to be more agnostic.

“A Mind at Play,” interview in the Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 1998, p. 37

Finding 666 in the names of famous people is a number-twiddling pastime that has obsessed numerologists ever since the Book of Revelation was written. With patience and ingenuity it is not difficult to extract 666 from almost any person’s name. For example, using Blevins’s Bible code, I discovered that sun, moon, and Pat J. Buchanan each adds to 666. The same code yields 666 if you apply it to Hal Lindsey B, the B standing, of course, for Beast.

“The Second Coming of Jesus,” “Notes of a Fringe Watcher” column, Skeptical Inquirer, January/February 2000, p. 11

The steady expansion of scientific knowledge is one of the few aspects of human history—perhaps the only aspect—about which we can say dogmatically that genuine progress takes place. Moreover, the progress itself progresses. The expansion occurs with steadily increasing rapidity.

The Ambidextrous Universe (Scribner), preface to the Second Edition

I continue to be amazed that any professional mathematician would suppose that mathematics has no reality apart from human cultures. I am even more astounded that there actually are physicists who think the moon would not be “out there” if no one (not even a mouse? Einstein liked to ask) observed it.

The Jinn from Hyperspace (Prometheus), introduction to Ch. 9, “A Defense of Platonic Realism,” p. 93

If God or the gods, or the Old One (as Einstein liked to call Everything), had a transcendent reason for bringing us into existence, what does it matter whether the first man and woman were formed in one day from the dust of the ground, as Genesis has it, or evolved over billions of years from the dust of a primeval fireball? The fact that we are here proves that we derive, in some crazy sense, from the fireball, and I for one find this more miraculous than the Genesis story.

A review of Steven Weinberg’s book, The First Three Minutes, reprinted in Order and Surprise (Prometheus), p. 319

For as long as I can remember I have been impressed, perhaps overwhelmed is more accurate, by the vastness of the universe and the even greater vastness of the darkness that extends beyond the farthest frontiers of scientific knowledge.

The Night Is Large: Collected Essays 1938—1995 (St. Martin’s Press), p. xvii

We are all little children walking down a road of yellow brick in a crazy, outlandish, Ozzy sort of world. We know that wisdom, love, and courage are essential virtues, but like Dorothy we cannot decide whether it is best to seek for better brains (our electronic computers grow more powerful every year!) or for kinder, more loving hearts.

Introduction to the 1960 Dover edition of The Wonderful Wizard of Ozby L. Frank Baum

Martin Gardner quotes compiled by Kendrick Frazier

LOS ANGELES, October 24—A study was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine claiming that prayers from the USA, Canada, and Australia caused a 100% increase in pregnancy rates among infertility patients in Korea. The surprising results announced by Kwang Cha and associates were widely reported in the news media, including on the ABC news program Good Morning America. However, the study’s credibility was undermined when one of the co-authors, Daniel Wirth, was arrested by the FBI and later pled guilty to fraud. Cha’s other co-author, Columbia University’s Rogerio Lobo, later revealed that he had not participated in the research and withdrew his name from the published findings. Even with one of his co-authors in federal prison and the other disgraced, Korean fertility specialist Kwang Yul Cha stood by the allegedly supernatural study. He eventually filed a defamation lawsuit against Bruce Flamm, a California physician who had published several articles questioning the validity of the Cha/Wirth “pregnancy by prayer” report. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in August 2007, was thrown out of court in April 2008. However, in June 2008 Cha took the case to the California Appellate Court. Today the Court of Appeals “affirmed in full” the Superior Court decision and thus ruled that Superior Court Judge James Dunn had acted appropriately in tossing out the lawsuit.

In response to the ruling, Dr. Flamm issued the following statement: “Today’s ruling is a victory for science and evidence-based medicine. Scientists must be allowed to question bizarre claims. Cha’s mysterious study was designed and allegedly conducted by a man who turned out to be a criminal with a 20-year history of fraud. A criminal who steals the identities of dead children to obtain bank loans and passports is not a trustworthy source of research data. Cha could have simply admitted this obvious fact but instead he hired a team of lawyers to punish me for voicing my opinions. Physicians should debate their opinions in medical journals, not in courts of law. Judges have better things to do with their time and taxpayers have better things to do with their money.”

Dr. Flamm is a physician with Kaiser Permanente and a Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of California. He has been the senior investigator on numerous medical studies and has written several books and book chapters.

For more information contact: Janice Goings: 951-288-0937 jangoings@aol.com

James Randi received the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s In Praise of Reason Award “in recognition of his distinguished contribution to the use of critical inquiry, scientific evidence, and reason in evaluating claims to knowledge.”

As everyone knows, Randi has for decades been a tireless and charismatic critical investigator of those who claim paranormal powers, forthrightly challenging them to undergo testing under controlled conditions and exposing those who intentionally deceive others. He also has been an effective educator of the scientific and skeptical communities about the need to understand the methods magicians use to deceive, so as not to be deceived themselves by pretenders to psychic powers.  

