linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/newsletters/reall-news/reall1-2.txt.gz/reall1-2.txt

Text File | 1993-10-23 | 30KB | 628 lines

****************************************************************

               The REALL News

****************************************************************

The official newsletter of the Rational Examination Association
                      of Lincoln Land

Volume 1, Number 2                                    March 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Version

If you like what you see, please help us continue by sending
in a subscription.  See the end of newsletter for details.
----------------------------------------------------------------

In This Issue:

From the Editor -- Wally Hartshorn
From the Chairman -- David Bloomberg
Proper Criticism -- Ray Hyman
REALLity Check -- David Bloomberg

----------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose:
The Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land (REALL)
is a non-profit educational and scientific organization.  It is
dedicated to the development of rational thinking and the application
of the scientific method toward claims of the paranormal and fringe-
science phenomena.

REALL shall conduct research, convene meetings, publish a newsletter,
and disseminate information to its members and the general public.
Its primary geographic region of coverage is central Illinois.

REALL subscribes to the premise that the scientific method is the
most reliable and self-correcting system for obtaining knowledge
about the world and universe.  REALL not not reject paranormal claims
on a priori grounds, but rather is committed to objective, though
critical, inquiry.

_The REALL News_ is its official newsletter.

Membership information is provided elsewhere in this newsletter.

Editor:  Wally Hartshorn
Editorial Board and Organizing Committee:  David Bloomberg (Chairman),
Wally Hartshorn, Bob Ladendorf.

REALL
P.O. Box 20302
Springfield, IL 62708

Unless stated otherwise, permission is granted to other skeptic
organizations to reprint articles from _The REALL News_ as long
as proper credit is given.

The views expressed in these articles are the views of the individual
authors and do not necessarily represent the views of REALL.

----------------------------------------------------------------

              From The Editor
            -- Wally Hartshorn

    Welcome to the second issue of The REALL News!  This issue is
eight pages, which is what the length of future issues will be.
The first issue was twelve pages, so that we could include all of
the information that we needed to represent the type of articles we
will be running in the future.  Unfortunately, we can't afford to run
newsletters that long on a regular basis.  However, we hope to make
these eight pages worth reading each month.

    Our feature article this month is "Proper Criticism," by Ray
Hyman, a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and a member of its Executive Council.
This article first appeared in the May 1987 issue of Skeptical Briefs.
I believe it is a very important article that all skeptics should read.
It was sent to us by Barry Karr, Executive Director of CSICOP.  (In
his letter, Mr. Karr also complimented us on our first issue of The
REALL News.)  Our thanks to Ray Hyman for writing this article and to
Barry Karr for sending it to us.

    This issue also contains a rather extensive REALLity Check column.
Two major pro-paranormal items attracted David's attention.  One was
a cover article in the Chicago Tribune Magazine about "alternative
medicine."  The other was a prime time CBS show about the "discovery"
of Noah's Ark.  David's article on page 5 discusses these and other items.

    In addition to those two articles, we have some scattered bits and
pieces I would like to point out.  One is a list of organizations of
interest to skeptics.  Most of you are probably familiar with CSICOP,
the people who make The Skeptical Inquirer.  Less well known is the
National Center for Science Education (NCSE).  The article about the
struggle to get evolution taught in Illinois public schools, which
we ran in the February issue, first appeared in the NCSE newsletter.
Lastly is the St. Louis Association for the Teaching of Evolution
(SLATE).  The director, Ranse Traxler, is the driving force behind this
organization.  If any of these organizations interest you, write to
the addresses given on page 6 [near end of file for electronic readers].

    Also on page 6 are the addresses for two legal defense funds that
everyone is urged to support.  As most of you probably know, a lawsuit
has been filed against James "The Amazing" Randi and CSICOP.  The last
news I had heard was taht the suit against CSICOP had been dismissed.
However, the case against Randi is still in court and the ruling on
the suit against CSICOP has been appealed, so the legal costs continue
to rise.  If you can afford to do so, please consider donating to one
or both of these funds.

