linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/files-to-classify/nts2.txt

Internet Message Format | 1996-02-19 | 23KB

From: [e-mail]
Subject:      Welcome from the North Texas Skeptics
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:         Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:48:02 -0500
To all attending the CSICOP Conference in Dallas next month:

The members of the North Texas Skeptics welcome you.

We are proud to be hosting the conference this year, and we look
forward to seeing you at the Conference.  The NTS will have a desk set
up in the lobby at which you will be able to obtain:

        1.  Information about the NTS
        2.  Help and assistance in finding your way around the Dallas
        area
        3.  A daily information sheet about the Conference
        4.  Messages left there by others trying to contact you

If we can be of any assistance prior to the conference, please contact
us at this e-mail address or at the following:

P.O. Box 111794
Carrollton, TX 75011-1794

[phone]

My address is:

2244 Valley Mill
Carrollton, TX 75006


John Blanton
Secretary, North Texas Skeptics

signing for:

Joe Voelkering          President
Laura Ainsworth         Vice President
Mark Meyer              Treasurer
Ron Hastings            NTS Board
Mary O'Grady            NTS Board




From: Rick Moen <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Skeptics' focus
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:52:26 PDT

My estimable (and no doubt extremely busy) colleague John Blanton
([e-mail]) wrote as follows:

> Rick Moen has expressed dismay at some of the sessions scheduled for
> the CSICOP conference in Dallas.

Well, not exactly.  I expressed dismay at CSICOP delving into "gender
issues in science" and the like.  I imagine that the _sessions_ will
be quite intriguing and worthwhile, especially since people like
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano will be participating.  I'm very sorry
that I won't be able to attend, but, since I took time off for the
CSICOP workshop in Oregon and will be taking it off for the Phenomicon
convention in Atlanta, I have neither the vacation days nor the funds
to make it to Dallas.

If John's experience is like mine, he's exhausted about now, running
in all directions, getting little gratitude for his volunteer work,
and paying conference fees for the privilege of volunteering his time.
When Bay Area Skeptics hosted the 1991 conference in Oakland, I was
the volunteer coordinator and head of the Conference Steering
Committee, and so know precisely whereof John speaks.  I also helped
BAS run the 1984 conference at Stanford, even though I'd paid full
price.  (Dr. Kurtz, in gratitude at the time, said CSICOP would refund
my money or send me tapes of the conference.  That never happened, for
some reason, even after several polite reminders over the years.)
Both times I was too busy to actually attend sessions.

I absolutely agree with John that the conferences are a good idea.
Just from the little I've seen of them, they seem fabulous occasions.
I hope I didn't inadvertantly give the impression I felt otherwise.

Also, it may be that including trendy topics in the conference
coverage is an excellent idea, to encourage broad attendance.  I
rather suspect that's what's going on.

There have been numerous other somewhat bizarre inclusions in past
conferences:  At the 1984 conference, quite a bit of time was spent on
praise of (and an award to) philosopher Sidney Hook, whose relevance
to CSICOP thoroughly eluded 'round about 100% of the people I raised
the issue with at the time.

The point is that with numerous other oddities emerging from CSICOP,
over the past couple of years, I have to wonder whether digressing
into social commentary and philosophy is a brief exception or a true
change of focus.  Did anyone else notice that amidst all the
appreciative (and highly-deserved) praise for the late Isaac Asimov in
the current _SI_, there's favourable mention of his help to CODESH
(Dr. Kurtz's humanist group that he set up after his parting of the
ways with the American Humanist Association), but that it strangely
neglects to mention that Asimov was president of the AHA at the time?
If CSICOP is indeed functionally independent of CODESH -- contrary to
impressions created by many aspects of the "Center for Inquiry"
project discussed here some while ago -- why are mentions of the AHA
(with which Kurtz and CODESH appear to have a one-sided rivalry)
seemingly taboo in CSICOP periodicals?  See also the recounting of
CSICOP's history in its _Skeptical Briefs_ newsletter, which excised
the fact that CSICOP was born in the pages of the AHA's magazine, _The
Humanist_, under Kurtz's editorship.

