Background

Sci.skeptic is for those who are skeptical about claims of the paranormal to meet with those who believe in the paranormal. In this way the paranormalists can expose their ideas to scientific scrutiny, and if there is anything in these ideas then the skeptics might learn something.

However this is a very wide area, and some of the topics covered might be better kept in their own newsgroups. In particular the evolution vs. creation debate is best kept in talk.origins. General New Age discussions belong in talk.religion.newage. Strange "Heard it on the grapevine" stories belong on alt.folklore.urban, which discusses such things as vanishing hitchhikers and the Everlasting Lightbulb conspiracy. Serious conspiracy theories should be kept on alt.conspiracy, and theories about the assassination of President Kennedy should be kept on alt.conspiracy.jfk. CROSS-POSTING from these groups is NOT APPRECIATED by the majority of sci.skeptic readers.

The discussion of a topic in this FAQ is not an attempt to have the final word on the subject. It is simply intended to answer a few common questions and provide a basis for discussion of common topics.

Conversely, the omission of a topic from this FAQ does not indicate that the topic is not suitable for sci.skeptic. It just means that it has not been discussed recently. If you want to start a thread on it then go ahead.

0.2: What is sci.skeptic not for?

The scope of sci.skeptic extends into any area where hard evidence can be obtained, but does not extend into speculation. So religious arguments about the existence of God are out of place here (take them to alt.atheism or talk.religion.*). On the other hand discussion about miracles is to be welcomed, since this is an issue where evidence can be obtained.

Topics that have their own groups should be taken to the appropriate group. See the previous answer for a partial list.

Also out of place are channelled messages from aliens. If your channelled message contains testable facts then post those. Otherwise we are simply not interested. Take it to alt.alien.visitors.

The posting of large articles (>200 lines) is not a way to persuade people. See the section on "closed minded skeptics" below for some reasons for this. I suggest you summarise the article and offer to mail copies to anyone who is interested.

Sci.skeptic is not an abuse group. There is a regrettable tendency for polite discussion here to degenerate into ad-hominem flames about who said what to whom and what they meant. PLEASE DO NOT FLAME. You won't convince anyone. Rather the opposite.

0.3: What is CSICOP? What's their address?

CSICOP stands for the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal". They publish a quarterly magazine called The Skeptical Inquirer. Their address is:

Skeptical Inquirer,
Box 703,
Buffalo, NY 14226-9973.

Tel. 716-636-1425 voice, 716-636-1733 fax. Email: info@csicop.org (for information requests to CSICOP)
letters@csicop.org (to send a letter to the editor of _Skeptical Inquirer_ magazine)

Note that this is a new address.

Europeans should contact:

Mike Hutchinson,
10 Crescent View,
Loughton, Essex IG10 4PZ

Internet: Mike@hutch.demon.co.uk
Compuserve: 100023.2355@CompuServe.com
Telephone: +44 81 508 2989

CSICOP should not be confused with the Skeptics Society (2761 N. Marengo Ave. Altadena, CA 91001). They are separate organisations, although there is some overlap with CSICOP. The Skeptics Society publishes Skeptic four times a year, and it's currently up to almost 100 pages/issue, full-size magazine format. Circulation is up to around 8000, and climbing rapidly. (It far outsells Skeptical Inquirer on the newsstands, but has a much smaller base of subscribers.)

0.4: What is "Prometheus"?

Prometheus Books is a publisher specialising in skeptical books. Their address is:

Prometheus Books
59 John Glenn Drive,
Buffalo, NY 14215-9918

Phone (800)-421-0351.
Fax (716)-691-0137.
URL: http://www/cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/toby/prometheus/index.html

Mike Hutchinson is also the European agent for Prometheus. See 0.3 for contact details.

0.5: Who are some prominent skeptics?

James "The Amazing" Randi is a professional stage magician who spends much time and money debunking paranormal claims. He used to offer a reward of $10,000 (briefly augmented to $100,000 by a TV company some years ago) to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal powers under controlled conditions. Unfortunately he has had to exhaust that fund to pay legal expenses in the series of lawsuits that have been brought against him since 1988. Anyone who wants to contribute to his defense can do so via:

The James Randi Fund
3555 West Reno Street
Suite L
Las Vegas, NV U.S.A. 89118

Checks should be made payable to The Randi Fund.

