In a msg on <Jan 29 22:14>, Don Allen of 1:3623/18@fidonet.org writes:
Don, I was somewhat aware of the fuss about posting that article, taken
from _Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research_ for a
couple of reasons: (1) I may have been the one to bring it to Bob's
attention in the first place, by detailing its contents in several
echos -- quite a while ago. (2) David Bloomberg told me a little about
this, after he, acting as co-moderator, told Dunn it wasn't appropriate
to post to UFO.
Not that you asked, but I certainly agree with your course of action,
not because of whom Hansen aims shoddy blows at, but rather because
it's simply and obviously off-topic. It's just _not about UFOlogy_.
Tbe funny thing was that, quite a long time ago, I photocopied, scanned,
and OCR'd that article -- resulting, by the way, in a much more complete
and error-free rendition than Dunn's. I briefly considered distributing
it, and making it available for download, for the interest of my callers
and Internet FTP sites. (It's still on diskette, here, somewhere.)
The only reason I didn't do so was that I didn't have reprint permission
from _JASPR_, and didn't expect to get it. I wasn't willing to violate
copyright law, just to make the article available. The same applied to
another anti-CSICOP piece I'd love to make available, Dennis Rawlins's
"sTARBABY" piece from _Fate_ magazine. If either publisher will give
reprint permission, I'll be first on the block to make them available
for free, to the public. I just won't break the law to do this.
The reason I'd love to make both these articles available to the public
is (1) that they have some interest on their own, and (2) that I could then start compiling and including numerous disassemblies of those pieces by critics.
The Hansen piece is quite interesting. First, it's a masterpiece of
innuendo. That is, many of the basic facts it starts with are accurate
(if selective), but the derogatory inferences Hansen then proceeds to draw
from them are both far-fetched and blatantly polemical. To pick a small
example (from memory, it being quite a while since I really read the
piece), he cites a number of overlapping memberships some officers of
CSICOP had with various atheist/humanist outfits, and then suggests (without
forthrightly saying so) that this is the skeptics' hidden ideological agenda.
He fails to mention that none of the dozens of skeptics' groups endorse
such an agenda, and are at some pains to disclaim it. He also neglects
to mention the prominent skeptics who are religious, such as Terry Sandbek,
founder of Sacramento Skeptics, who is a devout Christian. That is what
I mean by innuendo: The same logic would equally poorly support a claim
that _scouting_ is skeptics' ideological agenda, if Hansen cited how many
prominent skeptics are scoutmasters. ;->
Second, the piece is, notwithstanding its mammoth set of references, not
terribly accurate. For example, Hansen puts the date the local skeptics'
groups became formally independent of CSICOP (and ceased being local
chapters of it) _much later_ than it in fact happened. I know this because
I was present when it happened, at the CSICOP conference in Palo Alto,
California, in late 1984. Why is this significant? Some of the nastier
lawsuits against CSICOP have attempted -- unsuccessfully -- to establish that CSICOP is centrally involved in directing the independent local groups, and thus is legally responsible for their actions. The effect of this, if
successful, would be to open CSICOP up to probably fatal (additional)
litigation.
Curiously, this anti-CSICOP legal tactic was invented by one of the people
Hansen thanks as a source, an alleged skeptic who tried it out in the 1986
Hawaii Skeptics lawsuit, as a witness for the plaintiff, and has been more
quietly promoting the idea ever since. In fact, the overlap between (1) the
tight little group (who shall go nameless) trying to collect information
to be used in crippling lawsuits against CSICOP and other skeptics' groups,
and (2) those thanked by Hansen as sources, is quite impressive.
Quite a lot of the inaccuracies are at least somewhat obscured by vagueness.
