linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/newsletters/basis/basisfeb.98

Text File | 1998-11-02 | 44KB | 976 lines

----------------------------------------------------------
February 1998 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics
----------------------------------------------------------
         Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet
                   Vol. 17, No. 1
                Editor:  Ken Beseder



IN THIS ISSUE . . .
Austin Miles addresses BAS, by Bob Steiner
In Memoriam, by Bob Steiner
The Kookie Jar, by Robert A. Baker
Air Force Denies UFO Crash, by A. E. Mous
Steiner Caught Red-Handed, by Tully McCarroll
The Hundredth Monkey, by Rick Moen
The Mysterious UFB, by Bob Steiner
Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine
Is Psychology a Pseudoscience? (Terry Sandbek addresses BAS), by Patrick
   O'Reilly



AUSTIN MILES ADDRESSES BAY AREA SKEPTICS
by Bob Steiner

The title of the talk at our November 19, 1997 meeting was . . .

How Right Is the Religious Right?

Austin Miles, Christian minister-chaplain, was our speaker. He is
author of several books, including the blockbuster best-seller
_Don't Call Me Brother_. I am on safe ground when I say that
Austin Miles is both interesting and controversial. No one who
attended the November 1997 Bay Area Skeptics (BAS) meeting has
even a shred of doubt about that.

So far, so good. Interesting speakers are the life blood of BAS.
That fact keeps skeptics, believers, doubters, New Agers, and
people with all shades of philosophical opinion attending our
meetings.

Rev. Miles discussed cults, and the devastating effect they have
not only on the cult members, but also on their families,
friends, and society as a whole.

He told us that the enemy in life is not God, not the church,
and not religion. "The enemy is man -- corrupt, greedy,
power-seeking man." He went on to say that the enemy is the one
who cloaks himself or herself in a particular group's identity,
but is ignorant of the message of the group.

Rev. Miles told us that "a real Christian is a good neighbor",
and that an extremist is an extremist, regardless of whether the
person is a Christian, an atheist, or a humanist.

His rules for success in life included the following:

o  A freethinker should never have a closed mind.

o  To be successful in life, you must master two things: the thing
   that you love, and the thing that you hate.

o  Just because something is unexplainable does not prove that it
   does not exist.

Next came what I consider to be the defining point of the
meeting -- the assertions by Rev. Miles that effectively drew
the battle lines.

He told us that, just a few decades ago, the main problems of
teachers with students in school were such things as talking in
class, chewing gum, and running in the halls. Today, the
problems are such things as rape, robbery, and assault. He then
pointed out a correlation that many audience members inferred
was an assertion of causation:

"Back then, we had prayer in school; today, we do not."

He explained how he believed that not only is prayer in school
harmless, but also that it helps. The audience reaction was
immediate and intense.

Several people pointed out that there are _numerous_ differences
between today and a few decades ago that could easily explain
the difference in problems in the schools.

One person informed us that "under God" was added to The Pledge
of Allegiance about the same time, and that one could with equal
logic and justification state that perhaps _that_ caused the
change in behavior.

Another person correctly informed the group that prayer in
school had been ruled by the Supreme Court to be in violation of
the Constitution of the United States.

An audience member stated that any prayer would necessarily be
discriminatory: "There is no such thing as a generic prayer."
The person went on to explain that when one prays, there must be
an object of the prayer -- someone or some thing to whom or to
which the people pray. That is necessarily denominational, and
excludes some religions, and _any_ prayer excludes _all_ unbelievers
and _all_ agnostics.

Others challenged Rev. Miles to name the studies that prove that
his cited differences do indeed exist. He did not name any study.

It was at this high emotional pitch in the meeting that Rev.
Miles asserted what he perceives to be "arrogance in the
scientific community." That escalated both the emotional pitch
and the decibels in the room.

An audience member called for a definition of a Christian. Rev.
Miles responded: "One who lives the love of Christ."

Another audience member asserted that most persecutions come
from religious people.

Someone else said that most religions are big business: "They
are there to make money."

Then, someone began quoting what that person believed it said in
_The Bible_. Then came more quotations, and more arguments about
interpretations of _The Bible_.

One person boldly stated that all quotations stated that evening
as being from _The Bible_ were in error. That person gave us his
credentials: He has an e-mail Guide to _The Bible_, and spoke with
great authority.

As a point of miscellaneous information, I had a follow-up
e-mail exchange with that self-anointed expert, wherein I proved
-- _even to his satisfaction_ -- the correctness of what I had
said, and that what he had, falsely and in ignorance, told a
room full of people was wrong!

To summarize:

Some people in attendance believe that Rev. Austin Miles
addressed to almost no degree the title of his talk (chosen by
him): How Right Is the Religious Right?

Some believe that the talk turned into a session of
proselytizing for Christianity.

