linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/newsletters/basis/basisjan.87

Text File | 1997-06-27 | 28KB | 577 lines

---------------------------------------------------------
January 1987 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics
---------------------------------------------------------
         Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet
                   Vol. 6, No. 1
                Editor:  Kent Harker



A CHALLENGE TO ALL PSYCHICS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

We are Bay Area Skeptics (BAS), a group of people willing to test
paranormal claims. We are committed to finding out the truth about
so-called psychic powers, whatever that truth may be.

We hereby issue the following challenge to any and all psychics and
psychic researchers in the Bay Area: Show us just one psychic
power, of any kind, that can be demonstrated to be real under
properly controlled scientific test conditions. Claims of psychic
powers are abundant -- but we want to see somebody who can actually
demonstrate a genuine ability at telepathy, precognition,
clairvoyance, psychokinesis, paranormal healing, or any other
alleged psychic power.

If you are psychic, it is to your advantage to accept this
challenge: first, because of the monetary reward being offered, and
second, because of the recognition and prestige you will achieve
as the first person to successfully demonstrate such powers to a
group of knowledgeable skeptics.

Various persons associated with Bay Area Skeptics have offered a
total of $11,000.00 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic
power under properly controlled scientific test conditions.
Furthermore, James "The Amazing" Randi, of Florida, has for decades
offered $10,000.00 for proof of any psychic power performed under
properly controlled conditions. Bay Area Skeptics will promptly
report to Randi anyone whose powers seem worthy of testing. In both
cases, the conditions of the test will be arranged in advance with
the person claiming psychic ability, and the test will not begin
until all concerned parties agree to the arrangement.

Think of the enormous recognition that would be given to the first
person to convince the world's most outspoken skeptics of the
reality of psychic powers! Think also of the tremendous benefit to
science and humanity if the existence of miraculous powers for
healing and obtaining knowledge could at long last be proven!

There is probably no other place in the United States where the
number of alleged psychics, and the degree of belief in psychic
powers, is as high as here in the Bay Area. Psychic readers,
healers, etc., abound in San Francisco, Berkeley, San Jose, and
throughout the Bay Area. We challenge anyone to prove that the
claims are scientifically valid.

If you believe you have genuine psychic powers, the advantages of
accepting this challenge are considerable.

We may be reached at:
   Bay Area Skeptics
   Attn.: Challenge
   Box 60
   Concord, CA 94522.

If you are interested in being tested on your scientific claim,
please submit a letter including the following:

A precise, clear statement of your claim.

Specifics of what you would do in a scientific test.

Specifics as to what you would consider to be scientific proof of
your claims. Include methods and statistical requirements. Realize
that what you do must be beyond chance expectations.

A statement that you understand and agree that all of the
proceedings are to be considered on the record -- either side is
free to publish what has transpired.

A statement that you understand and agree that the test must be
agreed to in advance, in writing, by both parties, or there will
be no test.

A statement that you understand and agree that failure to agree to
the specifications of the test shall not constitute grounds for a
legal claim for damages.

Your claim must be:

CLEAR. A statement such as "You might have had some heart trouble"
is not clear.

UNDERSTANDABLE. A statement such as "You have to get more centered"
is not understandable.

SPECIFIC. A statement such as "You have now or within the past
three years had some involvement in a relationship or an
investment" is too vague.

SCIENTIFIC. If you claim that "A" will happen, then if "A" does
not happen, you have failed to prove your claim.

TESTABLE. A statement such as "You will be upset within the next
three months" is not testable.

SIGNIFICANTLY ACCURATE. Your performance must be accurate beyond
what would be expected by chance.

DEMONSTRABLY PSYCHIC OR PARANORMAL. For example, some claimed
psychics predicted that the Democrats would run a woman for Vice
President in 1984. Many political analysts made the same
prediction.

We look forward to your reply.