For example, Hansen throws in the obligatory bit about the Gauquelin "Mars
Effect" claims, and the statistical tests related to it that were published
in _Skeptical Inquirer_. However, he does not provide anywhere near enough
detail for the reader to assess the facts. Again, instead he simply falls
back on innuendo. The actual original sources are a confusing muddle, and
do not support the rather emotional claims commonly made about CSICOP in
the matter. For many of those making the claims, this doesn't matter.
Third, Hansen's piece is actually rather valuable as the first compendium
of nearly _every_ cheesy bit of rhetoric commonly employed in ad-hominem
attacks against skeptics. As such, I recommend that everyone interested
in the fringe-sciences read it, for the light that it casts on the mindset
of people like Hansen and the aforementioned group of lawsuit fanciers.
For, you see, the vast majority of Hansen's article does _not_ argue with
the quality and adequacy of skeptics' work, but rather maintains, instead,
that they are ignorant, closed-minded, nasty people with concealed ideological
agendas.
This, of course, is irrelevant -- but quite a lot of people cannot seem
to understand why. It's irrelevant because skeptics' work stands or falls
on its own merit, just as, say, a UFOlogist's work does. That was why
I gave a tongue-lashing, recently, to the fellow on FidoNet UFO who was
lambasting Bob Lazar's morals (in his absence), as if that had anything
to do with whether Lazar's _factual claims had merit_. Of course, it
had none, but I then went on to show why (picking an example) Lazar's
claim about a "stable" element 115 (or whatever) was highly suspect,
WITHOUT REFERENCE to Lazar's character.
In order to get over this curious mental block on the part of many
fringe-science afficianados, I will often cheerfully admit that OF COURSE
I'm an evil, ignorant, closed-minded, nasty person with any number of
hidden ideological agendas, who's trying to conceal the truth about
X fringe science, because... well... because They Don't Want the Public
to Know, I guess. I then say I'm glad to get _that_ out of the way, and
then change the subject back to whatever factual question I was trying
to discuss.
In short, I don't think Hansen's piece _requires_ a detailed rebuttal,
because it's pretty much self-parodying, once you look past the
pseudo-neutral, stilted academic prose. However, if I have time, and
Bob Dunn posts this _extremely long_ article, I may find time to comment
on some aspects of it. I _hope_ that Bob secures formal permission from
_JASPR_, which holds the copyright, first, but my comments would not
require such permission.
For that matter, if Bob can intervene with _JASPR_, I will be delighted
to make my BBS and Internet account a primary source to the Net for
Hansen's piece, in full, completely accurate electronic rendition (minus
Hansen's graphs) -- provided he can get for me formal reprint rights,
on signed, dated paper, from _JASPR_. It can come to me at 1742 S.
Grant St., San Mateo, CA 94402-2640. I would also be extremely pleased
if he could do me the same service with the publishers of _Fate_
magazine, for the earlier "sTARBABY" article. I can make sure that
both are included in Internet FTP archives, and already have good ASCII
renditions of both, lacking only reprint permission.
I would offer this in any event, but I'm especially glad to do so
because of my conviction that both pieces are, when read in the original
by a fair-minded reader, rather than talked about third-hand, embarrassing
to the causes of the authors and those who quote them.
In any event, I thank you sincerely for taking the trouble to let me
know what may be coming soon. You're of course right, that articles
that just don't address UFOlogy are simply and plainly off-topic
for FidoNet UFO, and no amount of hand-waving about your being
"overly influenced by the skeptics" will change that. Again, you
didn't ask my two cents, but, for it's worth, I'd support you on
this no matter who's ox was threatened to be gored. (In this case,
it's more like an ox being hit with a spitwad, but never mind that.)