Paul Kurtz, founder and chairman of CSI, presented the award to Randi, noting that it is granted only to “outstanding contributors to rational inquiry and scientific thinking.” He noted that Randi was one of the original founders of CSI and is “a leading critic of people who engage in chicanery and fraud.” He praised Randi for his application of reason to concrete cases. “Your greatest quality is that you are an educator, a teacher. You have shown that the easiest people to deceive are PhDs, a great insight to all of us. You expose myths and hoaxes.... You stand out in history.”

Lawrence M. Krauss received the Center for Inquiry’s Scholarship in the Public Interest Award “in recognition of his outstanding contributions in defense of scientific inquiry and on behalf of improving the public’s understanding and appreciation of science.”

Krauss, a leading theoretical physicist at the interface of particle physics and cosmology and also an author of popular science books (The Physics of Star Trek, Fear of Physics, Hiding in the Mirror) recently moved from Case Western Reserve University to Arizona State University. There he is Foundation Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration, director of the Origins Initiative, and co-director of the Cosmology Initiative. Krauss is one of science’s most effective spokesmen. In his frequent public appearances and articles and op-ed columns in major newspapers and magazines he defends good science and warns against the politicization of science. He has been a strong and effective opponent of creationist efforts to dilute the teaching of science.

Ronald Lindsay, CEO and president of the Center for Inquiry, presented the award to Krauss. “No one can match Lawrence Krauss’s tireless efforts on behalf of the public understanding of science,” he said. “He is one of the few prominent scientists to successfully bridge the chasm between science and popular culture.”

Paul Kurtz, founder and chairman of the Center for Inquiry and of its affiliate organizations the Council for Secular Humanism and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, received a special lifetime achievement award from the Center for Inquiry. Named The Eupraxsopher Award, it was given for his extraordinary leadership in the causes of humanism and scientific skepticism, his lifetime of accomplishment, and his moral and ethical guidance. The award is named for a term Kurtz himself coined, from Greek roots for “good/well,” “conduct/practice,” and “scientific and philosophic wisdom.” He defines eupraxsophy as “a set of convictions and practices offering a cosmic outlook and an ethical guide to life.”

Kendrick Frazier, editor of the Skeptical Inquirer and a board member of both the Center for Inquiry and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, presented the award to Kurtz. He noted that were it not for Kurtz none of the organizations represented at the congress would exist, and the worldwide movements they spawned would likely never have occurred. Frazier praised Kurtz as “truly, one of the world’s extraordinary persons.” He noted that Kurtz is a unique and remarkable combination of philosopher, scholar, and intellectual; author/editor of more than forty books in philosophy, humanism, and skepticism; founder of a major book publisher (Prometheus Books); creator and organizer of a network of nonprofit organizations advancing humanism and scientific skepticism; an international diplomat who attracts and welcomes diverse people from nations around the world; and an inspiring leader with extraordinary vision and courage.

Lawrence Krauss Received CFI's Scholarship in the Public Interest Award.

“He stresses not negativism but the affirming values of humanism and skepticism.... He has lived life to its fullest, with exuberance and extraordinary service to others. By elucidating, living, and advancing strong missions, ethical credos, and causes greater than ourselves, he inspires us all to try somehow to do the same.”

At a conference luncheon a day earlier, Paul Kurtz was also presented with an award from the National Capital Area Skeptics. NCAS President Scott Snell, who works at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, presented Kurtz with NCAS’s Phillip J. Klass Award “for outstanding contributions in promoting critical thinking and scientific understanding.” The award honored Kurtz as “the person most responsible for the modern organized skeptical movement that coalesced in the mid-1970s,” which included founding CSICOP (now CSI) and the Skeptical Inquirer.

“It was CSICOP’s eminent coalition of physical and social scientists, medical doctors, magicians, historians, journalists, and others, assembled and energized by Kurtz’s dynamic leadership and far-sighted vision, that ushered in the modern age of scientific skepticism,” said NCAS’s award statement. “Much is owed Kurtz as well for the formation of independent local skeptics groups like NCAS. Under his leadership CSICOP published a call for forming such groups and provided them with invaluable guidance and material support to connect with other skeptics in their community and to organize.”

According to Editor Alejandro Borgo, though Pensar was well-received during its five-year run, the magazine was unable to achieve the subscription and distribution levels needed to maintain publication. The rising cost of paper, printing, and postage—combined with the global economic recession—finally made Pensar too costly to maintain in its current form. The Pensar editorial staff and writers expressed their appreciation to readers for their support and are looking for ways to keep some of the material in circulation.

The Council for Secular Humanism (a sister organization to our Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) made some headlines in February with a report released to the national media calling into question many of the findings contained in a widely cited Baylor University Religion Survey of 2008. Baylor, a Baptist university, claimed in its survey that America is as religious as it has always been, adding that belief in religion is a universal characteristic displayed by all peoples around the world. Baylor researchers recently published their findings in a book called What Americans Really Believe (Baylor University Press, 2008).