The talk of Rev. Austin Miles certainly got the adrenaline
flowing in the audience.

At a few points, the meeting got a tad out of hand. It is
difficult to set _formal rules_ to preclude that in the future.
Bay Area Skeptics has been holding monthly meetings for fifteen
years, and a case can be made that the meetings got slightly --
just slightly -- out of hand four or five times. That works out
to about once every three years.

We encourage questions, comments, and discussion, including
disagreement with the speaker or others. Please keep your
comments issue-oriented. The speaker will decide whether
questions and comments will be allowed during the talk, or
whether the audience should hold questions and comments until
the discussion period at the end of the presentation.

Our rules, such as they are, can be summed up in just four
words: Please Show Common Courtesy.

Back to the November meeting:

I introduced Rev. Miles, and, by any reasonable standard, it was
my place to act as moderator.

The first "interruption", which at least one person believes
"opened the floodgates" for the meeting to get out of hand, was
when someone addressed a comment to Austin Miles.

First, I do not believe the meeting got anywhere near as much
out of hand as a few people believe it did.

Did the meeting bring forth excitement, enthusiasm, and
emotions? You bet it did! However, that is not all bad. The
feedback I got from many people is that the meeting was exciting
and interesting, and they are glad that they attended.

Could the meeting have been handled better? Although we can
easily concede that it was not perfect, given the highly charged
emotional content of the talk, I am not sure how things could
have necessarily been improved. With issue-oriented comments
(which most, but not all, were), one approach is to allow the
discussion to freely run. The alternative approach is, depending
upon your point of view, either _keeping order_ or _squelching the
free exchange of ideas_.

All right, here was my problem, and the decision I had to make.
I ask each reader to think about what you would have done in my
circumstances.

Our speaker, Austin Miles, is an accomplished public speaker. He
is a Christian minister-chaplain, has conducted hundreds of
religious services, is a renowned ringmaster, has been
ringmaster for hundreds of circus performances throughout the
world, was Historic Narrator for the Royal Lipizzan Stallion
Show National Tour, has made numerous appearances on television
(including "Larry King Live" and "Entertainment Tonight"), and
has been Master of Ceremonies for special events at Madison
Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, the United Nations, the
Brooklyn Academy of Music, and two events at the White House.

When the audience member made the comment, Austin Miles
immediately recognized the person making the comment, called her
by name, and commenced to address the comment she made.

I have seen many speakers, and I have done it myself, simply say
something along the lines of "Please hold questions and comments
until later. At the end, I shall allow enough time for
discussion. Thank you." From my observation, that works every
time: easily and gracefully, with never a hassle.

If I, as moderator, had spoken up to stop the exchange in
progress, it would have been Austin Miles whom I would have had
to interrupt: I would have halted the flow of conversation by
throwing a roadblock in the middle of a response that our
speaker chose to make.

All right, how many of you, acting as moderator, would have
interrupted the proceedings and interrupted the speaker at that
point?

My assumption at the time, and it is still my assumption, is
that when there is a highly skilled speaker, it is appropriate
for the speaker, not the moderator, to make the decision whether
and when the speaker will address comments and questions. It is
not the duty of the moderator to override the decision the
speaker has made. Nor is it the duty of the moderator to
interrupt the speaker and to prevent him or her from addressing
a comment that the speaker has chosen to address.

A word to the students and newcomers who attended our meeting:
Bay Area Skeptics welcomes you, and we welcome your
participation in our discussion. When you do participate, your
ideas should always be met with courtesy. We apologize for any
lack of courtesy that you felt at our recent meeting. Such
behavior is a rarity at a BAS meeting, and it comes from very
few people.

You must understand that, when you do participate, your ideas
probably will not be met with universal acceptance. You must
expect that your ideas will be weighed, evaluated, and
challenged. That is part of Bay Area Skeptics, and that is how
we all learn. Free-wheeling discussion and argument contribute a
great deal to the increase of human knowledge.

I apologize to both Rev. Miles and the audience for the fact
that the meeting might have gotten a tad out of hand.

Thank you so much to Rev. Austin Miles for an excellent
presentation. You held the attention of the audience, and you
got us thinking. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the purpose of
the meetings of Bay Area Skeptics! We encourage the open, free,
and enthusiastic exchange of ideas.



Skeptics are the most gullible people, because they don't know
what to believe.

                      -- A.E. Mous



IN MEMORY OF DON MORRIS
by Bob Steiner

It is with great sadness that I report that Don Morris died on
August 6, 1997, at the age of 55.

Don activated with Bay Area Skeptics near the very beginning.
For years, he participated in virtually every event.

Bay Area Skeptics played a large part in hosting the CSICOP
Conference at Stanford University in November, 1984. Don and his
wife Susie had active roles in making that event a success.