I certainly don't want to discourage discussion of interesting and
far-flung topics in skeptics' groups, let alone on BITNET discussion
lists.  I'm just curious as to where CSICOP -- bearing the strains of
the lawsuits and James Randi's departure -- thinks it should be
heading, and why.

I hope John will get in touch with Becky Long of Georgia Skeptics,
who will be attending the conference and is familiar with these issues
and my concerns about them.  I also help John, along with Keith
Blanton, Mike Sullivan, and the other hard-working North Texas
Skeptics volunteers get the appreciation they are no doubt richly
earning as I write this note.

Cheers,
Rick Moen
(not purporting to speak for anyone else)
Best reached at [e-mail]





From: Rick Moen <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Skeptics' focus
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:51:07 PDT
Taner Edis <[e-mail]> kindly forwarded a reply from Amy
Bix, as follows:

> Rick Moen has posted a very thoughtful and interesting piece on what
> the "proper" focus of the SKEPTIC newsgroup/conference/etc. "should"
> be.

Actually, that was NOT my intent.  I was speaking of organised
skeptics' _groups_, including CSICOP and my own group, Bay Area
Skeptics.  This forum does not have any institutional responsibilities
(as do skeptics' groups), and in any event digressions on e-mail
forums are simply a fact of life.  On-line forums tend to become
whatever the participants want -- which is all well and good, I
suppose.

> First, let me say that I do not want to force my feminist/women's
> history/liberal viewpoint on anyone.  I only entered the discussion
> in the first place because Robert Sheaffer ("Skepticus Maximus")
> began with a posting making accusations against feminism and women's
> history which I found to be groundless.  Second, I don't mean to
> disparage the "pure" skeptic subjects like crop circles, Shroud of
> Turin, etc. - these certainly deserve continuing attention, and I
> find such matters quite enjoyable and informative.

I enjoy the byplay, and was not in any way objecting.  Robert has
interests as diverse as anyone's, here:  On the one hand, he's a
leading skeptical UFOlogist and author of the "Psychic Vibrations"
column in _Skeptical Inquirer_.  On the other, he's also author of a
couple of books outside that area:  _Resentment against Achievement_,
an interpretation of social and political trends, and _The Making of
the Messiah_, an interpretation of the Jesus story.

Off-topic spillover ranges from tolerable to likeable to the extent it
is some combination of intelligent, short, infrequent, humourous, and
pleasant.  The digressions here are so much better than the main
discourse in _most_ on-line forums that I would not dream of
objecting.  I just think it worthwhile occasionally pointing out WHAT
IS off-topic spillover.

> Agreed, I too find this diversity refreshing, which is one reason I
> would like to see that same diversity and intelligence also applied
> to broader issues.  That doesn't mean I expect to reach agreement on
> these other issues, but the discussion can be illuminating and
> enjoyable, as was our exchange on feminism (IMHO).

Agreed about that exchange, to be sure.  However, discussions in a
skeptics' forum (and notice that this is changing the subject from my
point, which concerned skeptics' _groups_) that stray notably and at
length from testable claims are _different in kind_ from those that
don't.  This immediately attracts those who cannot see the
distinction, and regard their personal theories as the self-evident
byword of a higher rationality.  Then, the tone of the discussion goes
down the tubes.  It is testimony to the intelligence and common sense
of most (not all) of the participants here that this has NOT happened
(most of the time) here on BITNET SKEPTIC.

> I agree that one wouldn't want to see the skeptics' movement taken
> over exclusively by political concerns, that people of different
> views should be made to feel welcome.  But I think that the
> skeptics' movement should be able to at least hold an occasional
> intelligent discussion of broader issues without alienating too many
> participants.

Since many observers have little idea what skeptics are about, or have
totally mistaken impressions, sowing further confusion is always a bit
of a problem.  This _can_ be done properly, but too often is not, such
that people come away thinking that skeptics are about libertarianism,
say, or about attacking feminism.  The necessary disclaimers get
omitted.  (By contrast, when I am discussing non-skeptics' topics, I
always omit mention of my directorship with Bay Area Skeptics and
membership in CSICOP's Electronic Communications Subcommittee.)