I'll cross-post this to some echo where Bob will see it, if you don't
mind. I'll spare you from having it on UFO, though. ;->
Cheers,
Date: Sun Jan 30 1994 17:52:40
From: Rick Moen of 1:125/27
To: Don Allen of 1:3623/18@fidonet.org
Subj: Hansen's article on CSICOP
Attr: privileged crash sent
fidonet -------------------------------
MSGID: 1:125/27 3b0ecac4
REPLY: 1:3623/18@fidonet.org 0e942d22
In a msg on <Jan 29 22:14>, Don Allen of 1:3623/18@fidonet.org writes:
Don, I was somewhat aware of the fuss about posting that article, taken
from _Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research_ for a
couple of reasons: (1) I may have been the one to bring it to Bob's
attention in the first place, by detailing its contents in several
echos -- quite a while ago. (2) David Bloomberg told me a little about
this, after he, acting as co-moderator, told Dunn it wasn't appropriate
to post to UFO.
Not that you asked, but I certainly agree with your course of action,
not because of whom Hansen aims shoddy blows at, but rather because
it's simply and obviously off-topic. It's just _not about UFOlogy_.
Tbe funny thing was that, quite a long time ago, I photocopied, scanned,
and OCR'd that article -- resulting, by the way, in a much more complete
and error-free rendition than Dunn's. I briefly considered distributing
it, and making it available for download, for the interest of my callers
and Internet FTP sites. (It's still on diskette, here, somewhere.)
The only reason I didn't do so was that I didn't have reprint permission
from _JASPR_, and didn't expect to get it. I wasn't willing to violate
copyright law, just to make the article available. The same applied to
another anti-CSICOP piece I'd love to make available, Dennis Rawlins's
"sTARBABY" piece from _Fate_ magazine. If either publisher will give
reprint permission, I'll be first on the block to make them available
for free, to the public. I just won't break the law to do this.
The reason I'd love to make both these articles available to the public
is (1) that they have some interest on their own, and (2) that I could then
start compiling and including numerous disassemblies of those pieces by
critics.
The Hansen piece is quite interesting. First, it's a masterpiece of
innuendo. That is, many of the basic facts it starts with are accurate
(if selective), but the derogatory inferences Hansen then proceeds to draw
from them are both far-fetched and blatantly polemical. To pick a small
example (from memory, it being quite a while since I really read the
piece), he cites a number of overlapping memberships some officers of
CSICOP had with various atheist/humanist outfits, and then suggests (without
forthrightly saying so) that this is the skeptics' hidden ideological agenda.
He fails to mention that none of the dozens of skeptics' groups endorse
such an agenda, and are at some pains to disclaim it. He also neglects
to mention the prominent skeptics who are religious, such as Terry Sandbek,
founder of Sacramento Skeptics, who is a devout Christian. That is what
I mean by innuendo: The same logic would equally poorly support a claim
that _scouting_ is skeptics' ideological agenda, if Hansen cited how many
prominent skeptics are scoutmasters. ;->
Second, the piece is, notwithstanding its mammoth set of references, not
terribly accurate. For example, Hansen puts the date the local skeptics'
groups became formally independent of CSICOP (and ceased being local
chapters of it) _much later_ than it in fact happened. I know this because
I was present when it happened, at the CSICOP conference in Palo Alto,
California, in late 1984. Why is this significant? Some of the nastier
lawsuits against CSICOP have attempted -- unsuccessfully -- to establish that
CSICOP is centrally involved in directing the independent local groups, and
thus is legally responsible for their actions. The effect of this, if
successful, would be to open CSICOP up to probably fatal (additional)
litigation.
Curiously, this anti-CSICOP legal tactic was invented by one of the people
Hansen thanks as a source, an alleged skeptic who tried it out in the 1986
Hawaii Skeptics lawsuit, as a witness for the plaintiff, and has been more
quietly promoting the idea ever since. In fact, the overlap between (1) the
tight little group (who shall go nameless) trying to collect information
to be used in crippling lawsuits against CSICOP and other skeptics' groups,
and (2) those thanked by Hansen as sources, is quite impressive.
Quite a lot of the inaccuracies are at least somewhat obscured by vagueness.
