SI DIGEST 6-15-98
SkeptInq@aol.com
Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:05:23 EDT
SKEPTICAL INQUIRER ELECTRONIC DIGEST
For free Digest subscriptions, go to:
<A HREF="http://www.csicop.org/list/index.html#subscribe">
http://www.csicop.org/list/index.html#subscribe</A>
June 8, 1998
SI Electronic Digest is the bi-weekly e-mail news update of the Committee for
the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP.)
Visit <A HREF="http://www.csicop.org.">http://www.csicop.org.</A>
The Digest is written and edited by Matthew Nisbet and Barry Karr. SI Digest
has over 2000 readers worldwide, and is distributed via e-mail from the
Center
for Inquiry-International, Amherst N.Y., USA.
PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO REPRINT OR RE-POST ON THE WEB. WE ENCOURAGE
TRANSLATION INTO FOREIGN LANGUAGES.
PLEASE FORWARD TO YOUR SKEPTICAL FRIENDS.
Send comments, media inquiries and news to:
SINISBET@aol.com (716-636-1425)
CSICOP publishes the bi-monthly SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, The Magazine for Science
and Reason. The May/June issue features a Special Section titled "The Alien
Files" with articles on the Roswell myth, the 1997 Roswell Air Force Report,
the Men In Black hoax, and alien abductions.
To subscribe at the $17.95 introductory price, go to:
<A HREF="http://www.csicop.org/si/subscribe/">
http://www.csicop.org/si/subscribe/</A>
Or call 1800-634-1610 (1-716-646-1425 outside the U.S.)
This week's SI DIGEST includes:
--PREVIEW: Soon to be released SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, July/August 1998
--SPECIAL: Paul Kurtz on the New Skepticism: A Worldwide Movement, Part II
--CONFERENCE: Skeptics Toolbox, University of Oregon, August 20-24, 1998
SKEPTICAL INQUIRER JULY/AUGUST 1998 PREVIEW
Subscribe at the $17.95 introductory price by going to:
<A HREF="http://www.csicop.org/si/subscribe/">http://www.csicop.org/si/subscri
be/</A>.
Call 1800-634-1610 or 716-636-1425 outside the U.S.
--SPECIAL REPORT: Mars Global Surveyor Photographs "Face on Mars"
David Morrison
In light of the April higher resolution pictures of the infamous "Face on
Mars" structure, one of NASA's top scientists updates and comments on the
lingering myth.
Morrison is the Director of Space at NASA Ames Research Center, where he
manages basic and applied research programs in the space, life, and Earth
sciences, with emphasis on astrobiology--the study of the living universe.
--COVER ARTICLE: Magnetic Therapy: Plausible Attraction?
James D. Livingston
Long considered only a component of quack medicine, magnetic therapy has
received a boost from a recent study at the Baylor College of Medicine. Is it
plausible?
Livingston now teaches in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was for more than thirty
years a physicist at General Electric's Corporate Research and Development
Center. He is the author of DRIVING FORCE: THE NATURAL MAGIC OF MAGNETS
(Harvard, 1996), a popular-science fiction book on the history, legends,
science, and technology of magnets.
--Catching Up with 18th Century Science in the Evaluation of Therapeutic
Touch
Thomas S. Ball and Dean Alexander
Eighteenth century research on Mesmer's Animal magnetism, as well as some
contemprary studies, shed light on the misattributions that underlie the
persistence of Therapeutic Touch as a movement.
Thomas S. Ball is a consultant at Foothill Community Mental Health Center in
Glendora, California, and a clinical professor of psychology at the Fuller
Graduate School of Psychology, Pasadena. Dean D. Alexander is a consultant
and staff psychologist, Lanterman Developmental Center, Pomona, California.
--Paranormal Depictions in the Media: How Do they Affect What People
Believe?
Glenn G. Sparks
Media depictions of the paranormal do seem to influence the way people think
about the subject--but the connections are more complicated than you might
think.