Let me give you an example of the sort of deleterious effect I spoke
of:  The prior editor of _BASIS_, Dr. Joel Fort, had his own odd
conception of the focus of a skeptics' journal.  He started running
long and sometime impenetrable pieces on social policy towards drug
abuse, against artificial intelligence, advocating various positions
on philosophical ethics, etc.  These were mixed in with a number of
residual pieces of factual reporting, creating the impression that the
former were also supposed to be expositions of fact.  A number of
cancellations cited this, saying the subscriber thought he was
subscribing to a skeptics' journal, and instead got polemics.  The
Board tried to talk to him about these concerns, and he immediately
resigned in a huff, citing "censorship" and "editorial freedom".

In my first issue after I took over under severe time pressure, the
September one, I made a clear break from this trend, irritating
several rather tiresome people who had thought that meandering,
self-righteous pieces of posturing on social advocacy issues were
_just peachy_.  However, I'd like to think that I relieved and
gratified a great many _more_ people.

> Agreed yet again.  But I don't think anybody is asking the skeptics
> to "serve" feminism or environmentalism or a particular political
> viewpoint; discussion does not equal endorsement.  My response to
> Sheaffer was made precisely because I felt that his accusations
> against feminism and women's studies were not "a fair appraisal of
> claims."

Yes, and much of the discussion has been refreshingly grounded in
actual data -- part of the reason I hold many participants here in
especially high esteem, you included.  Unfortunately, there is a
common inference, not always intended, that all the subjects discussed
by skeptics, in skeptics' forums, are pseudo-science.  If the subject
is ideological, that makes skeptics appear to be ideologues.  We are
not ideologues, and should take care not to look that way.  I was in
effect suggesting that digressions out of skepticism proper be
labelled as such, and (as noted above) was speaking in the context of
skeptics' groups (organisations).

> Agreed, but I don't quite like the idea of closing off entire areas
> of discussion merely for fear of what enemies may do with it.  This
> seems to me to be overly cautious.  Of course, I've only recently
> gotten involved with the skeptics' movement and in a limited
> fashion, so others with more experience are probably better
> qualified to comment on this than I.  But I think merely discussing
> an occasional claim with political connections, along with
> parapsychology et al., is unlikely to devastate the skeptics'
> movement.

The point is not only to avoid looking like an ideologue, but also to
not BE one.  People who speak as skeptics on matters of pure opinion
and fail to NOTE that this is pure personal opinion tend to lose sight
of the distinction, and attract others who never even try.  The
FidoNet Skeptic conference, for example, is regularly overrun with
grandstanding contests between a few militantly atheistic skeptics and
visiting fundamentalists attracted by the presence of their opposite
numbers to "bear witness", simply because the former lack sufficient
common sense to distinguish between their personal views and matters
of evidence, and, further, start feeling free to represent their
_other_ beliefs as inevitable for rational types.  At this point, a
Gresham's Law of electronic mail sets in, and everyone but the kooks
and the zealots leave.  So, I _have_ seen this sort of thing happen.

>> The only sensible boundary for the skeptics' purview, in my opinion,
>> opinion, is that of _testable claims of fact_ on the fringes of
>> science.
>
> But is this boundary really quite so clear?

Of course it's not clear.  Few distinctions of any consequence in real
life are.  Please note that I didn't say it was clear, but merely that
it was the only sensible boundary for skeptics' purview.  My point is
that the distinction _exists_, and that treating it as nonexistent
(and especially several consequences that _tend_ to emerge from that
attitude) is harmful to skeptics' _groups_ that disregard it.

> In fact, one of the complaints against science is that too often
> science has taken an overly narrow approach, completely ignoring all
> questions of responsibility and risk and societal values.

Of course, questions like this should be discussed at length.
However, it should also be recognised that they themselves are not
scientific questions (questions amenable to scientific methods of
inquiry).  We should not be led by the importance of those questions
into commiting the category error of classifying them as, in
themselves, matters for science _as science_ to discuss.  In effect,
that is all I was suggesting: the avoidance of a category error, and
avoidance of the appearance of making it.

