linuxmafia.com 2013/2013.06.linuxmafia.com/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/newsletters/basis/basisfeb.87

Text File | 1997-06-28 | 28.5 KB | 635 lines

----------------------------------------------------------
February 1987 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics
----------------------------------------------------------
         Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet
                   Vol. 6, No. 2
                Editor:  Kent Harker



BAS CALENDAR: FEBRUARY
FEBRUARY 27: JIM LOWELL, HEALTH-QUACK INVESTIGATOR. Jim will be
speaking on medical absurdities. Do come out for this one. It will
be fun and informative. See article for more detail.

Day/Date:Friday, Feb. 27. Time: 7:30 pm Place: El Cerrito Public
Library, 6510 Stockton Ave. Directions: Traveling north on Highway
80, take the Central Ave. exit (the third exit north of University
Ave). Go east about three blocks and turn left on San Pablo Ave,
continue three blocks and turn right on Stockton. The library is
on the right in the third block.



BALLOONS UP YOUR NOSE AND OTHER MEDICAL ABSURDITIES
Presentation by James Lowell

(This write-up by Bob Steiner, plagiarized liberally from James
Lowell.)

"Balloons Up Your Nose and Other Medical Absurdities" is the title
of the presentation at the February 27 meeting.

While nary a one of you to whom I spoke about this talk was, for
even an instant, fooled about the tone of the presentation, some
of you expressed the concern, legitimate, I hesitate to add, that
those unfamiliar with the work of Jim Lowell and the writing style
of Bob Steiner might think, from the write-up, that the February
meeting might not make sense. In order to quell such fears, allow
me to preface all of this by assuring you that Jim Lowell is
serious in his brave and substantive fight against medical
quackery. He just effectively uses humor to make his points.

There is something unaesthetic about prefacing humor with a caveat
along the lines of: "The following will be humor." But..... Ready?

Jim Lowell is brain surgeon who, after receiving a frontal
lobotomy, could no longer practice medicine legally or publicly.
Consequently, he joined the alternative medical underground, where
he practices psychic surgery, pyramid power, bilateral nasal
specifics, and other comparable, highly efficacious, unorthodox
medical regimens (Okay, Don Morris, let's see you put THAT on the
LA TRUTH line.).

Bring shovels and hip boots.



"PSYCHICS'" PREDICTIONS
by Bob Steiner

As we have learned to count on, the "psychics" once more did
extremely badly in their predictions. The predictions were vague
or wrong or both, or were not predictions at all.

As we have also learned to count on, Robert Sheaffer has done a
masterful job in analyzing those predictions for 1986. [Robert will
give us his analyses in a later issue. -Ed]

In scoring the "psychics," Robert has properly not given them
credit for items which were too vague to call, were already in
progress, or were statistically odds-on favorites to happen.

It might be instructive to take a look at the stuff of which the
"psychic" "predictions" are composed. Let's see what the seers see
over the horizon into 1987. For the sake of brevity, we'll look at
two of the most famous predictors: one nationwide and one local.

JEANE DIXON
Regarding the Iran/Arms/Hostages/Contras scandal, JD said: "The
strain on all the leading players, from Ronald Reagan down through
top White House officials, will take a health toll." Does that
surprise any of our readers? Or would you be more surprised if this
scandal did not lead to strain?

"AIDS victims will include an eminent dancer, a prominent public
official, and another Hollywood leading man." That all seems quite
probable.

"The IRS and the public will be confused by the new tax laws." I
am a practicing CPA, and I guarantee that. It was already happening
prior to her "psychic" prediction.

"Another major tax law will be enacted to clarify matters." Ditto.
We know of literally hundreds of corrections which should have gone
into the law, but about which Congress decided not to take the time
to correct prior to sending the current legislation to the
President for signing.

"Look for a tax increase in the near future." I presume that means
that the eminent seer is predicting that somewhere, in the United
States, in some state, in some county, in some city, or in some
unincorporated district within the United States, there will be
some tax increase. Isn't it astounding that she can pinpoint that?

"Dolly Parton will be the subject of a rumor linking her to a
handsome gentleman who is not her husband." Uh huh.