The CSH report, “Is the Baylor Religion Study Reliable?” (PDF), contradicts these claims, suggesting that Baylor and lead researcher Rodney Stark may have improperly evaluated the data and consequently misinformed the public and the media.

The Council’s report points to a growing body of research by academic institutions and major survey organizations that clearly documents a downward shift of religious adherence in the United States. Why does the Baylor study contradict this? Independent scholar Gregory S. Paul, author of the Council’s report and author of a major article on these matters in Free Inquiry (December 2008/January 2009) says that Baylor relied on a flawed methodology.

“The Baylor team has adopted a curious way of treating atheism, forms of unbelief short of atheism, and religious belief. This approach places a disproportionate emphasis on convinced atheism—the confident rejection that a personal God exists—at the expense of more moderate forms of nontheism,” said Paul. The report suggests that Baylor has failed to document large numbers of Americans who reject conventional religious beliefs, such as those who self-define as agnostic or “spiritual but not religious.” The Council’s report declares that “Baylor’s methods largely ignore these doubters, making nonbelief appear less prevalent in society than it truly is. The Baylor team treats almost any deviation from strict atheism as a sign of religiosity. Doing so falsely maximizes the apparent level of faith.”

The United States is still the most religious country in the First World, but the Baylor thesis that “‘faith American style’ is holding its own is clearly false,” states the report. “Religious belief and activity in America are trending downward in so many ways that it is simply untenable to pretend that the nation is growing more religious.”

A local Stephenville newspaper reported the story on January 10, and a public affairs officer for the Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve Base at Carswell Field, sixty nautical miles away, was quoted as saying, “There were no F-16s from this unit operating.” (That proved to be wrong.) The national media picked up the story about the lights, and it was featured on Larry King Live on January 18.

Astronomer (and retired Air Force pilot) James McGaha (see the accompanying “The Trained Observer” piece) investigated. On January 17, he contacted the Federal Aviation Admin­istration and asked if any aircraft that night had entered the Brownwood Military Operating Areas (MOAs). These MOAs begin ten miles southwest of Stephenville—a 3,200-square-mile area used for military aviation training. The FAA informed McGaha on January 18 that a group of four F-16s from the 457th Fighter Squadron entered the operating area at 6:17 pm local time. A second group of four F-16s entered the same area at 6:26 pm. They departed at 6:54 and 6:58, respectively. The time the aircraft were flying in the MOA accords with the time of the sightings.

On January 18 McGaha contacted the 301st Fighter Wing Public Affairs Office and asked if they made a mistake in saying their aircraft had not been in the MOA that night. They called him back and informed him of their error. On January 23, they issued a press release publicly acknowledging the error, stating that F-16s had indeed been flying in the MOA that evening.

What were the aircraft doing? McGaha says they were flying training maneuvers that involved dropping extraordinarily bright flares. The LUU/2B/B flare is nothing like the standard flares you might think of. These flares have an illumination of about two million candlepower. They are intended to light up a vast area of the ground for nighttime aerial attack. Once released, they are suspended by parachutes (which often hover and even rise due to the heat of the flares) and light up a circle on the ground greater than one kilometer for four minutes. The flare casing and parachute are eventually consumed by the heat. At a distance of 150 miles, a single flare can still be as bright as the planet Venus.

McGaha also describes the testimony of a medical helicopter pilot, a retired U.S. Army pilot, flying that night, who saw the lights. He said: “I saw multiple military aircraft, with some dropping flares, in the area of the Brownwood 1 MOA.”

Much mischief was caused by a Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) report on the incident issued on July 4, 2008. MUFON members tend to promote the idea that UFOs are real and in fact are extraterrestrial spacecraft. The seventy-six-page report is mostly an analysis of FAA “raw” radar returns for the period in question, plus eight eyewitness reports.

These raw data contain 2.5 million points of noise and scatter. MUFON’s report selected just 187 of these points to contend that radar had tracked a huge “object” at least 524 feet in size, traveling near the Western White House (the Bush ranch, which is fifty miles southeast of Stephenville). “MUFON’s radar analysis is nothing more than cherry picking the 187 targets out of 2.5 million points of noise and scatter to make a track moving forty-nine mph for over one hour,” says McGaha. “This analysis is absurd!”

Some MUFON witnesses described “very bright lights similar to the intensity of burning magnesium” and said they saw flares dropped from aircraft. Others said such things as “these were not any known aircraft” and the objects were stationary at times but also “moved at a very high rate of speed.” But these witnesses were not trained observers, McGaha says. “How did they know the altitude, velocity, size, and distance of an unknown object?”

There were lights in the sky, McGaha concludes. “There were F-16s flying in the Brownwood MOAs, and they did drop flares. The F-16s did not react to any unknown targets, and radar did not detect any unknown targets.”

“The untrained witnesses/observers were seeing nothing more than F-16s and flares. Stephenville is nothing more than connecting ‘lights in the sky’ to form a very large mysterious object, an object that many that night thought was from another world. But nothing otherworldly happened around Stephenville on January 8, 2008,” says McGaha.