Cheers,
Rick Moen
(not purporting to speak for anyone else)
Best reached at [e-mail]




From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Your comment on changing focus of CSICOP
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 11:23 EDT

AMEN





From: [e-mail]
Subject: Follow up to AMEN
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:56 EDT

Rick:
As a follow-up to my AMEN, that's why very few NCAS members are going to
the meeting.

I'm the archivist for the National Capital Area Skeptics and also on the
Board of Directors.  I'm trying to get our archives in shape after several
years of disuse, and I found that we are missing a few issues of BASIS.
Do you have a reasonable supply of back issues that we could get the ones
we are missing.  I'll be glad to supply you with any of the issues of the
Skeptical Eye that you don't have in exchange.  Anyway, let me know and I'll
tell you what we are missing.

Thanks in advance.

Mike Epstein
[e-mail]






From: [e-mail]
Subject:      Heeeer's Dallas
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:43:11 -0500
O.K.  This barely qualifies for posting.  It's a bare-faced plug
for the CSICOP Conference in Dallas next weekend.  However, for
those of you planning to attend, here is a warmup to Dallas by
our wise-cracking columnist.  Whether or not you find anything to
be skeptical about the following, I hope you enjoy it:
========================

Welcome to Dallas -- by Pat Reeder

Well, it's time for the CSICOP Conference, and as promised months
ago, here are a few tips for any out of town visitors who wish to
view our local paranormal landmarks (all directions assume the
D/FW Airport Hyatt Hotel as their starting point).
Any tour of this fair city must include a stop at one of our
famous religious establishments.  The problem is that most of
them, through some unfortunate coincidence of scheduling, stage
their services simultaneously...generally on Sunday mornings.
This leads us to make a hard choice.  The Church On The Rock,
made famous by Larry Lea's sermons in battle fatigues, is the
most impressive on the outside, as it looks something like a
gold-plated hockey arena.  But the traffic is terrible, due to
road construction and the huge crowds that flock there every
Sunday.  And W.V. Grant's "Eagle's Nest" is a good place to go if
one of your legs is shorter than the other, but it's too far from
the airport.

For real, solid entertainment in convenient, comfortable
surroundings, the critic's pick has to be Robert Tilton's Word of
Faith (take Highway 635 East toward Dallas, then I-35 North at
the clover leaf, and it's on your immediate right).  Dress to the
nines and look prosperous, or they'll know you're not really a
member.  Although some have accused Tilton of being a shameless
huckster with the greed of a Midas and the conscience of an alley
cat, he does know how to give you real bang for your buck.  A
typical Tilton sermon involves singers, dancers, live animals, a
full band, and occasional big name guest stars, sort of like that
variety show Kraft Cheese used to sponsor, complete with a cameo
by "Bob's very special guest star...Jesus!"  It will lighten your
spirits and your wallet.  And maybe you'll end up on TV!...either
on the religious channel or on Prime Time Live.

After the service, ghost hunters can head to Snuffer's Hamburgers
on lower Greenville Avenue (take 635 East to Dallas, go South on
Highway 75, exit to Mockingbird Lane and go left, then right on
Greenville, it's a few blocks down on your left). Rumors have
circulated for years about flying french fry baskets, crashing
dishes, and loud voices...but really, the service isn't that bad!
And there have been rumors that the place is haunted, too,
although I've never seen any evidence of it.  The burgers and
curly fries are very good though.

If you're in the mood for fish and ectoplasm, take the pleasant
30 minute drive south of Dallas on I-35 to the Catfish Plantation
Restaurant in Waxahachie (watch for the billboards with Caspar on
them along the highway).  The food is good, reasonably priced,
and the surroundings are lovely: a restored Victorian home.  They
have pictures of the ghosts (there are supposed to be three of
them), so if they don't appear, you won't be left out completely.
Waxahachie is home to the Superconducting Supercollider, and is
also a beautiful town, filled with restored Victorian homes.
It's been the setting for a number of motion pictures, and I
liked it so much, I moved there myself.  What higher
recommendation can a critic give?