"Recent scandals on Wall Street... will lead to dramatic changes
throughout the business world." That is a fact, not a prediction.
It has already started.

"In the next few months, an illness or accident will again strike
a person close to Vanna [White]'s heart." Alas, I fear that we all
care about someone who will contract the flu, or something.

Hold on to your hats. I don't know if you are ready for this one.
"A wedding for The Golden Girls' Rue McClanahan may beat my
prediction into print. Rue is very close to remarrying a former
husband." Can't you picture it? Rue and fiance are racing to the
church while JD is racing to the newspaper.

And that is the stuff from which the predictions of Jeane Dixon are
made.

SYLVIA BROWN
For 1986, SB predicted that President Reagan is "more ill than we
know." When that failed for 1986, she re-predicted it for 1987.

For 1986, SB predicted that the TV show "Dynasty" would be
cancelled. When that failed for 1986, she re-predicted it for 1987.


For 1986, SB predicted a power blackout in New York City - the
worst blackout in New York history. When that failed for 1986, she
re-predicted it for 1987.

And this last prediction for 1987 just staggers the imagination.
"There will be a lot of rain condensed in early spring." Wow! If
that surprising, totally unexpected prediction actually comes to
pass, think how it will revolutionize the arts. Why, songwriters
would have to start writing songs like -- I can almost hear it now
- "April Showers."

Poets would write about:
   "stirring dull roots with spring rain."
        T. S. Elliot: "The Waste Land", 1922.
Another poet could write:
   "Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote
    The droughte of March hath perced to the roote."
        Geoffrey Chaucer: "The Canterbury Tales", c. 1387.
We might even read such stirring verse as:
   "Sweet April showers
    Do bring May flowers."
        Thomas Tusser: "A Hundred Good Points of Husbandry", 1557.

Thank you, Sylvia, for pointing out all of these surprising things
which we mere normal mortals cannot possibly foresee. When you can
foresee such unanticipated, surprising events as spring rains, we
can forgive your missing the Challenger disaster, the ouster of
Marcos, the Daniloff affair, the Iran/Arms/Hostages/Contras deal,
the Chernoble disaster, and all of the others, plus all of the
misses you made. After all, you can't hit 'em all.

And there you have it folks. Guide your lives well, now that you
know what is coming.

All the best to all of you for a wonderful 1987. Hope you survive
the unseasonal spring rains.



OH-THAT-EXPLAINS-IT department:

[We wonder how ufologists explain how the government has managed
to keep the lid on the "UFO coverup" for 40 years in despite the
failure to control other sensitive leaks (Watergate, etc.). The
following is an exact transcription made by Don Henvick of Dale
Goudie, director of UFO Information Service, heard on KKUP radio
on the Larry King show, 1/2/87. Remember, you heard it here second.
-Ed]

"[In 1952 President Truman]...might have signed it into effect when
he signed in the, ah, if you remember the National Security Agency
was signed in by without the permission of the Congress and the
Senate. It was, the President signed it in, which is now one of the
biggest security organizations in the world today, he might at the
same time have signed something that would go into a special effect
that no one gave them a special permission to keep this wrapped up
within themself. I mean we just don't know that."



PSYCHIC MARKETING
by Yves Barbero

There's probably a lot more integrity in the world of sales than
we recognize. In our cynical view of the salesperson, images of
the fast-talking, suede-shoe slick easily come to mind.

Even though there are crooks out there, by and large most
salespersons are honest, allowing for a certain amount of hype. In
most cases, the customer wants the product and uses his
intelligence not so much to resist the sale as to drive the best
bargain from a trained professional.

It's been well over a hundred years since the U.S.could be even
remotely considered a subsistence economy. The majority of what we
buy today is what we desire, not what we need. Even in the purchase
of foodstuffs we often spend a bit more for a "name brand" because
of the packaging. There's nothing wrong with this because
underneath the fancy packaging is a real product. The car you buy,
no matter how much chrome and sexy lines, will get you from A to
B.

In competing with each other, salespersons have developed their
craft to a high art. They often say, "You have to sell yourself."
After all, what difference does it make if you buy your insurance
from Company A or B? The rates are statistically determined.