For example, Hansen throws in the obligatory bit about the Gauquelin "Mars
Effect" claims, and the statistical tests related to it that were published
in _Skeptical Inquirer_. However, he does not provide anywhere near enough
detail for the reader to assess the facts. Again, instead he simply falls
back on innuendo. The actual original sources are a confusing muddle, and
do not support the rather emotional claims commonly made about CSICOP in
the matter. For many of those making the claims, this doesn't matter.
Third, Hansen's piece is actually rather valuable as the first compendium
of nearly _every_ cheesy bit of rhetoric commonly employed in ad-hominem
attacks against skeptics. As such, I recommend that everyone interested
in the fringe-sciences read it, for the light that it casts on the mindset
of people like Hansen and the aforementioned group of lawsuit fanciers.
For, you see, the vast majority of Hansen's article does _not_ argue with
the quality and adequacy of skeptics' work, but rather maintains, instead,
that they are ignorant, closed-minded, nasty people with concealed ideological
agendas.
This, of course, is irrelevant -- but quite a lot of people cannot seem
to understand why. It's irrelevant because skeptics' work stands or falls
on its own merit, just as, say, a UFOlogist's work does. That was why
I gave a tongue-lashing, recently, to the fellow on FidoNet UFO who was
lambasting Bob Lazar's morals (in his absence), as if that had anything
to do with whether Lazar's _factual claims had merit_. Of course, it
had none, but I then went on to show why (picking an example) Lazar's
claim about a "stable" element 115 (or whatever) was highly suspect,
WITHOUT REFERENCE to Lazar's character.
In order to get over this curious mental block on the part of many
fringe-science afficianados, I will often cheerfully admit that OF COURSE
I'm an evil, ignorant, closed-minded, nasty person with any number of
hidden ideological agendas, who's trying to conceal the truth about
X fringe science, because... well... because They Don't Want the Public
to Know, I guess. I then say I'm glad to get _that_ out of the way, and
then change the subject back to whatever factual question I was trying
to discuss.
In short, I don't think Hansen's piece _requires_ a detailed rebuttal,
because it's pretty much self-parodying, once you look past the
pseudo-neutral, stilted academic prose. However, if I have time, and
Bob Dunn posts this _extremely long_ article, I may find time to comment
on some aspects of it. I _hope_ that Bob secures formal permission from
_JASPR_, which holds the copyright, first, but my comments would not
require such permission.
For that matter, if Bob can intervene with _JASPR_, I will be delighted
to make my BBS and Internet account a primary source to the Net for
Hansen's piece, in full, completely accurate electronic rendition (minus
Hansen's graphs) -- provided he can get for me formal reprint rights,
on signed, dated paper, from _JASPR_. It can come to me at 1742 S.
Grant St., San Mateo, CA 94402-2640. I would also be extremely pleased
if he could do me the same service with the publishers of _Fate_
magazine, for the earlier "sTARBABY" article. I can make sure that
both are included in Internet FTP archives, and already have good ASCII
renditions of both, lacking only reprint permission.
I would offer this in any event, but I'm especially glad to do so
because of my conviction that both pieces are, when read in the original
by a fair-minded reader, rather than talked about third-hand, embarrassing
to the causes of the authors and those who quote them.
In any event, I thank you sincerely for taking the trouble to let me
know what may be coming soon. You're of course right, that articles
that just don't address UFOlogy are simply and plainly off-topic
for FidoNet UFO, and no amount of hand-waving about your being
"overly influenced by the skeptics" will change that. Again, you
didn't ask my two cents, but, for it's worth, I'd support you on
this no matter who's ox was threatened to be gored. (In this case,
it's more like an ox being hit with a spitwad, but never mind that.)
I'll cross-post this to some echo where Bob will see it, if you don't
mind. I'll spare you from having it on UFO, though. ;->
Cheers,
Rick M.