JANUARY 26: MARS EFFECT PROBLEM: 15 YEARS OF CONTROVERSY.
Astrologers have long pointed to M. Gauquelin's statistical
evidence for planetary influence on successful careers as "proof"
there is something to astrology after all. BAS Board Member
Lawrence Jerome disagrees, and will give a visually-aided talk
explaining why he feels the "Mars Effect" on successful athletes
is strictly a statistical effect with no basis in reality. Be
prepared to have your mathematical imagination stretched to the
breaking point! (if you find it difficult to mentally correlate the
motion of Mars with the yearly and daily movements of the earth,
don't worry, Jerome has a computer-simulation program that does the
work for you; he will have his program up and running during the
talk). DAY/DATE: Tuesday, January 27, 1987. TIME: 7:30 pm. PLACE:
Saratoga Public Library, 13650 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga. Directions:
From Route 280, take the Saratoga Avenue exit southbound toward
Saratoga. Proceed 4 miles to the library, which is on the left.



C-FOR-ALL

You will have fewer colds, milder colds. All are familiar with this
dictum, especially since the 1970 publication of Linus Pauling's
book on everyman's vitamin, ascorbic acid (a.k.a., ascorbate,
vitamin C, hexuronic acid, etc.). Seafarers bore the brunt of C
deficiency: scurvy, the terrifying condition that usually brought
agonizing death to its victims. Homo Sapiens is not capable of
making its own C (vitamins are substances we must have in minute
amounts but cannot make ourselves). Apparently C is so easily
obtainable from a normal diet that it was not evolutionarily
selective -- it is adaptively neutral -- for our bodies to make it.
Most species make their own C, so it is not a vitamin for them.

Frank Levy, a disciple of the Pauling institute, author and
advocate of the miracles of C stood opposite Wallace Sampson, MD,
for the December meeting. Dr. Sampson, a Stanford U. oncologist
and advisor to BAS has specifically followed the C controversy over
the last 15 years and has the biological, biochemical,
physiological, and pathogenic facts and direct experience. In a
very loose debate style, the audience heard the evidence on both
sides of this highly polarized subject.

Mr. Levy began with a catalogue of maladies and conditions that
seemed to respond to mega (and I mean Mega) dosage of C: Colds,
flu, pneumonia, general healing, many cancers, heart attack,
atherosclerosis, aging, skin color and texture, allergies, etc. The
skeptical ear is already beginning to ring.

About 10-15 mg/day of C (a carefully cooked, unpeeled potato has
about 25 mg) is required to keep us scurvy free, so nutritionists
set about five times this amount in the recommended daily allowance
(RDA) to ensure adequate coverage. It seems conventional wisdom
works this way: If X (the RDA) is good, 2X is twice as good, so
early "C-eeies" reported wonders with 200-400 mg. This formula is
easily extrapolated to factors of hundreds. We should conceivably
have a "C-ration" bar (100% ascorbic) to munch on throughout the
day.

Anecdotal stories come in, and limited investigations are
conducted, often by unsophisticated groups unfamiliar with the
rigors of formal epidemiological studies. Failed replication by
skeptical researchers are more often faulted for using too small
a dose. This, despite the fact that early studies conducted by
believers obtained significance in the 300 mg. range when that was
thought to be a large dose. The rainbow seems always to recede
before cautious investigators. One institute does a double blind
study with 250 mg/day for three months with no significance. By
this time, the advocates are using 700 mg/day. New studies are done
with 500 mg dosage and by the time they are finished
inconclusively, C-people are up to 1100 mg. If the exponents are
correct that successful results can be obtained only by using
maximum-tolerance quantities, it is the only substance for which
the body shows no "dosage sensitivity." All other compounds we take
into our system seem to have this sensitivity, i.e., increased
dosage will gradually increase the effect.