The lawsuit by Geller against Randi has now finished. Geller was ordered to pay costs of $150,000. However he has not yet done so, and Randi is still in debt for his legal costs. There is a mailing list for updates on the situation, which originates from the account <geller-hotline@ssr.com>. [To subscribe, you should probably send mail to <geller-hotline-request@ssr.com>.] James Randi can also be reached directly at <76702.3507@compuserve.com>, and has a Web page at <h ttp://www.best.com/~ragaisis/randi/randi.html#62

Martin Gardner is an author, mathematician and amateur stage magician who has written several books dealing with paranormal phenomena, including Science: Good, Bad and Bogus and Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.

Philip J. Klass retired after thirty-five years as a Senior Editor of Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, specializing in avionics. He is a founding fellow of CSICOP, and was named a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). He has won numerous awards for his technical journalism. His principal books are:

UFO Abductions, A Dangerous Game (Prometheus, 1988)

UFOs, The Public Deceived (Prometheus, 1983)

UFOs Explained (Random House, 1974)

Susan Blackmore holds a Ph.D in parapsychology, but in the course of her Ph.D research she became increasingly disillusioned and is now highly skeptical of paranormal claims.

Ray Hyman is a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon. He is one of the major external, skeptical critics of parapsychology. In 1986, he and parapsychologist Charles Honorton engaged in a detailed exchange about Honorton's ganzfeld experiments and statistical analysis of his results which was published in the Journal of Parapsychology. A collection of Hyman's work may be found in his book The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research, 1989, Prometheus. This includes "Proper Criticism", an influential piece on how skeptics should engage in criticism, and "'Cold Reading': How to Convince Strangers that You Know All About Them."

James Alcock is a professor of psychology at York University in Toronto. He is the author of the books Parapsychology: Science or Magic?, 1981, Pergamon, and Science and Supernature: A Critical Appraisal of Parapsychology, 1990, Prometheus.

Joe Nickell is a former private investigator, a magician, and an English instructor at the University of Kentucky. He is the author of numerous books on paranormal subjects, including Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, 1982, Prometheus. He specializes in investigating individual cases in great detail, but has recently done some more general work, critiquing crop circles, spontaneous human combustion, and psychic detectives.

Isaac Asimov wrote a great deal on skeptical issues. He had a regular column in Fantasy and Science Fiction, and collections of essays from it have been published. Some of these essays are on assorted crackpottery, like UFO's, Velikovsky, creationism, and so forth. They have titles like "Worlds in Confusion" (Velikovsky), "Look Long upon a Monkey" (creationism), "Armies of the Night" (crackpottery in general), "The Rocketing Dutchmen" (UFO's), and so forth.; these are usually on a rather general sort of level.

Marcello Truzzi was one of the founders of CSICOP, but broke away from the organisation when it became too "dry" for him (see section 0.6.1 on wet vs. dry skeptics). He now publishes the Zetetic Scholar on an occasional basis. He can be contacted at the Dept. of Sociology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197, or at P.O. Box 1052, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. [Does anyone know if this address is still good? PAJ]

0.6: Aren't all skeptics just closed-minded bigots?

People who have failed to convince skeptics often say "Well all skeptics are just closed-minded bigots who won't listen to me!". This is not true. Skeptics pay close attention to the evidence. If you have no evidence then you will get nowhere.

Unfortunately life is short. Most of us have better things to do than investigate yet another bogus claim. Some paranormal topics, especially psi research and UFOlogy, produce vast quantities of low grade evidence. In the past people have investigated such evidence carefully, but it always seems to evaporate when anyone looks at it closely. Hence skeptics should be forgiven for not bothering to investigate yet another piece of low grade evidence before rejecting it.