Sparks is in the Department of Communication, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN 47906. He conducts research on the general effects of the mass
media.
--Planting a Seed of Doubt
Elie Shneour
Skeptics should forego any thought of convincing the unconvinced that we hold
the torch of truth illuminating the darkness. A more modest, realistic, and
achievable goal is to encourage the idea that one may be mistaken. Doubt is
humbling and constructive; it leads to rational thought in weighing
alternatives and fully examining options, and it opens unlimited vistas.
Elie Shneour, a biochemist and CSICOP Fellow, is director and chief executive
officer of Biosystems Research Institute, 700 Front St., San Diego, CA
92101-6009.
COLUMNS:
NOTES OF A FRINGE WATCHER: Near-Earth Objects: Monsters of Doom?
Martin Gardner
INVESTIGATIVE FILES: Science vs. 'Shroud Science'
Joe Nickell
REVIEWS:
Paul Kurtz on E.O. Wilson's CONSILIENCE: The Unity of Knowledge (Alfred Knopf
1998)
-----------------------
SPECIAL: THE NEW SKEPTICISM: A WORLDWIDE MOVEMENT, Part II
Paul Kurtz
Kurtz is Chairman and Founder of CSICOP. A Professor Emeritus of Philosophy
at the State University of New York at Buffalo, he is the author or editor of
thirty books including _The New Skepticism_, _The Handbook of Parapsychology_
and _The Transcendental Temptation_. (
<A HREF="http://www.prometheusbooks.com/">http://www.prometheusbooks.com/</A>
)
Kurtz is considered the leading spokesperson for the international skeptical
movement, and is a well-recognized intellectual across the globe.
<A HREF="http://www.secularhumanism.org/home/kurtz/">http://www.secularhumanis
m.org/home/kurtz/</A>
In Part I (SI DIGEST 5/28/98), Kurtz reviews the founding of CSICOP, its
mission and history since 1976. Part II begins to summarize the basic
findings and conclusions that the skeptical movement has reached about
paranormal belief claims.
____________________________
Part II.
First, that the term *paranormal* itself is highly questionable. We decided
to use the term only because proponents (such as J.B. Rhine) had used it. We
doubt that it is possible to find a paranormal realm separate from or
independent of the natural universe. We are seeking normal and natural
explanations for phenomena. The best meaning of the term *paranormal* is that
there are sometimes bizarre, unexpected *anomalies* that we encounter (as
Charles Forte described them), and we are willing to examine them with an open
mind, and do not wish to reject them *a priori* and antecedent to inquiry.
Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel Prize-winner and a Fellow of CSICOP, at a conference
at the University of Colorado in 1986, observed that in one sense we deny the
paranormal entirely, because once we find that phenomena can be explained by
reference to prosaic causes, then these explanations are incorporated into the
natural scientific world-view, and are not separated from it. I reiterate, we
have an open mind and are willing to examine anomalies without prejudgment,
providing that the claims made by the proponents are responsible.
*Anecdotal reports:*
What we have found is that many reports of anomalous events are based on
anecdotal accounts. While these reports cannot be dismissed out of hand or
without a fair hearing, especially if they are seriously offered, skeptics
hold that inquirers go beyond mere anecdotes to a more systematic examination
of the phenomena. Many anecdotal narratives are based upon private
experiences, subjective and introspective in character, or upon memory of past
events, which may be unreliable, or upon second- or third-hand hearsay.
It is important that all such reports be carefully sifted through, if
possible, before they are accepted. Anecdotes may have a grain of truth and
they may bring new and important data, otherwise overlooked. On the other
hand, they may involve serious misperception or faulty memory; they may
involve stories embellished upon beyond their original meaning; or incidents
blown out of proportion to what actually happened, or the deception of the
senses colored by suggestion.