Don took over managing the LA-TRUTH line (Bay Area Skeptics's
information line) in 1984, when the telephone line was moved
into his home. The line resides in that location to this day.

Above all, what I remember about Don -- and this has been
confirmed by everyone I have spoken to -- is his ever-joyful,
happy, optimistic spirit. It was a pleasure to work with him on
projects, and it was a pleasure just to talk with him.

People who disagreed with Don on philosophical points related to
skepticism often were taken aback when they found themselves
arguing with someone who was logical, brilliant, reasonable, and
an altogether pleasant human being.

Don leaves his wife Susie and their eight-year-old son Oliver.



[Ed note: This article is reprinted by kind permission of KASES
File, the journal of the Kentucky Association of Science
Educators and Skeptics, Vol. 10, No. 1.]

THE KOOKIE JAR
by Robert A. Baker

In case you haven't heard of Fang Shui (pronounced "fung shway"),
you're not alone, but, according to the _New York Times's_ recent
report (courtesy of Wayne Davis), it is the latest rage among
the well-healed with more time and money than common sense on
their hands. This scam is based on the ancient Asian folk belief
that the way objects are arranged and placed in one's home will
affect chi (pronounced "chee"), i.e., invisible fields of
electromagnetic energy that the Chinese and other Asians believe
determines your vitality, fortune, and love life.

For some reason, this folklore has caught on with a number of
Americans, who have been spending a lot of dollars to hundreds
of Fang Shui masters and consultants who will, for a modest fee,
come to your home and advise you on where to put your cat's
litter box to enhance kitty's and your well-being and future
prospects.

Thousands of people, the most respected Fang Shui say, are
taking weekend courses and promising to change the fortunes and
love lives of eager clients, through consultations that can cost
"as much as $1,000 an hour", according to Molly O'Neill, the
author of the _Times_ report of January 9 entitled "Fang Shui or
Fang Phooey". These Asian con-artists have consulted on real
estate developments in the United States for well over a decade
-- mostly to Asian investors, but, just recently, ordinary
Americans have managed to squeeze themselves into the coaches of
this gravy train.

Fang Shui consultants and gurus are now showing up in nearly
every American city, and articles in _Architectural Digest_ and
other magazines are dispensing advice on how to rearrange the
chi in your home. Seems like installing wind chimes and
table-top waterfalls, painting the walls green, and hanging
eight-sided mirrors also help revive your flagging libido.

Believe it or not, these fang phooey hucksters claim that
putting a pink rose in your bathroom will perk up your love
life. Ms. O'Neill reports that, on the advice of one of these
"wind and water" seers, she moved her cats' litter box to
another corner of the bathroom and installed a number of potted
plants. Although the cats loved the jungle in their privy, they
now use a living room plant as their dumping ground.

Skeptics should not be discouraged, however, at this willingness
on the part of a moronic public to be swindled and suckered by
anything with a reputed ancient origin. In no way is this
gullibility new. Take heart in the fact that, if you ever do
decide to give up your integrity, there is a veritable mountain
of gold out there for the taking, if you put on a turban, adopt
an accent, invent some hidden universal energy source, and refer
to yourself as the great Wang Dang, who sprang from the root of
all knowledge. In a month, you'll make a mint.



NEWS FROM THE FIELD: DISPATCHES FROM OUR FAR-FLUNG CORRESPONDENTS

[Ed. note: We received the following missive in the wake of the
recent NASA Pathfinder mission.]

AIR FORCE DENIES STORIES OF UFO CRASH

Valles Marineris (MPI) - A spokesthing for Mars Air Force
denounced as false the rumors that an alien space craft crashed
in the desert, outside of Ares Vallis on Friday. Appearing at a
press conference today, General Rgrmrmy The Lesser stated that
"the object was, in fact, a harmless high-altitude weather
balloon, not an alien spacecraft".

The story broke late Friday night when a major stationed at
nearby Ares Vallis Air Force Base contacted the _Valles Marineris
Daily Record_ with a story about a strange, balloon-shaped object
that allegedly came down in the nearby desert, "bouncing"
several times before coming to a stop, "deflating in a sudden
explosion of alien gases". Minutes later, General Rgrmrmy The
Lesser contacted the _Daily Record_ telepathically to contradict
the earlier report.

General Rgrmrmy The Lesser stated that hysterical stories of a
detachable vehicle roaming across the Martian desert were
blatant fiction, provoked by incidents involving swamp gas.

However, the general public has been slow to accept the Air
Force's explanation of recent events, preferring to speculate on
the "other-worldly" nature of the crash debris. Conspiracy
theorists have condemned Rgrmrmy's statements as evidence of "an
obvious government cover-up", pointing out that Mars has no
swamps.