Isaac Asimov has suggested a triage process which divides scientific claims into three groups: mundane, unusual and bullshit [my terms]. As an example, a claim that "I have 10kg of salt in my lab" is pretty mundane. No-one would disbelieve me, but they wouldn't be very interested. A claim that "I have 10kg of gold in my lab" would probably result in mild disbelief and requests to have a look. Finally a claim that "I have 10kg of Einsteinium in my lab" would be greeted with cries of "Bullshit!".

Of course there are some who substitute flaming and rhetoric for logical argument. We all lose our temper sometimes.

0.6.1: Why are skeptics so keen to rubbish fringe ideas?

Skeptics vary on the attitude they take towards a new fringe idea, varying from the "wet" to the "dry". The question of which attitude is better is very much a live issue in the skeptical community. Here is a brief summary of the two extremes:

DRY:

There is no reason to treat these people seriously. Anyone with half an ounce of sense can see that their ideas are completely bogus. Time spent trying to "understand their ideas" and "examine their evidence" beyond that necessary for debunking is wasted time, and life is short. Furthermore, such behaviour lends them respectability. If we take them seriously, so will other people. We must ridicule their ideas so that others will see how silly they are. "One belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms" (H.L. Mencken, quoted by Martin Gardner).

WET:

If we lay into these people without giving them a fair hearing then we run two risks:

1. We might miss someone who is actually right. History contains many examples.
2. We give them a weapon against us. Ad-hominem attacks and sloppy logic bring us down to their level. If we are truly the rational, scientific people we claim to be then we should ask for their evidence, and then pronounce our considered opinion of it.

The two extremes are perhaps personified by Martin Gardner (dry) and Marcello Truzzi (wet). Note that no particular judgement is attached to these terms. They are just handy labels.

People who read articles by dry skeptics often get the impression that skeptics are as pig-headed as any fundamentalist or stage psychic. I think that this is a valid criticism of some skeptics on the dry end. However, an article which ridicules fringe beliefs may also contain sound logic based on careful investigation. As always, you have to read carefully, distinguish logic from rhetoric, and then make a judgement.

0.6.2: How do we know Randi is honest?

Randi has offered a large prize to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal powers under controlled conditions. He also has a lot of professional prestige tied up in his self-appointed role of psychic debunker. This leads to allegations that if he ever did find a genuine psychic then he would lie rather than lose so much money and prestige.

When Randi tests psychic claims, he is always very careful to agree with the claimant before the test exactly what the conditions will be. The test will proceed only if both he and the claimant agree that this will be a fair test of the claim. The conditions usually involve video tapes and independent witnesses specifically to rule out cheating by either side.

On one occasion Randi did agree that the claimant had passed the test. Arthur G. Lintgen claimed an ability to identify LP records without labels. Randi tested him on behalf of Time magazine, and found that Lintgen could in fact do this by reading the patterns of loud and quiet in the groove. Lintgen did not get Randi's reward because he had not demonstrated (or claimed) any paranormal ability.

0.6.3: Why don't skeptics debunk religions?

Skeptics aim to debunk false claims and silly theories by using the evidence. The question of whether God exists is not one for which evidence is available, and so skeptics tend to treat it as a private matter. When someone claims to have evidence (such as a miraculous healing) then skeptics are as ready to test this claim as they are any other.

Most skeptics agree that it is perfectly possible to be a skeptic about paranormal claims but still honestly believe in God. Martin Gardner is a "dry" skeptic and one of the founders of CSICOP. He also believes in a personal god and describes himself as a "philosophical theist".

Most skeptics tend to take an "agnostic-atheist" attitude, assuming that God does not exist until evidence to the contrary turns up.

If you are interested in organisations that oppose religion in general then see the alt.atheism FAQ "Atheist Resources" for a list of atheist and humanist organisations.

0.6.4: How can I persuade the other side?

This isn't a FAQ, but it should be! Originally this question referred only to persuading skeptics, but of course the paranormalists are not the only ones who need to learn how to argue.