Many of these alleged anecdotes, if reported second-hand, take on the
character of gossip, folk tales, or urban legends. There is a tendency for
people who believe in the occult to read in mysterious nuances to otherwise
prosaic experiences, or to exaggerate the significance of random events. This
commonly occurs, for example, in reports of ghostly apparitions, crisis
premonitions of death, visitations by extraterrestrial beings, or the accuracy
of psychic prophecies. Skeptics ask, Did the event occur as the person states,
and is the interpretation placed on the event the most likely cause?
Unless an anecdotal account can be corroborated independently, investigators
urge caution about its authenticity. This not only applies to the truth of the
event alleged to have actually occurred, but on the occult explanation that is
imposed on it because of ignorance of the real causes.
The skeptic says that the report may or may not be true and that if it did
occur there may be alternative causal explanations to be made of it. Are we
dealing with a real event, or a misperception, hallucinatory experience,
fantasy, and/or a misinterpretation of what happened?
*Eyewitness testimony:*
The appeal to eyewitness testimony is the bedrock of our knowledge about the
world and ourselves. The data is drawn from direct first-hand experience. It
is important, however, that such testimony not be accepted on face value
without careful inspection. This is especially the case when the testimony is
about anomalous, unexpected, or bizarre events. If a person reports that it is
raining heavily outside and he supports the claim with the fact that he is
soaking wet, and if this report does not conflict with our common knowledge
about the world, it need not demand weighty evidence (though he may have been
squirted with a hose or had a bucket of water dumped on him.) We can
corroborate such claims by looking outside and/or receiving reports from other
bystanders; and/or consulting the barometer. If, on the contrary, a person
reports that it is raining pink fairies, skeptical inquirers request that his
extraordinary account be corroborated by independent and impartial observers.
Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus of the University of Washington (Fellow of
CSICOP and a speaker at its 1994 convention) has performed numerous
experiments to demonstrate the often fallible and deceptive character of
memory. She found that many bystanders at a robbery or accident often offer
conflicting reports, especially where the incident is emotionally charged.
This tendency to misperceive may be compounded when someone claims to have
seen a statue of the Virgin Mary weep or a miraculous cure by a faith healer.
Not only must the report of an observer be carefully analyzed, but the
interpretation that is placed upon it must be evaluated. Thus skeptical
inquirers ask that wherever possible there be two or more witnesses to an
event, that these witnesses be careful observers, and that what they have said
can be independently corroborated. Reports of UFO visitations are common
throughout the world, and these reports often come in waves, often depending
on sensationalistic media exploitation. The investigator asks, What did these
people really see; can these interpretations be verified? Skeptical inquirers
have sought to provide prosaic explanations for unidentified flying objects,
which are often identified as planets, meteors, weather balloons, terrestrial
rockets, aircraft, or other phenomena.
*Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence:*
This principle has been adduced for anomalous accounts. If it is the case
that a paranormal event, if confirmed, would overthrow the known laws of
science, then one would need abundant evidence to accept it. The evidence must
not be skimpy or haphazard, but so strong that its denial would require more
credulity than its acceptance. A good case has been made about psychokinesis,
that the mind can move matter without an intervening physical object or
material force, or that precognitive events can be known before they happen.
Helmut Schmidt has claimed experimental evidence that persons in the present
can retrogressively affect past events in a random generator. This unusual
anomaly would seem to violate the laws of physics, and/or it would require
that physics be revised to account for it. We would need several lines of
independent replication before we can accept the claim.
*Burden-of-proof argument:*
Some parapsychologists, such as John Beloff, have argued that the strongest
evidence for paranormal events is in the historical cases of famous mediums
and psychics. Eusapia Palladino was tested by numerous scientific bodies. Many
found that she had cheated in some cases; others could find no evidence of
cheating --- hence they attributed the event to paranormal causes.