What is the current recommended dosage per the advocates? "Bowel
tolerance(!)" In other words, keep pumping it in until your body
finally reacts violently, as if to say, "Enough!" and sends you on
a diarrheic fit. Americans have not only the most expensive urine,
it appears we are vying for all-conference stool. For the average
person, "bowel tolerance" is around 20 grams -- 400 TIMES the RDA!
This would require the ingestion of about 75 lbs. of potatoes per
day, for example, to get that much C. Our good fortune must be that
modern chemistry can synthesize and concentrate many of natures
products, thus relieving us of the necessity of eating bushels of
foodstuffs every day to remain healthy. Whether one accepts
creation or evolution, our inability to obtain 20 grams of C per
day NATURALLY does not make much sense if indeed we require that
much. The wonders of C we heard made me think it would probably
make my car run better.

There is a downside, as one would expect, to high dosage. The body
is not an inert container into which may be poured anything in any
amounts. Literally anything is toxic at some level. Drinking
enormous quantities of pure water can be fatal if the kidneys
cannot handle it fast enough. For persons with renal difficulties,
mega C can produce potentially dangerous stones and other
complications.

Mr. Levy brought up the fact that some species which make their own
C do it in very large quantities -- as much as 25 grams per day.
Dr. Sampson countered that it is not enough to make such an
observation, but to understand WHY a given animal does so. It is
a mistake to make across-the-board comparisons between species,
even closely related ones, and this is a case in point. Those
species that do make such large amounts ARE ABLE TO USE IT FOR
CELLULAR METABOLIC PROCESSES. Their body chemistries are able to
reduce the ascorbic acid to molecules that can be "burned" as
actual food in the cell. Our biochemical factories are not as
efficient in this regard, for we cannot metabolize the C to a point
where it is useful for oxidation in the cell -- we simply excrete
what is not used in its vitamin function. So the comparison is
totally invalid.

The long and short of the question is that the C advocates have not
presented replicable, carefully conducted studies to make the case
they claim. Of course, the burden of proof rests on the claimants,
but they want the scientific community to "disprove" their
(unfounded) statements. And their thesis is backed largely by
anecdotal and personal observations; Mr. Levy's presentation was
certainly no exception to this.

Alas, it seems we are left with the difficulty of eating properly.
The conclusion Dr. Sampson left us with is that a normally healthy
person in normal circumstances can cover his/her nutritional
requirements quite nicely with a well-balanced diet. But, this
takes more effort than popping pills.



"IT IS NOT SUPERFLUOUS TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS."
   - Bob Steiner



FROM THE CHAIR
by Robert Sheaffer

Best Holiday wishes to everyone! Assuming everything goes
according to plan, shortly before this issue reaches you, the Bay
Area Skeptics will have released to the nation's news media our
annual year-end review of "psychic predictions". Keep watching your
local papers, TV, radio news and talk programs for coverage. If you
ever ask yourself what good it does to have an organization like
the Bay Area Skeptics, when you see news coverage we have
generated, estimate the size of the audience being reached by the
story you saw, multiply that by many times (as there are many other
papers and stations carrying it), and I think you'll have your
answer.

1986 was a typical bad year for the "psychics," as indeed was every
year for which we have records. I won't go into the details here,
because we will bring you the complete text of our press release
in a forthcoming issue. Let me give you my favorite, however, Jeane
Dixon's prediction for the Philippines: Ferdinand Marcos would be
a shoo-in for re-election!

With this issue we have a new editor, Kent Harker, previously our
treasurer, and at least for the moment holding down both roles. I
apologize for the delays and the uncertainty in bringing out BASIS
to you, the subscriber. At the conclusion of Ray Spangenberg and
Diane Moser's tenure as editors, we made arrangements with another
editor, but those plans fell through. Kent, thank goodness, was
willing to pick up the pieces, and take on this very important
role, in a timely manner. Without his assistance, there would be
even more delays in getting this newsletter to you. Ray and Diane,
I should add, remain active in BAS, even though they are no longer
editors. Many thanks, Ray and Diane, for the editing work you have
done, and for the organizational and public contact work you
continue to do. And many thanks to Kent, whose willingness to take
on additional responsibility has kept things flowing smoothly.