So we, the consumer, wind up being convinced that a particular
salesperson is going to look out for us and give us a fair shake.
This doesn't mean we are naive. We puts our trust in a relative
stranger because we can only spend so much time monitoring a
specific transaction. Anyway, the salesperson wants to remain in
business, and the threat of criminal or civil sanctions is likely
to reinforce his/her own sense of honesty.

Salesmanship has gained enough professional esteem -- it is a kind
of subculture -- that the stature itself is justification for its
intellectually careless members. The act of selling thus become
justification enough for a small minority who don't investigate
the product beyond its marketing potential. As long as the process
of selling follows their conception of how its done, they feel
they're doing an honest job.

That subculture is a strange world combining common-sense
psychology, personal charisma and GOODS AND SERVICES. So long as
goods and services are included, there is a kind of balanced
honesty in the sense that the customer can usually adjust for hype.
Everyone knows $14.95 means $15. The real problem comes when the
goods and services are figments of the salesperson's imagination.
It is in this sense that I consider most psychics, astrologers and
faith-healers. This is not to say that there aren't outright
frauds, however.

The main gripe a skeptic has with psychics is that they're not
really selling a measurable service -- only common-sense psychology
and personal charisma. But the psychic sincerely believes there's
a REAL service to sell no matter how vague it is or how often it's
proved wrong.

A skeptic wants to evaluate the "service" (and occasionally
products such as pyramids that sharpen razors, etc.) in the cold
light of scientific objectivity, but the psychic assumes that if
it's sold, the customer is satisfied, the profit justified (even
if profit is not thought to be the motive) and the services valid.
The skeptic can never accept this, however. Sincerity implies only
personal honesty, not that the psychic is right.

I offer two likely solutions to end the marketing of psychic goods
and services. One is to try to interest the state in restricting
psychics. This has inherent dangers for the non-psychic, however.
The state may stop clearly harmful practices such as psychic
surgery but if the state may prevent fortune telling (unless clear
fraud in present) it might also have the power to stop other forms
of free speech.

We may have to tolerate a certain amount of lunacy to preserve
First Amendment integrity. The civil courts have always been
available to redress fraud, be it psychic or otherwise.

Another solution is public education. This is much more to my
liking. An aggressive campaign to show that psychics, astrologers
and faith healers are all hype and no services is the way to go.
Our year-end analyses of the previous year's predictions by
"famous" psychics is a good example of what can be done.

Public education serves several purposes. It is a consumer issue
in that we're helping people hang on to their hard-earned money.
It serves to train people to look at issues in a more scientific
way. It may save lives whenever we expose a faith healer so that
a member of the public sees a real M.D.

And, critically important, it clears away some of the encrusted
debris of pseudoscience, leaving the next generation a more
enlightened path.

[Yves Barbero is not a salesman. -Ed]



EDITOR'S CORNER

Statistics lie. This familiar dictum makes a mathematician wince.
Wincing in this manner is almost a part of my weekly fare. In fact,
only humans lie.

This whole matter came to me again during the ritual playoffs. You
know, the family room scene with beer-crazed, pretzel-stuffed
idiots trying to remember if it is third and two or a seven-ten
split in the tenth frame. Anyway, in my delirium I tried to recall
former playoff extravaganzas as the jumble of jerseys, jocks,
grunts; crashing helmets, yellow flags and other nonsense tumbled
through my already throbbing temples. All I could remember was the
Budweiser commercials. Or was it Miller? Whatever.

Of all the statistics that are plied in athletic contests, the beer
huckstering was for me the standout of Superbowl XX -- the only
thing worth remembering. For all you uninitiated out there who
didn't wince at or didn't see those ads I suppose I'm going to
explain.

An "impartial, scientific test" was to be conducted to see if
Miller devotees would prefer Bud. Each participant (there were 100)
was seated behind a little console with two levers, A and B. Then
the officiator of the event, dutifully clad in full zebra, came out
and explained that all the people at the consoles were red-blooded
Miller drinkers. Each then quaffed a healthy draft from each of two
tankards marked A and B, one containing Miller, the other, Bud.
Tension mounted as the referee blew his whistle signaling the crew
to pull the lever corresponding to the brew of their preference as
he assured us that the participants didn't know which beer was in
which glass and that this was all live so we would know there could
be no fudging. The results of this experiment quickly flashed on
a TD scoreboard: 54 had chosen Bud! Our announcer pounded home the
fact that 54% of Millerites had picked Bud over their own ale!