           ==============================

                 From the Chairman
            -- David Bloomberg

    Well, we made it to a second issue.  Not that there was
really any doubt, but we spent so much time working on the
first issue and getting ready for the first meeting that
this issue kind of snuck up on me.  Before going any further,
I'd like to let you know that our next meeting will be March
15 at Sangamon State University, PAC Building, Room E (first
floor).  We intend to hold meetings regularly on the third
Monday of every month, except for special situations, and we
hope to keep this same room.  As of this writing, we don't
have a speaker scheduled, but I promise we'll have something
interesting for you!  But speaking of special situations, it
looks like we'll have one already in April.  The fourth Monday
of April, the 26th, Detective Bruce Walstad will be in Springfield
and will address REALL.  Full details will appear in next month's
issue.

    Our first meeting, for those of you who couldn't make it,
went pretty well.  We had 11 interested people, some of whom
came from as far away as Champaign and Metamora!
Considering the state of the weather, I think we had a good
turnout, and we've also been contacted by at least that many
more people by mail.  I'd like to give a special thanks to
our first Patron Member (besides those of us on the
Organizing Committee), Alan J. Burge, D.D.S., of Pekin!

    At the meeting, we took care of some organizational details,
such as voting on and ratifying a Constitution.  We also
took some time to get to know each other and discuss various
examples of irrationality to which we have all been exposed.
I then presented some information on the Carp, Canada, UFO
stories that have been circulating on various TV shows (some
of the information I presented will appear in our next issue).

    So, we're off to a good start, and I think we have
definitely seen enough interest to get us off the ground.
We will be holding elections within the next 2-3 months,
after everybody has a chance to get to know each other.  I
will keep you informed of the exact date via this column.
Until then, I hope to see you at the next meeting!

           ==============================
             Proper Criticism
              by Ray Hyman

Since the founding of CSICOP in 1976, and with the growing number of
localized skeptical groups, the skeptic finds more ways to state his
or her case.  The broadcast and print media, along with other forums,
provide more opportunities for us to be heard.  For some of these
occasions, we have the luxury of carefully planning and crafting our
response, but most of the time we have to formulate our response on
the spot.  Regardless of the circumstance, the critic's task, if it is
to be carried out properly, is both challenging and loaded with
unanticipated hazards.

Many well-intentioned critics have jumped into the fray without
carefully thinking through the various implications of their
statements.  They have sometimes displayed more emotion than logic,
made sweeping charges beyond what they reasonably support, failed to
adequately document their assertions, and, in general, have failed to
do the homework necessary to make their challenges credible.

Such ill-considered criticism can be counter-productive for the cause
of serious skepticism.  The author of such criticism may fail to
achieve the desired effect, may lose credibility, and may even become
vulnerable to lawsuits.  However, the unfavorable effects have
consequences beyond the individual critic, and the entire cause of
skepticism suffers as a result.  Even when the individual critic takes
pains to assert that he or she is expressing his or her own personal
opinion, the public associates the assertions with all critics.

During CSICOP's first decade of existence, members of the Executive
Council often found themselves devoting most of their available time
to damage control - precipitated by the careless remarks of a fellow
skeptic - instead of toward the common cause of explaining the
skeptical agenda.

Unfortunately, at this time, there are no courses on the proper way to
criticize paranormal claims.  So far as I know, no manuals or books of
rules are currently available to guide us.  Until such courses and
guide books come into being, what can we do to ensure that our
criticisms are both effective and responsible?

I would be irresponsible if I told you I had an easy solution.  The
problem is complicated, and there are no quick fixes, but I do believe
we all could improve our contributions to responsible criticism by
keeping a few principles always in mind.

We can make enormous improvements in our collective and individual
efforts by simply trying to adhere to those standards that we profess
to admire and that we believe that many peddlers of the paranormal
violate.  If we envision ourselves as the champions of rationality,
science, and objectivity, then we ought to display these very same
qualities in our criticism.  Just by trying to speak and write in the
spirit of precision, science, logic, and rationality - those
attributes we supposedly admire - we would raise the quality of our
critiques by at least one order of magnitude.