The most famous ghost of Dallas is "The Lady Of The Lake," who
allegedly haunts White Rock Lake in central Dallas. But the White
Rock Lake area has apparently become too scary even for ghosts,
and she hasn't reared her watery head in quite a few years.
Besides, she only shows up late at night, and if you go wandering
around White Rock Lake late at night, you may end up as a ghost
yourself.  Take a pass on the Lady.

JFK assassination buffs will enjoy spending some time at the
Kennedy Research Center (take I-35 South to downtown Dallas, then
the Woodall Rogers exit toward Hwy 75...take the first exit off
Woodall Rogers.  It's in the West End Marketplace, the big funky
building with the neon on your immediate right).  You can brush
up on all the conspiracy theories, peruse the autopsy photos, and
also enjoy the West End's wonderful shopping, refreshments and
entertainment!  The staff will gladly direct you to the nearby
Texas School Book Depository Building, where you can visit the
Sixth Floor exhibit and comb the grassy knoll for spent shells
the FBI missed.

Finally, you fans of paleontology and creation science will enjoy
the trip to Glen Rose, to see the dinosaur tracks (with the man
tracks next to them, natch).  There's an organized bus trip
available; check at the NTS desk at the conference for more info.

Finally, a quick wrap-up of the news...

That "National Gift to the Sea" mentioned in last month's column
has been scuttled.  As you'll recall, a group of people in the
Netherlands planned to stuff a huge metal figure of a man with
20,000 loaves of bread (it must've been a statue of John Goodman)
and sink it in the North Sea, as repayment for all the benefits
the sea provides.  Environmentalists called it pollution;
churches called it paganism and a criminal waste of food.  Well,
the high court of The Netherlands has ruled that it may not be
sunk, and instead must be buried on the land.  Perhaps it can be
renamed the "National Gift To The Earthworms."

Inside Edition reports that "Ramtha channeler" J.Z. Knight is
being sued by ex-husband #5, because he says "Ramtha" bullied him
into accepting too small a settlement, and now he realizes Ramtha
is a fake.  The Tacoma, Washington, courtroom was crammed both
with Ramtha followers and with poor, disillusioned souls who had
given everything they owned to Knight, only to realize that they
had been devoting their lives to a third-rate ventriloquist act.
While on the stand, Knight testified that during a Christmas
event in 1983, she channeled Jesus.  He couldn't talk long...It
was His birthday, so He had to mingle.  I wish the attorney had
asked her if, on Easter, she channels the Easter Bunny.

Finally, in an attempt to steal tourists from the Loch Ness
monster, business people in Seljord, Norway, are launching a big
publicity campaign for their own local lake monster.  They claim
that for over 150 years, people have been reporting sightings of
a giant, gray serpent which they've named "Selma"...surely the
scariest name for a monster since "Count Chocula."  Good
businessmen never underestimate the public's credulity, so the
Seljord Trade Association is planning a hotel, boat safaris, and
other attractions for all the monster-hunting tourists.  Be sure
to swing by Norway on your way home from Dallas.





From: [e-mail]
Subject: CSICOP Conference
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:    Thu, 1 Oct 1992 7:36:15 -0500 (CDT)
Rick:

Mike Sullivan said you may come to the CSICOP Conference this month.
If you do be sure to stop by our desk and chat.  Let us know if we can
be of assistance during your stay.

John Blanton
Secretary, North Texas Skeptics
P.O. Box 111794
Carrollton, TX 75011-1794

[phone]
2244 Valley Mill
Carrollton, TX 75006
(home address)

From: [e-mail]
Subject: CSICOP Conference
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:    Thu, 1 Oct 1992 7:36:15 -0500 (CDT)
Rick:

Mike Sullivan said you may come to the CSICOP Conference this month.
If you do be sure to stop by our desk and chat.  Let us know if we can
be of assistance during your stay.

John Blanton
Secretary, North Texas Skeptics
P.O. Box 111794
Carrollton, TX 75011-1794

[phone]
2244 Valley Mill
Carrollton, TX 75006
(home address)