Similarly, it is claimed that D.D. Home, a well-known medium, allegedly
floated 75 feet above a London street and performed other strange feats, and
that those feats could not be accounted for in normal terms. Beloff maintains
that unless skeptical inquirers can explain how these mediums performed what
they did in all cases, then these accounts should be accepted as veridical.
The skeptical inquirer responds that the burden of proof rests upon the
paranormal claimant. It is he who must be able to account for such cases with
sufficient evidence; unless this is done, one should suspend judgment and
remain skeptical. This is particularly the case in regard to historical
claims, where it is difficult to reconstruct the situation under which the
alleged effect occurred. That is why skeptics ask for replication in the
present before they can accept the phenomenon.
The burden-of-proof argument has been used in religion. Is a believer
entitled to believe whatever he wishes about God, unless the skeptic can
disprove His existence or demonstrate that the properties attributed to Him do
not exist? The skeptic criticizes the logic of the argument in the following
manner: If someone were to claim that mermaids exist, the burden of proof is
upon him, not the skeptic to disprove the fact.
*Look for Part III of "The New Skepticism: A Worldwide Movement" in next
week's edition of SI DIGEST*
--------------------
SKEPTICS TOOLBOX: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DECEPTION
August 20-24, University of Oregon at Eugene
To register or request more information, call 1800-634-1610 or 716-636-1425
outside the U.S.
This year's Skeptic's Toolbox will focus on scams, cons, swindles and other
deceits. We live in a world in which each person encounters thousands of
attempts to influence, persuade or manipulate him or her each day.
Manipulation by deception is sometimes done for fun but more often it is aimed
at exploiting individuals for gain of some sort. Swindles, cons, marketing,
and other attempts at persuasion and influence have much in common. One goal
of the workshop is to look at the features common to all persuasion and
influence practices.
We will examine in detail some examples of successful swindles and cons in a
variety of domains such as medicine, art, literature, science, warfare,
gambling and--of course--the paranormal. Studying such scams has intrinsic
interest. An added bonus for skeptics is that the understanding of successful
persuasion can help us in our quest to protect people from accepting as real
ideas and systems that lack adequate support. We hope to make headway towards
generating a theory--or theories--about why cons, scams, and swindles succeed.
Speakers:
Wallace Sampson
Editor, Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine
<A HREF="http://www.hcrc.org/sram/">http://www.hcrc.org/sram/</A>
Professor, Stanford University
CSICOP Fellow
Jerry Andrus
Magician, inventor, inconoclast
CSICOP Fellow
Barry Beyerstein
Professor of Psychology
Simon Fraser University
Member of CSICOP's Executive Council
Ray Hyman
Professor of Psychology
University of Oregon
Member of CSICOP's Executive Council
Loren Pankratz
Clinical Psychologist
Oregon Health Sciences University
CSICOP Fellow
Schedule
Thursday, August 20
2-5pm Registration
7-10pm Dinner and Welcome, The Con Game
9-10:15 A Catalog of Scams, Swindles, Hoaxes, and Other Deceits
10:45-12:00pm Medical Scams
2:00-3:15 More Medical Scams: The Drug-seeker as Con Man
3:45-5:00 Gambling Scams and Sucker Bets
7-10pm Optical Illusions, Videos and Informal Discussion
Saturday, August 22
9-10:15 Scams and Science: By Scientists, of Scientist, etc.
10:45-12:00 pm Hoaxes, Pratical Jokes, and Pranks
2:00-3:15pm Investments, Advertisings, and Money Scams
3:45-5:00 pm Paranormal and Occult Scams
7-10:00 pm Informal Discussions, Videos, and Illusions
Sunday August 23
9-10:15am Scams in Art, Fiction, etc.
10:45-12:00 pm Self-Deception
2:00-3:15 Scams in Warfare, Politics, etc.
3:45-5:00 pm The Literature of Scams, Cons, and Swindles
7:00-10pm Dinner and Close-up Magic
Monday, August 24
9-12 Wrap up and Feedback: A Theory of Deception?