• Be prepared to offer evidence. Ideally evidence consists of an experiment I can reasonably do myself. Failing that, list articles in peer-reviewed journals.
• Make predictions. These predictions should be specific and surprising. For example a prediction that "crime will cause concern" is not specific (it does not say who is going to be concerned about what aspect of crime when) and it is not surprising (someone, somewhere is going to be concerned about it). On the other hand a prediction that "The British House of Commons will hold an Emergency Debate on Juvenile Crime next month" is both specific (it specifies an event which either will or will not happen) and surprising (emergency debates on this subject don't happen every month).
• Be prepared to look at the evidence presented by the other side. On the other hand, if you claim as your evidence a paper that came out in some obscure journal in 1903, don't be too surprised if no-one goes to the expense of digging it out just to debunk it for you.
• Don't try argument by assertion. A statement such as "The evidence for psi is overwhelming" will generate lots of queries asking where this evidence may be found. Conversely the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" line should only be used when someone tries to shift the burden of proof.
• Don't try argument by authority unless the authority you are citing is generally acknowledged as an expert on the subject. I might cite C.S. Lewis in a debate on the nature of Christianity. I would not cite him on the age of the Universe because he is not an authority on that.

For more on how to construct a logical argument, see the talk.origins and alt.atheism FAQs, both of which have extensive sections on this subject.

0.7: Is there any scientific psi research?

[Contributed by Roger Nelson of PEAR]

In short, yes. According to a recent National Research Council report, there is a 130 year history of scientific research, albeit with no clear conclusion that the classical psi effects, telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, precognition, have been demonstrated. Most knowledgeable scholars would date the advent of controlled research later, to the early 1930's when J. B. Rhine began his work with McDougall in Duke University's psychology department. Rhine's work has been much criticized, and is widely discounted, but inappropriately for the most part.

In any case, later workers built on these foundations of experimental design and statistical analysis, and there has been a cumulative increase in scientific rigor and sophistication. Most of current psi research is conducted by a small number of investigators in universities and established institutes, and reports are presented at conventions of professional organizations such as the Parapsychological Association, and the Society for Scientific Exploration, and published in professional journals of these groups or, occasionally, in mainstream journals in physics, psychology, and statistics. Professionals familiar with the literature, including recent meta-analyses, find persuasive evidence for small, replicable anomalous effects correlated with human consciousness and intention.

There are currently perhaps a dozen active research laboratories, worldwide, and on the order of 50 to 100 researchers actually doing experiments. It is a fact that their work is not well known to the general public including most of the sci.skeptic readership. Thus, the frequently negative, and sometimes disdainful commentary on psi research from "skeptics" tends to be ill-informed, or refers to something other than scientific research. Language usage is part of the problem, as the terms psychic research, parapsychology, esp, telepathy, etc., have been usurped by non-scientists and media people. With suitable modifiers, the term anomalous is often used to describe the subject of investigation in modern research, partly to avoid the implied mechanisms and relationships attached to the older terms.

Much of current experimental psi research is not only scientific, but adheres to more rigorous standards than are found in much contemporary work in the social and physical sciences, largely because the investigators understand the technical difficulties as well as the implications of positive findings for our general scientific models. It should be noted that constructive criticism from skeptics has made important contributions to research quality.

0.8: What is a Conspiracy Theory?

There are two general categories of conspiracy theory: Grand and Petty.

A Grand conspiracy theory is a belief that there is a large-scale conspiracy by those in power to mislead and/or control the rest of the world. Consider the following example:

There is a conspiracy amongst the computer programmers to control the world. They are only allowing the public to have simple machines, while they control the really powerful ones. There is a computer in <city> they call "The Beast". It has records about everyone. They use this information to manipulate the politicians and businessmen who ostensibly rule the world into doing their will. The Beast was prophesied in the Book of Revelation.

Evidence produced by the Investigators is always either circumstantial or evaporates when looked at carefully. The theories can never be disproved, since any evidence to the contrary can be dismissed as having been planted by the Conspirators. If you spend any time or effort digging into the evidence produced by Investigators then you will be labelled a Conspirator yourself. Of course, nothing a Conspirator says can be believed.