The failure to consistently live up to these standards exposes us to a
number of hazards.  We can find ourselves going beyond the facts at
hand.  We may fail to communicate exactly what we intended.  We can
confuse the public as to what skeptics are trying to achieve.  We can
unwittingly put paranormal proponents in the position of underdogs and
create sympathy for them, and, as I already mentioned, we can make the
task much more difficult for the other skeptics.

What, then, can skeptics do to upgrade the quality of their criticism?
What follows are just a few suggestions.  I hope they will stimulate
further thought and discussion.

1.  _Be prepared._  Good criticism is a skill that requires practice,
work, and level-headedness.  Your response to a sudden challenge is
much more likely to be appropriate if you have already anticipated
similar challenges.  Try to prepare in advance effective and short
answers to those questions you are most likely to be asked.  Be ready
to answer why skeptical activity is important, why people should
listen to your views, why false beliefs can be harmful, and many
similar questions that invariably are raised.  A useful project would
be to compile a list of the most frequently occurring questions along
with possible answers.

Whenever possible, try your ideas out on friends and "enemies" before
offering them in the public arena.  An effective exercise is to
rehearse your arguments with fellow skeptics.  Some of you can take
the role of the psychic claimants, while others play the role of
critics.  Also, for more general preparation, read books on critical
thinking, effective writing, and argumentation.

2.  _Clarify your objectives._  Before you try to cope with a paranormal
claim, ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish. Are you trying
to release pent-up resentment?  Are you trying to belittle your
opponent?  Are you trying to gain publicity for your viewpoint?  Do
you want to demonstrate that the claim lacks reasonable justification?
Do you hope to educate the public about what constitutes adequate
evidence?  Often our objectives, upon examination, turn out to be
mixed.  Also, especially when we act impulsively, some of our
objectives conflict with one another.

The difference between short-term and long-term objectives can be
especially important.  Most skeptics, I believe, would agree that our
long-term goal is to educate the public so that it can more
effectively cope with various claims.  Sometimes this long-range goal
is sacrificed because of the desire to expose or debunk a current
claim.

Part of clarifying our objectives is to decide who our audience is.
Hard-nosed, strident attacks on paranormal claims rarely change
opinions, but they do stroke the egos of those who are already
skeptics.  Arguments that may persuade the readers of the National
Enquirer may offend academics and important opinion-makers.

Try to make it clear that you are attacking the claim and not the
claimant.  Avoid, at all costs, creating the impression that you are
trying to interfere with someone's civil liberties.  Do not try to get
someone fired from his or her job.  Do not try to have courses dropped
or otherwise be put in the position of advocating censorship.  Being
for rationality and reason should not force us into the position of
seeming to be against academic freedom and civil liberties.

3.  _Do your homework._  Again, this goes hand in hand with the advice
about being prepared.  Whenever possible, you should not try to
counter a specific paranormal claim without getting as many of the
relevant facts as possible.  Along the way, you should carefully
document your sources.  Do not depend upon a report in the media
either for what is being claimed or for facts relevant to that claim.
Try to get the specifics of the claim directly from the claimant.

4.  _Do not go beyond your level of competence._  No one, especially in
our times, can credibly claim to be an expert in all subjects.
Whenever possible, you should consult appropriate experts.  We,
understandably, are highly critical of paranormal claimants who make
assertions that are obviously beyond their competence.  We should be
just as demanding on ourselves.  A critic's worst sin is to go beyond
the facts and the available evidence.

In this regard, always ask yourself if you really have something to
say.  Sometimes it is better to remain silent than to jump into an
argument that involves aspects that are beyond your present
competence.  When it is appropriate, do not be afraid to say "I don't
know."