My couch mate was a Bud man. He wasted no time wagging a finger in
my face and giving me a wild round of raspberries punctuated with
the exclamation, "See there, mathematician, Bud is better!
Statistics prove it!"

He fell back a little and took his finger out of my eye when I told
him all the "test" had proved was that beer aficionados couldn't
distinguish one beer from the other, and that the referee should
have thrown a yellow flag and yelled, "Foul!" when the results were
announced in favor of Bud.

The tip off is the 54%. The ad was repeated about four times, each
run with different participants, and each time the outcome was
between 45% - 55%.

There were two levers to pull. If there had been no other
instruction than to pull one or the other, we should have seen
about 50% pulling A and 50% pulling B. Since the outcome repeatedly
centered around random expectation (50%) it is most likely that
randomness was in fact operating, not conscious decision. In other
words, the picky palates could not really tell which was Bud and
which was Miller (horrors) but they had to pull a handle anyway.
If only 5% or 10%, for example, had chosen Bud it would not have
been easy to pass it off as chance -- it might only have been
explicable that some taste distinction was indeed possible. The
fact that the experiment was repeated several times and all
outcomes fell comfortably within a standard deviation of 50-50
chance makes discriminating taste very unlikely to have been the
reason.

So the interpretation of a statistic is the crux. The "problem"
with probability and statistics is one of ambiguity; but ambiguity
is the inherent nature of probablistic questions. In the cloud of
that ambiguity lies the potential for a bushel of evils ranging
from honest misunderstanding to blatant lying. Unfortunately, the
results are the same whether the interpretation is misguided or
from intentional deceit. Untrained people are very susceptible to
judgement errors in probability questions. One has only to go to
Reno and witness people pouring money in the Keno rat hole to
understand this.

Whenever we see some pet theory promoted on a probablistic
foundation it is perhaps sound to say, "Beware." The Madison Ave.
moguls knew very well what they were doing in that campaign. They
wouldn't have risked their client on live, national TV. The
campaign was all the more crafty because it led the viewers to make
an obvious but fallacious conclusion. They lied to us with
statistics; a pernicious lie because it played to our probablistic
naivete.

Statistics don't lie, but when the whole picture is not available
(initial conditions, data bases, extrapolation, etc.) a lot of
misunderstanding at least and lying at most can be perpetrated.
Creationists do it with abiogenesis probability calculations,
parapsychologists do it in psi research, and those silver-tongued
devils, the ad men, can punt us right out of the stadium with it.



AMICUS CURIAE

THE So. Cal. Skeptics, one of the more vital affiliates of CSICOP,
has shown that vitality by producing the Amicus Curiae brief of 72
Nobel laureates to the Supreme Court on the State of Louisiana's
"creationism" appeal. The case has been heard by now, and a
decision will probably be announced around mid March.

This twenty-seven page brief is a limited edition. The salient
points are wonderfully compacted in the booklet. Most of the
material shows the clear (fundamentalist) Christian dogma behind
"scientific" creationism's proposal. The legal questions are
sketched, also.

The main reason the brief was published for sale to the public is
money. The enormous legal fees are being paid by concerned citizens
who donated to the cause. The cost per edition is $25, which you
send to: So. Cal. Skeptics, P.O. Box 7000-39, Redondo Beach, CA
90277. [I bought a copy for three reasons: 1.to help the cause,
2.to read the arguments, and 3.to have a "collector's item" that
might be valuable someday. -Ed].


DATELINE TULSA. 69-year-old Oral Roberts will die by March if he
does not get 4.5 million by then! His shocking message to his
viewers really laid it on the line. His ministry is deep in the red
(his hospital was a financial disaster) it seems and he is
desperate. This would be a psychic prediction to watch except that
it might be a tad difficult to look at the books with a live
Roberts in April to find that he only received a paltry 4.1 mil.
Then again, Oral didn't say WHICH March...