Petty conspiracy theories are smaller than the Grand variety, and sometimes turn out to be true. Watergate and "Arms for Hostages" episodes both started life as Petty conspiracy theories. Just because a theory involves a conspiracy does not make that theory false. The main difference between Grand and Petty Conspiracy Theories is the number of alleged conspirators. Grand Conspiracy Theories require thousands or even millions.

People sometimes use the word "conspiracy" about their opponents without really thinking about what they are suggesting. If you find yourself tempted to refer to the "X conspiracy" where X is merely a group of people who disagree with you, then pick another word. Otherwise you will be asked for evidence that this conspiracy actually exists.

[Since this FAQ was first posted I have heard that the Beast computer is in Holland and that you can be saved by converting to a particular cult. In addition the cult claims that every product bar code includes three 6 digits as frame markers, hence 666, the number of the beast. In fact this is not true, and even if it were it would not fulfill the prophecy in Revelation. Meanwhile the cult members were *meant* to rise up to heaven on 29/10/92 but very embarrassingly didn't. The Korean founder was also discovered to have bought millions of $ worth of stocks and bonds which didn't mature until 1995, and was convicted of fraud.]

0.9: What is "cold reading"?

[From a posting by Pope Charles <popec@brewich.hou.tx.us>]

Cold reading is the technique of saying little general things and watching a persons reactions. As one goes from very general to more specific things, one notes the reaction and uses it as a guide to find out what to say. Also there are stock phrases that sound like statements but are really questions. If these subtle questions evoke answers, these answers are used as a basis for the next round of statements.

Many people get involved in various things like this because of their interest in the usual things, health, love, sex, etc. One can develop a set of stock questions and statements that will elicit positive responses from 90% of your 'clients'.

In the hands of an expert, these simple techniques can be frightening almost. But they are simple things. Of course a paintbrush and a canvass are simple things too. It all depends on skill and talent for these things.

One can learn these things coldbloodedly knowing them as the tricks they are, or as probably most use them, learned at the feet of other practitioners as it were by rote, and developed by practice and adapted to the tastes of the reader and his or her sitters. As skeptics have pointed out, it is the best cold readers that make the best Tarot Readers, Astrologers, Palm Readers, or what have you.

If your library is lucky enough to have it, check The Zetetic, (later renamed Skeptical Inquirer), Vol. 1, #2 Summer 1977 "Cold Reading: How to convince strangers you know all about them" by Ray Hyman. This was later republished in The Elusive Quarry, which should be quite a bit easier to find.

These techniques are not confined to the occult world by any means. Religious workers, salesmen and the like use the principles to build rapport with people.

0.10: Is there a list of logical fallacies?

A complete list of formal and informal logical fallacies is posted by Mathew <mathew@mantis.com> as part of his excellent alt.atheism FAQ file series. This should be read carefully by anyone wishing to construct a logical argument to support their position on any group.

For those who want more information, The Book of the Fallacy by Madsen Pirie covers the same ground in more detail.

Formal and informal statistical fallacies are dealt with in the book How To Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff. I strongly recommend this one.

0.11: What national and local skeptics organisations are there?

The following addresses are not guaranteed correct. Please check the addresses you know, and send in any updates and corrections.

Argentina:

CAIRP, Director, Ladislao Enrique Maiquez, Jose Marti, 35
dep C, 1406 Buenos Aires

Australia:

Australian Skeptics Inc., P.O.Box E324, St. James NSW 2000, Australia

Belgium:

Committee Para, J. Dommanget, Observatoire Royal de Belgique,
Avenue Circulaire 3, B-1180 Brussels

SKEPP, W. Betz, Laarbeklaan 105, B-1090 Brussels

Canada:

James E. Alcock, Chairman, Glendon College, York University,
2275 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario

Finland:

Skepsis, Lauri Groehn (o Umlaut!), Ojahaapolku 8 B 17, SF-01600 Vantaa

France:

Comit'e Francais pour l'Etude des Ph'enom`enes Paranormaux,
Dr. Claude Benski, General Secretary, Merlin Gerin, RGE/A2,
F-38050 Grenoble Cedex

Germany:

Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften e.V. (GWUP)
Postfach 1222 64374 Rossdorf Germany. Tel: +49-6154-8946, Fax: +49-6154-81912

Great Britain:

British Committee, Michael J. Hutchinson, Secretary
10 Crescent View, Loughton, Essex IG10 4PZ

The Skeptic, P.O. Box 475, Manchester, M60 2TH, UK.