5.  _Let the facts speak for themselves._  If you have done your
homework and have collected an adequate supply of facts, the audience
rarely will need your help in reaching an appropriate conclusion.
Indeed, your case is made stronger if the audience is allowed to draw
its own conclusions from the facts.  Say that Madame X claims to have
psychically located Mrs. A's missing daughter and you have obtained a
statement from the police to the effect that her contributions did not
help.  Under these circumstances, it can be counter-productive to
assert that Madame X lied about her contribution, or that her claim
was "fraudulent." For one thing, Madame X may sincerely, if
mistakenly, believe that her contributions did in fact help.  In
addition, some listeners may be offended by the tone of your criticism
and become sympathetic to Madame X.  However, if you simply report
what Madame X claimed, along with the response of the police, you not
only are sticking to the facts, but your list eners will more likely
come to the appropriate conclusion.

6.  _Be precise._  Good criticism requires precision and care in the use
of language.  Because, in challenging psychic claims, we are appealing
to objectivity and fairness, we have a special obligation to be as
honest and accurate in our own statements as possible.  We should take
special pains to avoid making assertions about paranormal claims that
cannot be backed up with hard evidence.  We should be especially
careful, in this regard, when being interviewed by the media.  Every
effort should be made to ensure that the media understand precisely
what we are and are not saying.

7.  _Use the principle of charity._  I know that many of my fellow
critics will find this principle to be unpalatable.  To some,
paranormalists are the "enemy," and it seems inconsistent to lean over
backward to give them the benefit of the doubt, but being charitable
to paranormal claims is simply the other side of being honest and
fair.  The principle of charity implies that, whenever there is doubt
or ambiguity about a paranormal claim, we should try to resolve the
ambiguity in favor of the claimant until we acquire strong reasons for
not doing so.  In this respect, we should carefully distinguish
between being wrong and being dishonest.  We often challenge the
accuracy or the validity of a given paranormal claim, but rarely are
we in a position to know if the claimant is deliberately lying or is
self-deceived. Furthermore, we often have a choice in how to interpret
or represent an opponent's arguments.  The principle tells us to
convey the opponent's position in a fa ir, objective, and
non-emotional manner.

8.  _Avoid loaded words and sensationalism._  All these principles are
interrelated.  The ones previously stated imply that we should avoid
using loaded and prejudicial words in our criticisms.  We should also
try to avoid sensationalism.  If the proponents happen to resort to
emotionally laden terms and sensationalism, we should avoid stooping
to their level.  We should not respond in kind.

This is not a matter of simply turning the other cheek.  We want to
gain credibility for our cause.  In the short run, emotional charges
and sensationalistic challenges might garner quick publicity, but most
of us see our mission as a long-term effort. We would like to persuade
the media and the public that we have a serious and important message
to get across, and we would like to earn their trust as a credible and
reliable resource.  Such a task requires always keeping in mind the
scientific principles and standards of rationality and integrity that
we would like to make universal.

[Ray Hyman is a Fellow and member of the Executive Council of CSISCOP,
and professor of psychology at the University of Oregon.  This article
first appeared in Skeptical Briefs, May, 1987.]

           ==============================

                 REALLity Check
               by David Bloomberg

                      Skeptics in the News

    Even before REALL's first meeting, we made the news.  I
would like to thank Doug Pokorski of the State Journal-
Register for his story about REALL which appeared on the
front page of the February 21 City/State section.  As most
of us know, skeptical issues usually aren't covered well in
the media, so this article was doubly nice.  While I'm
thanking people, I'd also like to thank Don & Liz of the
WYMG morning show for the plug they gave to us on the
morning of the 22nd.

    Also in the news was Detective Bruce Walstad's appearance on
CBS's 48 Hours program dealing with con games.  The REALL
News featured an article about a "paranormal fraud" by
Detective Walstad last month, and plans to feature more of
his work.  On the program, he discussed a case of supposed
psychics who ask those who consult them for more and more
money (or in at least one case, dishes!) to alleviate
curses, tell the future, etc.  One woman spent $30,000 on
getting curses removed!  Hopefully, this program will stop
some people from losing their money to cons, but it seems
there is always somebody out there who will fall for even
the oldest con game in the book.

                          Medicine?