Date: Sun Jan 30 1994 17:52:40
From: Rick Moen of 1:125/27
To: Don Allen of 1:3623/18@fidonet.org
Subj: Hansen's article on CSICOP
Attr: privileged crash sent
fidonet -------------------------------
MSGID: 1:125/27 3b0ecac4
REPLY: 1:3623/18@fidonet.org 0e942d22
In a msg on <Jan 29 22:14>, Don Allen of 1:3623/18@fidonet.org writes:
> [orignal message omitted]
Don, I was somewhat aware of the fuss about posting that article, taken
from _Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research_ for a
couple of reasons: (1) I may have been the one to bring it to Bob Dunn's
attention in the first place, by detailing its contents in several
echos -- quite a while ago. (2) David Bloomberg told me a little about
this, after he, acting as co-moderator, told Bob it wasn't appropriate
to post to UFO.
Not that you asked, but I certainly agree with your course of action,
not because of whom Hansen aims shoddy blows at, but rather because
it's simply and obviously off-topic. It's just _not about UFOlogy_.
Tbe funny thing was that, quite a long time ago, I photocopied, scanned,
and OCR'd that article -- resulting, by the way, in a somewhat more complete
and error-free rendition than Bob's. I briefly considered distributing
it, and making it available for download, for the interest of my callers
and Internet FTP sites. (It's still on diskette, here, somewhere.)
The only reason I didn't do so was that I didn't have reprint permission
from _JASPR_, and didn't expect to get it. I wasn't willing to violate
copyright law, just to make the article available. The same applied to
another anti-CSICOP piece I'd love to make available, Dennis Rawlins's
"sTARBABY" piece from _Fate_ magazine. If either publisher will give
reprint permission, I'll be first on the block to make them available
for free, to the public. I just won't break the law to do this.
The reason I'd love to make both these articles available to the public
is (1) that they have some interest on their own, and (2) that I could then
start compiling and including numerous disassemblies of those pieces by
critics.
The Hansen piece is quite interesting. First, it's a masterpiece of
innuendo. That is, many of the basic facts it starts with are accurate
(if selective), but the derogatory inferences Hansen then proceeds to draw
from them are both far-fetched and blatantly polemical. To pick a small
example (from memory, it being quite a while since I really read the
piece), he cites a number of overlapping memberships some officers of
CSICOP had with various atheist/humanist outfits, and then suggests (without
forthrightly saying so) that this is the skeptics' hidden ideological agenda.
He fails to mention that none of the dozens of skeptics' groups endorse
such an agenda, and are at some pains to disclaim it. He also neglects
to mention the prominent skeptics who are religious, such as Terry Sandbek,
founder of Sacramento Skeptics, who is a devout Christian. That is what
I mean by innuendo: The same logic would equally poorly support a claim
that _scouting_ is skeptics' ideological agenda, if Hansen cited how many
prominent skeptics are scoutmasters. ;->
Second, the piece is, notwithstanding its mammoth set of references, not
terribly accurate. For example, Hansen puts the date the local skeptics'
groups became formally independent of CSICOP (and ceased being local
chapters of it) _much later_ than it in fact happened. I know this because
I was present when it happened, at the CSICOP conference in Palo Alto,
California, in late 1984. Why is this significant? Some of the nastier
lawsuits against CSICOP have attempted -- unsuccessfully -- to establish that
CSICOP is centrally involved in directing the independent local groups, and
thus is legally responsible for their actions. The effect of this, if
successful, would be to open CSICOP up to probably fatal (additional)
litigation.
Curiously, this anti-CSICOP legal tactic was invented by one of the people
Hansen thanks as a source, an alleged skeptic who tried it out in the 1986
Hawaii Skeptics lawsuit, as a witness for the plaintiff, and has been more
quietly promoting the idea ever since. In fact, the overlap between (1) the
tight little group (who shall go nameless) trying to collect information
to be used in crippling lawsuits against CSICOP and other skeptics' groups,
and (2) those thanked by Hansen as sources, is quite impressive.