India:

B. Premanand, Chairman, 10 Chettipalayam Road, Podanur, 641-023 Coimbatur, Tamil Nadu

Ireland:

Irish Skeptics, Peter O'Hara, Dept. of Psychiatry
Airedale General Hospital, Steeton, Keighly, West Yorkshire, UK BD20 6TD

Italy:

Comitato Italiano per il Controllo delle Affermazioni sul Paranormale (CICAP)
Lorenzo Montali, Via Ozanam 3, I-20129 Milano

Mexico:

SOMIE, Mario Mendez-Acosta, Apartado Postal 19-546, Mexico 03900, D.F.

New Zealand:

Vicki Hyde, Chairperson, NZCSICOP, New Zealand Science Monthly
PO Box 19-760, Christchurch 5, New Zealand.
Tel:(NZ)-3-384-5137, Fax: (NZ)-3-384-5138
email: nzsm@spis.equinox.gen.nz

Netherlands:

Stichting Skepsis, Rob Nanninga, Westerkade 20, NL-9718 AS Groningen

Norway:

K. Stenodegard, NIVFO, P.O.Box 2119, N-7001 Trondheim

Russia:

Science & Religion, Ulyanovskaya 43, kor. 4, 109004 Moscow, Russia

South Africa:

Assn. for the Rational Investigation of the Paranormal (ARIP)
Marian Laserson, Secretary
4 Wales Street, Sandringham 2192

Spain:

Alternativa Racional a las Pseudosciencias (ARP)
Mercedes Quintana, Apartado de Correos 17.026, E-28080 Madrid

Sweden:

Vetenskap och folkbildning, Box 185, S-101 23 Stockholm, Sweden.

USA:

Skeptical Inquirer, Box 703, Buffalo, NY 14226-9973. Tel:716-636-1425, Fax: 716-636-1733

Center for Scientific Anomalies Research, P.O. Box 1052, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

Prometheus Books, 59 John Glenn Drive, Buffalo, NY 14215-9918

Skeptics Society 2761 N. Marengo Ave. Altadena, CA 91001

Skeptics who want to obtain books on paranormal allegations are faced with a minor ethical dilemma, in that they want the books but do not want to hand money to the purveyors of flummery and nonsense. One solution is to buy the books second hand. In addition to your local second hand bookshop, Richard Trott <trott@gandalf.rutgers.edu> has volunteered to provide a free referral service for sellers and seekers of such second hand books. This service is now on the Web. Point your browser at:
<http: //www-usacs.rutgers.edu/~trott/books#62

A huge annotated bibliography of books on paranormal and skeptical issues is available by email or FTP.

1. Through mail: Send "get skeptic biblio" to LISTSERV@JHUVM.HCF.JHU.EDU or @JHUVM.BITNET.

2. Anonymous ftp: connect to "jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu", log on with "skeptic" and use any non-blank password, do "get skeptic.biblio".

0.13: Where can I find skeptical information on-line?

Web pages:

CSICOP and Skeptical Inquirer:
http://www.csicop.org/

James Randi:
http:/ /www.best.com/~ragaisis/randi/randi.html
http://pc1502.geographie.uni-regensburg.de/html/randi.htm (German)

General
See the "Yahoo" Web directory at Stanford, under

http://www. yahoo.com/Science/Alternative/

CSICOP: Barry Karr <aa538@freenet.buffalo.edu>.

0.14: Where can I find paranormal information on-line?

Web pages:

General
See the "Yahoo" Web directory at Stanford, under

http://www. yahoo.com/Science/Alternative/

Mailing Lists:

Send a message to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk with no subject line and the command

join paranormal {Your name}.

Send messages to paranormal@mailbase.ac.uk.