    On January 24, the Chicago Tribune Magazine had a cover
feature dedicated to "Alternative Medicine."  As reported in
last month's "REALLity Check," NBC had done a good
investigative report on homeopathy (no, there weren't any
incendiary devices involved).  It really is too bad that
this magazine didn't pick up on that.  Instead, they went
through a whole laundry list of alternative practitioners
and discussed how great each system is, without apparently
having done a whit of scientific or investigative research
into these methods.

    The patients who were interviewed seemed to ignore obvious
links to their "better health."  One said, "I lost 50
pounds... I quit smoking," and he felt better.  Imagine
that!  So, rather than crediting these changes for his
better health, he credits his naprapath.  For those of us
who don't know what naprapathy is, it is described as an
offshoot of chiropractic, using muscle and ligament
manipulation to "promote natural healing."  A naprapath
quoted in the story said, "we move energy in the body."
What energy?  Why doesn't science know anything about these
strange energies?  This story doesn't bother with such minor
matters.  Oh, by the way, the State of Illinois will start
granting licenses to naprapaths in 1994.  I wonder how they
will determine who should be authorized to move these
strange energies through people's bodies.

    Besides naprapathy, some of the alternatives covered in the
story include acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal medicine,
homeopathy, naturopathy, osteopathy, and reflexology.
Several different practitioners were interviewed, along with
some patients.  Unfortunately, not a single skeptic or
scientist was interviewed.  Some of the practitioners seemed
almost totally ignorant of the history of medicine.  One
woman (a former astrologer) who offers colonic irrigation,
homeopathy, and reflexology said, "This is not alternative
medicine as far as I'm concerned.  This is original
medicine, the stuff we used before drugs and surgery."
Perhaps we should all listen to her, throw away all of the
life-saving gifts that modern medicine has given to us, and
go back to leeching and induced vomiting.

    All in all, this story made me ill.

    Also on the subject of alternative medicine, there was a
brief article in the Chicago Tribune (Feb. 19, p. 4) which
showed just how great herbal medicine can be.  At least 53
Belgian women have suffered serious kidney disorders
(including 19 total failures) after using some diet powder
containing Chinese herbs.  Isn't alternative medicine great?

                        Noah's Farce

    Does CBS stand for "Creationist Broadcast Service"?  I was
forced to wonder this when I turned on "The Incredible
Discovery of Noah's Ark," a two-hour program alleging to be
a "non-religious scientific investigation" of evidence for
Noah's Ark (2/20, 8:00).  Just the use of the word
"scientific" in association with this production made me
cringe.  In support of their "theory" (and I really hate to
call it that), they cited the Bible and used "experts"
associated with Creationist causes, including Henry Morris,
the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, and
Charles Berlitz, author of books on UFOs and the Bermuda
Triangle.  Part of the show even contained a recreation of
the flood story as told in the Bible.  That's supposed to
be scientific?

    The total lack of scientific procedure was demonstrated by
one of the first topics, "Why did God destroy the world in a
catastrophic flood?"  It is obvious that the producers were
not, in fact, undertaking a scientific investigation, but
rather had already made up their minds that the Bible is the
source of all truth, and the facts should be made to fit
their "theories."

    Other portions of the program told us about "geologists" who
claimed that they had evidence for the flood, because they
had unearthed fossilized fish who were "buried in terror".
Maybe I'm missing something, but how can you tell that a
fossil fish was in terror?  The rest of the "scientific"
evidence was of the same quality.

    Of course, they also trotted out the same tired photographs
showing a rock formation that some people claim looks like a
piece of a boat.  And they had "eyewitness" testimony about
people who have seen the ark.  They know it's all true
because one person passed a lie detector test.  Well, that
certainly convinces me.  Of course, they glossed over the
fact that the eyewitnesses and pictures often contradict each
other as to the location of the ark, but why let silly
little details get in the way of a good story?

    Far from being scientific and non-religious, this show was
religious and unscientific, brought to us by the same people who
want to force public schools to teach their religion in place of
science.  The fact that CBS showed this at all, let alone during
prime time, certainly gives me cause to worry about just how
we can trust that network to cover controversial issues like
this in a neutral, scientific manner.