Quite a lot of the inaccuracies are at least somewhat obscured by vagueness.
For example, Hansen throws in the obligatory bit about the Gauquelin "Mars
Effect" claims, and the statistical tests related to it that were published
in _Skeptical Inquirer_. However, he does not provide anywhere near enough
detail for the reader to assess the facts. Again, instead he simply falls
back on innuendo. The actual original sources are a confusing muddle, and
do not support the rather emotional claims commonly made about CSICOP in
the matter. For many of those making the claims, this doesn't matter.
Third, Hansen's piece is actually rather valuable as the first compendium
of nearly _every_ cheesy bit of rhetoric commonly employed in ad-hominem
attacks against skeptics. As such, I recommend that everyone interested
in the fringe-sciences read it, for the light that it casts on the mindset
of people like Hansen and the aforementioned group of lawsuit fanciers.
For, you see, the vast majority of Hansen's article does _not_ argue with
the quality and adequacy of skeptics' work, but rather maintains, instead,
that they are ignorant, closed-minded, nasty people with concealed ideological
agendas.
This, of course, is irrelevant -- but quite a lot of people cannot seem
to understand why. It's irrelevant because skeptics' work stands or falls
on its own merit, just as, say, a UFOlogist's work does. That was why
I gave a tongue-lashing, recently, to the fellow on FidoNet UFO who was
lambasting Bob Lazar's morals (in his absence), as if that had anything
to do with whether Lazar's _factual claims had merit_. Of course, it
had none, but I then went on to show why (picking an example) Lazar's
claim about a "stable" element 115 (or whatever) was highly suspect,
WITHOUT REFERENCE to Lazar's character.
In order to get over this curious mental block on the part of many
fringe-science afficianados, I will often cheerfully admit that OF COURSE
I'm an evil, ignorant, closed-minded, nasty person with any number of
hidden ideological agendas, who's trying to conceal the truth about
X fringe science, because... well... because They Don't Want the Public
to Know, I guess. I then say I'm glad to get _that_ out of the way, and
then change the subject back to whatever factual question I was trying
to discuss.
In short, I don't think Hansen's piece _requires_ a detailed rebuttal,
because it's pretty much self-parodying, once you look past the
pseudo-neutral, stilted academic prose. However, if I have time, and
Bob Dunn posts this _extremely long_ article, I may find time to comment
on some aspects of it. I _hope_ that Bob secures formal permission from
_JASPR_, which holds the copyright, first, but my comments would not
require such permission.
For that matter, if Bob can intervene with _JASPR_, I will be delighted
to make my BBS and Internet account a primary source to the Net for
Hansen's piece, in full, completely accurate electronic rendition (minus
Hansen's graphs) -- provided he can get for me formal reprint rights,
on signed, dated paper, from _JASPR_. It can come to me at 1742 S.
Grant St. #3, San Mateo, CA 94402-2640. I would also be extremely pleased
if he could do me the same service with the publishers of _Fate_
magazine, for the earlier "sTARBABY" article. I can make sure that
both are included in Internet FTP archives, and already have good ASCII
renditions of both, lacking only reprint permission.
I would offer this in any event, but I'm especially glad to do so
because of my conviction that both pieces are, when read in the original
by a fair-minded reader, rather than talked about third-hand, embarrassing
to the causes of the authors and those who quote them.
In any event, I thank you sincerely for taking the trouble to let me
know what may be coming soon. You're of course right, that articles
that just don't address UFOlogy are simply and plainly off-topic
for FidoNet UFO, and no amount of hand-waving about your being
"overly influenced by the skeptics" will change that. Again, you
didn't ask my two cents, but, for it's worth, I'd support you on
this no matter who's ox was threatened to be gored. (In this case,
it's more like an ox being hit with a spitwad, but never mind that.)
I'll cross-post this to some echo where Bob will see it, if you don't
mind. I'll spare you from having it on UFO, though. ;->