BOB STEINER CAUGHT RED-HANDED AT BAS MEETING
by Tully McCarroll

Last month's presenter was Bob Steiner, esteemed co-founder of
BAS and magician extraordinaire. We were treated to a glimpse
inside his magical surgery suite, and psychically inside of Dr.
Arnold Knepfer's abdomen: While the Channel 7 camera rolled, Bob
performed psychic surgery. He entered the stomach area without
gloves or instruments; "blood" oozed out as he extracted a worm.
Exhibiting his bloodied and red but empty hands, he re-entered
to retrieve a racquet ball. Afterward, Arnold said he felt much
better; he was cured (just as many believers are, in the
Philippines, where psychic surgery is very popular)! Bob then
gave us his formula for fake blood, and showed us the fake
fingers used to hold it.

"It's theater," Bob says, "but it's not harmless." It is not
harmless when the dishonest prey on the naive or desperate, with
remedies of no value. It is fraud, defined as deception
deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful
gain. It is also quackery.

Bob defined quackery as the promotion of false or unproved
methods for profit. Those using these methods may be doctors,
licensed or unlicensed persons; they may be sincere or
fraudulent. The practice may be legal or illegal. Unless the
methods or medications are scientifically validated as safe and
effective, however, they are not proven methods. Some may be
safe but not effective. Some may be so dilute as to have no
effect, as in homeopathy, where minute doses of substances
considered harmful are administered in large amounts of water.

Included in the arena of Cheap Parlor Tricks, Bob illustrated
the power of mental suggestion, inquiring if anyone had an itch.
Using only verbal encouragement, he was able to get 50% to admit
feeling itchy . . . and an unknown number who did not admit it.
Another trick is muscle resistance testing, where an offending
substance, such as tobacco, is held in one hand, causing
"weakness" in the other, outstretched arm. The weakness is
exhibited by the force necessary to push the arm down.
Presumably, if the subject is adversely affected by the
substance, there will be weakness in the arm. Because the person
doing the pushing has total control of how difficult this
appears, that person also has total control of the outcome.
Because of mechanical advantage involving leverage, even the
strongest person's resistance can be easily overwhelmed.

Most impressive of Bob's cheap parlor tricks was his ability to
stop his radial pulse. Although other audiences were ready to
"start a church" for him, Bob noted that "there is a small
disadvantage to speaking to skeptics" when everyone asked Bob to
divulge his trick. He assured us that "my pulse doesn't stop
because I'm a magician . . . unless I know how." He knows how.

Bob next discussed reflexology. Taber's _Cyclopedic Medical
Dictionary_ defines reflexology as "the study of reflexes", but,
according to the chart, all organs and body parts are
represented on the plantar surfaces and can be treated from
there using pressure. "What about amputees?" you might ask. Not
to worry; the chart states that even though the exact locations
cannot be found on the stump, painful spots will be found that
need attention.

Faith healers occupy a large portion of high-profit fraud
perpetrated upon the unsuspecting public, and Bob not only had a
lot to say about it; he has done a lot about it. With his team
of skeptics, Bob helped to debunk Peter Popoff, who was
discovered using a microphone into which his wife fed him
information from questionnaires the audience had filled out. He
was exposed on Johnny Carson, a few months later. As a result,
Popoff's TV faithful dropped from 52 channels to 9. However,
he's still "healing".

Bob then showed a videotape of an "A.M. San Francisco" program
on which he appeared with a faith healer known as Amazing Grace.
Before the show, Grace had "healed" a few members of the
audience, including Don (the mailman) Henvick, who came at Bob's
request. Don had been healed of fictional maladies eight times by
Peter Popoff. Bob asked Grace how she made her selections,
before the film was shown on the air. She answered that God told
her whom to choose, and never made mistakes. It came as quite a
surprise to Grace that Don was a plant. She backpedaled
frantically, claiming to have known she was being tricked. It
was a bad day for Amazing Grace, who is likely to be up to her
old tricks with a new audience.

A variety of other faith healers were also discussed. As Bob
points out, they keep returning, even after being exposed as
fakes. Slowing their activities may be the most that can be
done, but we can at least do that. Of course, there would be no
market if P.T. Barnum had been wrong.



[Ed. note: This piece previously appeared in _Georgia Skeptic_,
Vol. 4, No. 2, and originated in a post on the Usenet newsgroup
sci.skeptic.]

THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY
by Rick Moen

Have you heard of the "Hundredth-Monkey Phenomenon"? It
approaches the status of holy writ among some New Agers.

According to Lyall Watson's widely-quoted[1] book _Lifetide_[2],
around the year 1952, young monkeys on the Japanese island of
Koshima figured out how to make sweet potatoes (provided by
primatologists) more edible by washing them. They then taught
their peers and parents, until, by 1958, this behaviour was
found among widely-spread members of the troop.