    I would like to thank Ranse Traxler, the southern Illinois
liaison for the National Center for Science Education, and
Director of the St. Louis Association for the Teaching of
Evolution, who sent out a summary, including quotes from the
show.  He has asked me to encourage everybody to write to
both your local CBS affiliate and the national organization
to complain about this horrible show.  Also, he would like
everybody to encourage any scientific organizations to which
you belong to also register their complaints.  The address
for the national offices of CBS is:  CBS, 51 W. 52nd St.,
New York, NY 10019.  Locally, for the Springfield and
Champaign area, the address is:  WCIA-WCFN, 109 S. Neil,
Champaign, IL 61824-0020.  If you would like to get in touch
with Mr. Traxler, you can find his address below.

                  Psychic Business Booming

    The Chicago Tribune (Chicagoland Section, 2/28) continues to
spotlight psychics and pseudo-science rather than actually
educating the public.  This time it was a long article about
how great business is for people who claim psychic powers.

    In and of itself, such an article on business practices
isn't so bad.  It's the little things, like the woman who
claims her psychic is "99% correct," that get to be annoying
when they are reported without any statements to the
contrary, which would show that such a success rate has
never been attained under controlled, scientific,
conditions.  Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people
who will see this article and see it as a reason shell out
their money to hear a bunch of generalized guesses.

    I suppose it's their money to waste.  But should a quality
newspaper really be encouraging them?

             Send in your clippings!

    If you see something in the news that you want to share with
our readers, by all means, send it in!  Any comments that you might
have are also welcome.


           ==============================

        Organizations of Interest to Skeptics

Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
(CSICOP)
Box 703
Buffalo, NY 14226-0703

National Center for Science Education (NCSE)
P.O. Box 9477
Berkely, CA 94709
[phone]

St. Louis Association for the Teaching of Evolution (SLATE)
P.O. Box 462
O'Fallon, IL 62269-0462

           ==============================

               Help Defend Skepticism Against Lawsuits

Most of you are probably familiar with the lawsuits brought against
James Randi and CSICOP.  These lawsuits have a chilling effect on
skeptic groups.  The sooner they are settled, the better.  Two funds
have been established to accept contributions to help defend against
these lawsuits.

The James Randi Fund
P.O. Box 659
El Cerrito, CA 94530

CSICOP Legal Defense Foundation
Box 703
Buffalo, NY 14226

----------------------------------------------------------------

                 Predictions for Future Issues

Review of the UFO slide show presented in Springfield by Bill
    Knell of Island Skywatch
Evolution Misconceptions
Martin Kottmeyer on Flying Saucers
Psychic Detectives
Survey Results

----------------------------------------------------------------

                Skeptics Online

If you have a computer and a modem, you owe it to yourself to
participate in the skeptic message areas on the computer BBS
networks.  Here in Springfield, call The Temples of Syrinx at
[phone].  David Bloomberg operates this BBS, which carries
the FidoNet SKEPTIC and UFO conferences, internationally distributed
message areas for discussing topics of interest to skeptics.  He
is also carrying ParaNet conferences, all dedicated to UFO and
paranormal topics.  You can also find a wide variety of skeptic
text files.
         The Temples of Syrinx -- [phone]
----------------------------------------------------------------

                 MEMBERSHIP FORM

Regular membership includes _The REALL News_ and all of the benefits
of membership.  A subscription to _The REALL News_, without membership,
is available.  Full-time students can join at the discounted rate.
A patron membership includes all of the benefits of a regular membership,
plus a listing in _The REALL News_ and our eternal gratitude (where
"eternal" is defined as "one year").

Name: _________________________________________________________

Address: ______________________________________________________

City, State, ZIP: _____________________________________________

Phone: ________________________________________________________

Interests: ____________________________________________________

                ___      Regular Membership ($20/Year)
                ___      Student Membership ($15/Year)
                ___      Patron Membership ($50 or more/Year)
                ___      Subscription Only ($12/Year)
                ___      Trial or Gift Subscription ($3 for 3 issues)

Bring to a meeting or mail to:  REALL, P.O.
                    Box 20302