Sometimes we are slow at times in getting things done, but if it
is any consolation, BAS is actually in better shape than most
local, and even many national, skeptics' groups. What all these
groups have in common is, of course, that they are volunteer in
nature. The $15 yearly subscription revenues from a few hundred
readers barely covers the cost of printing and mailing the
newsletter. Many of our people are skilled professionals in various
fields, and have relatively little free time. Their time is worth
a lot of money, but they are donating it because they believe in
the value of our work.

So when things sometimes seem to go a little slowly we hope your
reaction will be patience and gratitude that these efforts are
being made. Many other skeptics' groups are facing even more
difficult struggles. Some of the biggest groups are sometimes quite
irregular in their publishing schedules, and others have yet to put
out anything, even after years of talking. We can be proud of our
efforts, which have made the Bay Area Skeptics second to none among
local groups. It is encouraging to see the local skeptics' movement
continue to grow, despite the many obstacles.

I hear from CSICOP headquarters in Buffalo that the influence and
success of the local groups has been so great that many new people
are approaching them, asking about forming local associations in
areas where none now exist. We of the Bay Area Skeptics can
justifiably take pride in being pioneers in a movement which is
growing so rapidly, and is beginning to exert influence in many
areas.

Finally, let me give you a few news items from our sister
organizations across the country:

The South Shore Skeptic (P.O. Box 5083, Cleveland, OH 44101)
reports that their group hopes to be listed soon on the Cleveland
Free-Net, a free computer bulletin board for nationwide
information exchange. They could thus become a valuable source of
information for students, educators, and media representatives. I
don't know if they can yet be reached in this way, but the number
of the Free-Net is [phone] (modems only, please -- no
humans). If anyone succeeds in getting through to our skeptical
friends in Ohio like this, please let BASIS know. (I have all but
given up on bulletin boards. Most of them just laugh at my puny 300
baud modem when I try to log on. They kick sand in my face, and log
me off.) BAS is interested in similar bulletin boards for BASIS
subscribers, so if you are aware of any give us the information
and we will print a listing.

From the world center of skepticism comes word of the Western New
York Skeptics (3151 Bailey Ave., Buffalo, NY 14215). Their
organization's first public meeting featured Mr. Amazing Randi
speaking on "faith healing". That's what I call getting started off
on the right foot! Barry Karr of CSICOP has been elected chairman.
They have already investigated The Reverend Willard Fuller, who
practices "psychic dentistry". He claims to effect miraculous
filling of dental cavities. (No, I am not making this up!) The
skeptics, accompanied by many reporters, attended his "healing
session" but witnessed no miracles. Undaunted, the Reverend Fuller
told his flock that "about 80% of the miracles occur after the
meeting is over." Well, somebody must believe this, or he wouldn't
keep at it!



WHAT IS A SKEPTIC?

"Say, what do you think about that, Mort?"

"Well, I'm skeptical. It seems there are a lot of other
possibilities."

The setting is anytime, anywhere. Friends, associates, casual
contacts -- the characters don't matter. The script, however, is
pretty much the same, with responses varying from dismay to
outright hostility. Skepticism seems to be associated with cynicism
and bigotry in the public mind.

I don't think it would be a glib observation to say that most
people will accept the assertions of others on the face of them.
The world view of most is generally acquired by haphazard accretion
without a great deal of conscious control over the input, e.g.,
anecdotal and TV , and I don't think that is an elitist statement.
Expressed skepticism may represent an unconscious threat to that
world view and may elicit strong opposition, even to the surprise
of the interlocutor.

Perhaps "closed-mindedness", "narrow-minded" or the extreme of
"bigotry" are the principal epithets nailed to our back whenever
we express skepticism. Mention that you are affiliated with
skeptics in any formal sense, and you may find yourself alone at
the water cooler. Group conversations may suddenly turn as
amorphous as library paste when you join company.