So far, so good. Then, in that year, a sort of group
consciousness developed among the monkeys, when, say, the
_hundredth_ monkey began washing potatoes. Suddenly, almost _all_
the monkeys began doing so. Further, "the habit seems to have
jumped natural barriers and to have appeared spontaneously . . .
in colonies on other islands and on the mainland in a troop at
Takasakiyama."

This anecdote has been used to provide ideological support to
such diverse notions as telepathy and nuclear disarmament --
you, the reader, could be the "hundredth monkey" necessary for
global transformation. What gets lost in the shuffle is the
evidence for Watson's factual claim. Like many New Agers, Watson
voices the sentiment that "when a myth is shared by large
numbers of people, it becomes a reality". Ron Amundson of the
Hawaii Skeptics, who investigated Watson's claim[3], suggested
that this latter statement could be rephrased as "Convince
enough people of a lie, and it becomes the truth". (Amundson
found that _all_ of Watson's claimed documentation was grossly
misrepresented, and in fact contradicted the -- now famous --
claim.)

Whether one buys this philosophical stance or not, the notion
that this alleged mass consciousness is somehow politically
progressive is a curious one. Per Watson's vision, "Peace, love,
and a taste for brown rice and tofu", as commentator Tim
Farrington[4] put it, "will at a given point instantly envelope
the planet, and humanity will live happily ever after . . . .
Neuroses, bad habits, ignorance will all be dissolved in a
flash, without effort on the part of the rest of us." Let's
savour, for a moment, this balmy image, before allowing
ourselves to think about it.

Back in 1933, there must have been some hundredth German monkey
who joined the Nazi party, mustn't there? The mass consciousness
of the society was transformed. As the "Herrenrace" myth became
shared by large numbers of people, it transformed the reality of
Europe.

Farrington continues: "There is no guarantee that the hundredth
monkey will be any wiser than the first, and no assurance that
the first will be wise at all. The myth of critical mass, and
its magic, is double-edged."

Farrington suggests that, rather than admire the hundredth
monkey, brainlessly falling in tune with the mass consciousness
of the other 99, we instead take our hats off to the
one-hundred-first monkey's "individual acts of conscience and
reason, acts not effortless, nor particularly inspired, acts not
necessarily validated by the herd nor telepathically obvious;
but acts simply that are steps, one by one, on the difficult,
intricate, sometimes ambiguous, rewarding path of a single human
life."

[1] _The Hundredth Monkey_, by Ken Keyes, Jr., 1982, Vision Books,
Coos Bay, Oregon; Article: "The Hundredth Monkey" in "Updated
Special Issue: 'A New Science of Life'" of _Brain/Mind Bulletin_,
1982; Film and videotape: "The Hundredth Monkey", Elda Hartley,
producer, 1982, Hartley Film Foundation, Inc., Cos Cob, Conn.

[2] _Lifetide_, by Lyall Watson, 1979. Simon and Schuster, NY.

[3] Article: "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon" by Ron Amundson, in
Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1985, pp. 348-56. Follow-up in Spring
1987 issue, pp. 303-4. Watson had alleged, in _Whole Earth
Review_, Fall 1986 (the "Fringes of Reason" issue) that his
citations weren't really citations, and that the whole story,
although contradicted by his supposed evidence, is nonetheless
true. See also article "Spud-Dunking Monkey Theory Debunked" by
Boyce Rensberger, _Washington Post_, July 6, 1989).

[4] Article "The 101st Monkey" by Tim Farrington, in _The Node_
magazine, Winter 1987, San Francisco.



THE MYSTERIOUS UFB
by Bob Steiner

Ian Noyes and the I-Team, of Channel 7 News (KGO-TV), showed up
at the October 22, 1997, Bay Area Skeptics meeting. I was the
speaker; the topic was Psychic Surgery, Faith Healing, and Other
Medical Quackery.

They had a video clip of an alleged UFO, and they wanted . . . .
However, let us review it the way it appeared on the Eleven
O'clock News, on November 26, 1997.

Mike McHendry, music video producer, was filming a local rap
artist, on September 12, 1997. When he viewed the tape back at
his studio, McHendry saw what he believed to be pictures of a
UFO streaking across the screen in the distance. It appeared to
make three passes over Twin Peaks, during the taping.

Dan Noyes and the I-Team conducted an investigation.

The first stop shown on the News was an interview with Steven
Wingate and Jerry Shifman, UFO Investigators.

Wingate's observation was: "It has a lot of the characteristics
of a real UFO, or a flying saucer. It is moving very rapidly. It
appears to be saucer-shaped, and it's relatively clear."

Given the estimated considerable distance of the UFO from the
camera, they came up with the following calculations:

o  The UFO went from the Transamerica Pyramid to Twin Peaks in
   0.267 seconds (less than a third of a second).

o  That is a distance of four miles.

o  That works out to a traveling speed of 54,000 miles per hour.

The announcer stated: "No known aircraft, not even the Space
Shuttle, comes close to matching 54,000 miles an hour."

The next person interviewed was Eric Beckjord, head of San
Francisco's UFO Museum, who believed that this spaceship
contained aliens doing a little sightseeing. He called it
"intergalactic tourism". He elaborated: "There are others that
may actually be running us: We may be their test subjects."

Thence, the I-Team showed up at the October 22, 1997, Bay Area
Skeptics meeting. The News told a bit about BAS, and showed a
bit of my psychic surgery being performed on Arnold Knepfer,
M.D.

Kate Talbot's reaction to the UFO video tape was "It's just so
utterly ludicrous that I can't imagine anybody buying it."

Another audience member said "Up until now, I never believed in
flying saucers, but, now, I wouldn't travel any other way."

Then, the I-Team took the video tape to a television commercial
production house, Varitel, in San Francisco. Michael Hogan and
the engineers at Varitel knew what to do: On the screen was a
clearer image. The "UFO" was not far off in the distance.
Rather, it was between the rapper (the subject of the video) and
the lens.

It is not a UFO. It is a bug!

Dan Noyes summed up the piece with the following observations:

_"It's a UFB! - an unidentified flying bug!"_

"This also gives us a very good example of how these things get
out of control."

He then told us that they have been getting calls from across
the country about this "UFO" video tape.

Kudos to Dan Noyes and the I-Team for conducting a systematic,
thorough, scientific investigation, and bravo to Michael Hogan
and the people at Varitel for the scientific approach to
analyzing the data presented.



[Ed. note: This article is reprinted, by kind permission, from
Rocky Mountain Skeptics's May/June 1997 issue.]

ANNOUNCING: THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE

The public, the media, and even some physicians seem enthralled
by the unexamined promises of "alternative" or unconventional
treatments. Yet there has been no scientific journal dedicated
exclusively to carefully scrutinizing the onslaught of dubious
claims. Until now.

The _Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine_ has just been
launched to fill the void. It's a peer-reviewed medical journal
whose aim is to provide objective, scientific assessments of the
treatments, methods, and hypotheses of unconventional medicine.
The editor is CSICOP fellow Wallace Sampson, M.D., clinical
professor of medicine at Stanford University, and the executive
editor is Lewis Vaughn, co-author (with Theodore Schick) of the
critical thinking text _How To Think About Weird Things_.
Prometheus Books publishes the journal, and it has been endorsed
by the Council for Scientific Medicine, a group of physicians,
scientists, and others concerned about the lack of critical
scrutiny of "alternative" medicine.

The journal is issued twice a year, but frequency may increase
later. A subscription is $50 for individuals and $90 for
institutions.

To affirm its support for scientific medicine and this new
journal, the Council issued the statement below. (To subscribe,
call 800-421-0351; or fax your credit card number to
716-691-0137; or write SRAM, Prometheus Books, 59 John Glenn
Dr., Amherst NY 14228-9826; or e-mail [e-mail].}

In recent years, a wide range of unconventional therapies have
appeared on the public scene. These are offered as "alternative"
or "complementary" to mainstream medicine, and include
everything from herbal medicines, homeopathy, and aromatherapy
to the use of acupuncture, therapeutic touch, prayer at a
distance, faith healing, chelation therapy, and miraculous cures.

We, the undersigned, believe that the need for objective,
scientific critiques of the claims of "alternative" or
non-conventional medicine has never been greater. This
conclusion seems inescapable because . . .

o  There is a general lack of readily available, reliable
information about the efficacy of such treatments. This impairs
people's free choice and increases risks to their health. The
potential harm is incalculable but appears to be growing. The
trend is abetted by those who promote unproven treatments,
especially those who are naive, greedy, or unscrupulous.

o  The media all too often dote on controversial and false claims
but unfortunately provide few careful, critical examinations of
them, usually preferring to titillate, pander, or entertain.
Often, what the public hears is anecdotal testimony of people
allegedly cured, not the results of scientific research. Many
best-selling books promote the power of such alleged healing,
but they hardly pass the scrutiny of peer review.

o  Several new journals devoted exclusively to "alternative"
medicine have appeared recently, but they merely advocate
unconventional treatments, and rarely assess them objectively.

o  Both the public and some medical professionals seem unaware
that credible, scientific assessments of many "alternative"
medicine claims already exist -- that new evaluations based on
available information are possible.

o  There is a critical need to test new claims before they are
marketed to the public.

We therefore welcome the founding of the _Scientific Review of
Alternative Medicine_, the first peer-reviewed journal dedicated
entirely to the scientific, rational evaluation of
unconventional health claims.

Its purpose is to apply the best tools of science and reason to
determine the validity of hypotheses and the effectiveness of
treatments. It will dismiss no claim a priori, but consider it
on its merits. It will reject no claim because it fits, or fails
to fit, some paradigm. It will, using scientific methods and
reasonable criteria, seek justified answers to two questions:
"Is it true? and "Does this treatment work?" It will call for
double-blind, controlled trials of alternative therapies.