"What do skeptics believe?" is a frequent inquiry after a
declaration of skepticism. "Anything," I joyfully rejoin. "As long
as it can be backed up by some sound reasons for believing. There
is nothing sacred about whatever I believe -- I am ready to scrap
any concept I have if it can be shown to be in error. There are
assuredly things I accept as 'true,' or 'most likely' but that are
false, and I would like to rid myself of them." This seems to parry
the narrow-mindedness volley before it is served. And it is not
just a polemic to "win" an argument, but a true skeptical position.

In fact, skepticism is penultimate open-mindedness. The skeptic is
not committed to a particular viewpoint until the evidence is in.
He/she is in the best possible position because he/she has no a
priori position. The individual who is formally committed to an
absolute stance has cut him/herself off from further inquiry. UFOs
may be alien space craft, but there are many other possibilities
one should not eliminate first.

And the world wants absolutes. The crystallization of epistemology
and refinement of the scientific method seems to have produced a
single absolute: There are no absolutes. It is comforting for some
to believe that the control of their lives is extrinsic and fated.
It is uncomfortable for many to live with the notion that almost
anything we now accept may be wrong. But such is the tenuous nature
of human knowledge. Of course, in practical terms we do not operate
with such tenuousity -- we forge ahead with boldness and courage,
facing life as though we are much more certain than we are, because
we realize that much of the uncertainty is uncertainty in
principle.

Most skeptics would be only too happy to learn how to transport
their bodies from home to office through the astral plane. I'm sure
Bob Steiner would give up sleight of hand if bending spoons with
his mind really worked.

Caution is a virtue when it comes to accepting an idea, so the
skeptic need not be apologetic about his/her position.



ON THE RAMPARTS

I would like to have a column for comments on newspaper articles
submitted by BASIS readers. With the variety of newspapers BASIS
subscribers read, I'm sure all would be interested in the
happenings in the fringe world as reported in the various
newspapers of the nation.

When you find articles touching on the areas of skeptical inquiry,
clip, snip and mail them to BAS, attn.: Editor, or send them
directly to me, Kent Harker, P.O. Box 32451, San Jose, CA 95152.
If you would like to add some comments please do. This column will
be a brief overview of some of the more significant or bizarre
happenings in the areas of our interest.

You are also encouraged to submit your own articles for publication
in BASIS. If you have some pet theory or interesting observation
about the world of psi please send it in. Submissions become the
property of BASIS, and items will not be returned, so keep copies
of your work for yourself. If you have computers, send the article
unformatted on a disk or you may arrange for electronic file
transfer. Your ideas are valuable to BAS, so share you knowledge
and experience.

"S.F. CHRONICLE", 4/2/86: "Healing Thru Visualization"
"The power of the imagination is a great factor in medicine: it may
produce diseases in man and it may cure them."

If we can become ill by our mental attitudes, cannot we undo the
damage by reversing becoming positive? The "Chron." article says
yes. Appears there are cassette tapes one can buy, seminars to
attend, group therapy sessions and what have you. Clearly, if one's
condition is psychosomatic, a positive mental attitude coupled with
some form of "visualization" may well be effective. The nostrum
ends there, however. It is well established that high stress may
cause ulcers; once the damage has been done, will mental attitude
heal the ulcer? Removal of the causative factor (stress) will allow
the body to heal. Does this formula work with an invasive disease
like cancer? Skeptical studies seem to indicate that the pathogens
just don't know we are having good, positive thoughts.