We believe that the launching of the _Scientific Review of
Alternative Medicine_ is now imperative. We therefore call for
physicians, scientists, health practitioners, and citizens
everywhere to join us in supporting this important venture to
advance scientific medicine, and to expand the benefits of
people's free and informed choice.



September, 1997 Bay Area Skeptics Lecture
PSEUDOSCIENCE AND PSYCHOLOGY
by Patrick O'Reilly

The September guest speaker for Bay Area Skeptics was Clinical
Psychologist Dr. Terry Sandbek, and the title of his talk was
"Is Psychology a Science?" Dr. Sandbek is the Founder and
Director of California Clinic in Sacramento, an outpatient
treatment facility for eating disorders. He is on the staff of
Sierra Vista Hospital, and is the author of the text _The Deadly
Diet_. Among his many other accomplishments, Dr. Sandbek is also
one of the six founders of Bay Area Skeptics.

Dr. Sandbek began his lecture with an introduction of the
psychology profession: He touched briefly on the works of
Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, Pinel, and Benjamin Rush, and gave
us a concise overview of the psychology profession in the late
nineteenth and twentieth century, with particular attention paid
to Sigmund Freud.

Dr. Sandbek pointed out that, prior to the development of
psychoanalysis, Freud was a well-respected scientist. With the
advent of his psychological theories, Freud, who did not subject
his psychological theories to scientific testing, lost the
respect of much of the scientific community. At about the same
time that Freud was formulating his psychoanalytic theories,
which eschewed scientific methodology, much of European
psychology was developing along scientific lines that advocated
the use of scientific methods to study human nature.

Dr. Sandbek talked about the development of psychological
studies in the United States, and the implementation of
professional and academic standards set by the American
Psychological Association (A.P.A.), which was founded by G.
Stanley Hall, a devotee of Freud's work, in 1892. Of more
importance to our current understanding of psychology, Lightner
Witmer in 1896 established the first psychological clinic in the
world, at the University of Pennsylvania. Witmer believed
strongly that the scientific study of human behavior could have
practical benefits for humanity. Shortly after Witmer founded
his clinic, J.D. Watson, considered by most to be the founder of
American psychology, became the leader of experimental
psychology, with emphasis on the study of behavior. B.F. Skinner
ultimately became the accepted leader of the behaviorialist
school of psychology, which followed scientific guidelines, and
furthered the split between practitioners of that time, who
tended to use the Freudian psychoanalytic model, and academics,
who advocated a scientific study of human nature.

Dr. Sandbek told us that, in 1942, Carl Rogers developed
humanistic psychology to counter psychoanalysis and
behaviorialism, and to emphasize the concept of free will.
Rogers believed that people could cure themselves if they were
in a nurturing, therapeutic environment. Although Carl Rogers is
credited as being a major influence of much current
non-scientific psychotherapeutic theory, Dr. Sandbek pointed out
that Rogers was a great believer in basing therapy on empirical
testing.

In 1949, the American Psychological Association established
training parameters, called "the scientific practitioner model",
for psychologists, which emphasized the scientific principles of
psychological training. Dr. Sandbek pointed out that most
universities today preach this as a model, although it is not
necessarily academically emphasized. The field of psychology is
often seen today, even in academic circles, as composed of the
distinctly separate schools of non-scientific psychology and
scientific psychology.

A glaring example of this, Dr. Sandbek said, is the fact that
academia is turning out more clinicians than researchers. As a
consequence of this de-emphasis of scientific methods, in the
1980s, many academics and researchers split from the A.P.A.,
which no longer insisted on empirical studies, and formed the
American Psychological Society, which calls for strict
scientific standards.

Dr. Sandbek explained why he believes scientific standards are
faltering in the psychology profession: He expressed concern
over the current popularity of the Psy.D. (Doctorate of
Psychology) degree. He told us that the Psy.D. is specifically
oriented to practice, and, unlike the Ph.D., often does not
adequately teach the skills needed to properly analyze data. He
pointed out that too often Psy.D graduates have not mastered
such professionally basic skills as statistics and research
analysis, and, as a consequence, are unable to effectively
understand research or professional journals. He said that
practitioners who are so trained often do not know how to
determine the correct approaches to treating psychological
dysfunctions, because they are unable to understand what studies
and work have already been done.

Dr. Sandbek also pointed out that the postmodernist viewpoint
has also infiltrated psychology. The postmodernist idea that
science is "just one of the ways" to understand the world and is
no more legitimate than anything else has also popularized the
notion that understanding basic scientific principles is not a
requirement for successful psychotherapy. Such a postmodernist
professional stance, though, might well lead to an inability on
the practitioner's part to determine what psychotherapeutic
approaches have been statistically shown to be effective.

As examples of shoddy professional standards and sloppy
professional methodology, Dr. Sandbek brought up such past fad
therapies as Reichian Therapy, Transactional Analysis, and
Primal Therapy. In keeping with the theme of his presentation,
he pointed out that even a cursory scientific analysis of these
approaches would have raised serious questions about their
effectiveness. However, the proponents of these therapies did
not offer scientific studies to validate their claims, and an
unsuspecting public and poorly trained therapists too often
assumed that these approaches were reliable without adequately
examining the claims of the therapies' proponents.

Dr. Sandbek concluded his talk with examples of the ways in
which current fad psychotherapies thrive. Advocates of suspect
therapies frequently rely on catchy wording: Pop psychology
captioning such as "Five Minutes to . . . " or "Ten Reasons Why
. . ." tend to capture people's attention without the need to
provide adequate explanations or testing. Providing personal
testimonials is also a popular approach with non-scientific
practitioners. Such testimonials, of course, do not validate the
success claims of the therapies. Dr. Sandbek pointed out,
though, that the limitations of personal testimonials as proof
are frequently not known to the public, nor to psychotherapists
who are not adequately trained in research methodology. He was
also concerned about non-peer-reviewed psychotherapies, many of
which are taught only at workshops organized by the therapies'
proponents.

Dr. Sandbek did a remarkably thorough and entertaining job,
explaining how science is correctly and incorrectly used in the
field of psychology. His talk was interspersed with humor, and
he was particularly entertaining when discussing how the
development of Freud's theories was heavily influenced by
Freud's own addiction to cocaine. The fact that psychoanalysis,
like many psychotherapeutic theories, has been shown to be
non-effective, has not stopped its use by psychotherapists, and
Dr. Sandbek admirably explained why this is so.

Dr. Sandbek succinctly pointed out the potential limitations of
professional schools and poorly designed Psy.D. degrees. He
emphasized the necessity of psychotherapists having the research
skills necessary to study data and formulate tests. Of special
interest to Bay Area Skeptics, Dr. Sandbek explained how the
split between nonscientists and scientists in psychology
originated, and the reasons why this division continues.

                             -----

BAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Chair: Patrick O'Reilly
Vice-Chair: Norman Sperling
Secretary: Wilma Russell
Treasurer: Carol Baumgartner
Directors: David Knapp, Arnold Knepfer, Larry Loebig, Rick Moen,
Patrick O'Reilly, Wilma Russell, Eugenie Scott, Bob Steiner, and
Kate Talbot.


BASIS STAFF
Editor: Ken Beseder
Distribution: Wilma Russell
Meeting Coordinator: open


BAS BOARD OF ADVISORS:
William J. Bennetta, Scientific Consultant
Dean Edell, M.D., ABC Medical Reporter
Andrew Fraknoi, Ph.D., Astronomical Society of the Pacific
Donald Goldsmith, Astronomer and Attorney
Earl Hautala, Research Chemist
Mark Hodes, Educational Consultant
Alexander Jason, Investigative Consultant
Thomas H. Jukes, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley
Lawrence S. Lerner, Ph.D., Cal State University, Long Bearch
John E. McCosker, Ph.D., Director, Steinhart Aquarium
Kit Moser, Science Writer
Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley
Kevin Padian, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley
James Randi, Magician, Author, Lecturer
Francis Rigney, M.D., Pacific Presbyterian Med. Center
Wallace I. Sampson, M.D., Stanford University
Terry Sandbek, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist
Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., Anthropologist
Robert Sheaffer, Author, UFO Expert
Ray Spangenburg, Science Writer
Robert A. Steiner, CPA, Magician, Public Speaker, Writer
Jill C. Tarter, SETI Institute

BAS INFO: 510-LA-TRUTH, or http://hugin.imat.com/bas/

SUBSCRIPTIONS:
One year for a contribution of $18.00 or more. An "S" on mailing label
shows the month/year of expiration. Please renew well in advance.
"I" means inquiry or courtesy copy.

MATERIAL FOR PUBLICATION:
The deadline for submission to _BASIS_ is the 10th of the month.

Opinions expressed in _BASIS_ are those of the authors, and do not
necessarily reflect those of BAS, its board, or its advisors.

The above are selected articles from the February, 1998 issue of
_BASIS_, the publication of Bay Area Skeptics. You can obtain a
free sample copy by sending your name and address to BAY AREA
SKEPTICS, 17722 Buti Park Ct., Castro Valley, CA 94546, or by
leaving a message on the 510-LA-TRUTH (voice) hotline.

Copyright (C) 1998 BAY AREA SKEPTICS. Reprints must credit "_BASIS_,
newsletter of Bay Area Skeptics, 17722 Buti Park Ct., Castro
Valley, CA 94546."