From "The Union Democrat", subscriber Chris Baldo sends some
coverage about the local color. The article is about a special
group of dowsers: Map Dowsers. That's right. They don't need to do
all that dirty field work. They bring the job to the comfort of
home. The accompanying picture shows the intrepid group hard a work
over the living room table covered with maps. They claim they are
not limited to only finding water. They can find anything in the
ground. If we ask them to be tested I'm afraid they will reduce
their claim to one of finding dirt. For years the dowsers have
claimed the force that moves their witching wands was the "water
vein." That won't hold water now that they only need hold their
wands over a map. So you good skeptics up there in Sonoma, contact
some of these people and let's see if they will submit their claims
to some rigorous testing!



TREASURER SPEAKS

I'm going over to the other side of the room, donning my
treasurer's cap. Handling the money you send in for subscriptions
is a simple and interesting task. We have subscribers from all
parts of the nation and walks of life.

Robert Sheaffer's "From The Chair" article tells a little about the
all-volunteer effort to make BAS work. I would like to add that
the big volunteers are you out there; especially several who have
donated amounts up to $100! When I make out the checks to the
printer (he, unfortunately, must be paid) we just squeak by, often
only after a board member antes a little extra. There have been at
least three months when the extra amount sent by some gracious
donor saved us from the fire. You must have been psychic. Thank
you very much for that extra effort and support.



EDITOR'S CORNER

"These new vitamins will do some things for you that you will not
believe!" my glib entrepreneur announced.

His presentation was smooth, backed by a professional video
featuring an M.D. who assured me that the product was the finest
in the world and that some highly regarded medical people supported
it 100%. The salesperson was nonplussed when I asked what evidence
there was for some of the claims of glowing health and relief from
chronic ailments he had mentioned. With genuine astonishment on his
face he asked, "Didn't you just see the video and what the doctor
said?"

I reminded him the good doctor had only said that the product was
the finest in the world and that it was backed by a panel of
scientific experts -- the only specific claims offered were those
of the salesperson himself.

"But," he rejoined, "you should see what has happened to the people
who have used this product!"

That was his case. When asked if he knew what an epidemiological
study was he became irritated at my failure to understand the
import of this miracle food supplement. "I'll have to move on to
those who are TRULY interested in better health," he said.

This is a societal flaw, I think. And it comes from our unfulfilled
magical thinking. As sophisticated as we think we are, we still
seem to need magic. Nothing seems to grab the public eye faster
than products that start their huckstering with "miracle," or
"secret." Include an arcane formula and the backing of some famous
name (even a famous LOCATION will do!) or highly respected group
(M.D.'s if you can) and the product will seems to have some special
magnetism.

The vitamin pusher said that a certain combination in his formula
"almost negated the effects of smoking." So rather than a
healthful, balanced regimen, regular exercise, proper rest, no
smoking, etc., all you have to do is take his pill. It's magic.

The quick fix has an allure that is incredibly powerful. Forgive
the personal references (they are the only ones I have), but when
my physician told me twelve years ago I had a fully metastatic
cancer and that the prognosis was not good at all, I thought very
hard about laetrile as he and his staff were drawing pen lines on
my neck and head for the areas they intended to surger. Radical,
somewhat disfiguring surgery, with no guarantees -- or apricot
pits. Like a fool, I opted for the knife, and the success of my
case didn't get a big write up in the annals of anecdotal cures by
laetrile.

The commonality in all this "secret" or "miraculous" seems to be
the promise. The promise of instant wealth, instant health, instant
joy and happiness; the secret of happiness, the secret of wealth.
The real world offers no promises. All those things we desire so
much require discipline, courage, effort; we would all rather have
what we want in a box, book, or a capsule.

                             -----

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 January, 1987 issue of
"BASIS", the monthly publication of Bay Area Skeptics. You can
obtain a free sample copy by sending your name and address to BAY
AREA SKEPTICS, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco, CA 94122-3928 or by
leaving a message on "The Skeptic's Board" BBS (415-648-8944) or
on the 415-LA-TRUTH (voice) hotline.

Copyright (C) 1987 BAY AREA SKEPTICS.  Reprints must credit "BASIS,
newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco,
CA 94122-3928."

                             -END-