BASIS

Editor:      Kent Harker
Coding:      Rick Moen
Paste-up:     Don Henvick
Typesetter:    Dave Kilbridge
Distribution:   Yves Barbero
Circulation:   Paul Giles
Archivist:    Ken Bomben



FROM THE CHAIR
by Robert Sheaffer

In the November issue, we published a readers' survey, the results
of which I would like to share with you. The response was not as
good as we hoped to get, but enough to give us some valuable
feedback of what you are thinking. Many thanks to all who took the
time to share their thoughts with us. Complications at publication
time of that issue made it almost impossible to have the survey as
a separate page, and I can understand that many of you did not want
to lose part of the issue by sending in the page; several readers
sent in copied surveys.

Let's go over the questions, and look at your responses.

1. How long have you been reading "BASIS"?
2. Are You a Current Subscriber?
3. Do you read the Skeptical Inquirer?

About half of those responding have been reading "BASIS" almost
from the beginning, in 1982. About 20% of the remainder, two or
more years; about 30% joined us during 1986. All of those
responding are current subscribers (meaning, if the question is
correctly understood, they are not receiving a single "inquiry"
copy, or the copies we exchange with other CSICOP-related
organizations. Not surprisingly, about 3/4 of those responding also
read "The Skeptical Inquirer", one-third of them indicating that
they have been longtime subscribers of "SI". (If you are among
those who are NOT getting "SI", I can't imagine why not. If you
like "BASIS", you'll LOVE "SI". For a one-year subscription, send
$20 to Box 229, Buffalo, NY 14215.)

4. What Did You Like Best in Recent Issues?

The clear first choice was Randi's expose of Peter Popoff,
mentioned by about half of those responding. Other items deserving
honorable mention are: the review of the Creationist Conference in
San Jose; "Sheaffer's items usually pretty good" (blush!); book
reviews & library referrals; paradigms and "religions"; Randi's
episodes; Steiner's "Steve Turbot" hoax in Australia; "Shawn
Carlson discusses criticisms"; "the fine humor of Don Henvick's
article on his escapades".

5. What did you like least?

About 20% said they had no complaints. One responded, "I can't
remember an issue that didn't give me something interesting to
read."

Of those who named something, several objected to what one of them
termed "picking on poor Colin Wilson". Several others seemed to be
objecting to what they felt were "attempts to be cute; personal
reminiscences that have no point"; irrelevant articles; unimportant
details in stories; the editorials. Other "least liked" things
were: "stories too short" (better too short than too long!); "some
articles weren't relevant" (but we won't know which ones those are
unless you tell us!); "the raging on Linus Pauling" (I thought we
were discussing.). One reader pointed out an irksome problem with
the item mentioning Columbus in the July issue, where we said "Of
course, Columbus could PROVE what he was claiming." The reader
pointed out, correctly, that this is isn't so. "He claimed he could
sail west to the Orient. He claimed he had found the (east) Indies
until his death." (Well, at least Galileo could prove what HE was
claiming!)

6. Would you be Interested in Helping with "BASIS"?

We received a number of offers of assistance. We still need more
help, especially in the following areas: people with IBM or
compatibles (or, actually, any computer with a modem) to help with
the editing. (A word aside to "BASIS" contributors: we love all
interesting and thoughtful submissions. We love them even more when
they are on MS-DOS diskettes!) We also need people who have
professional knowledge or comparable expertise in fields in which
bizarre claims are often made, who can send us well-researched
investigations or analyses of such claims. Let's hear from all you
Egyptologists out there. Where are our hydrologists, medical
specialists, marine biologists, and specialists in Meso-American
antiquities?

7. How many BAS meetings have you Attended?
9. What Times Are Best for you to Attend Meetings?
10. What Locations Do You Prefer?
12. How many Meetings a Year Would You Attend, Assuming that the
Time & Location were Convenient, & the Subject Interesting

The answers to these questions confirmed what I had been suspecting
for some time: that most of our BAS people are not all that keen
about coming to meetings. We usually see 30-50 people at our
typical meeting, occasionally rather more when we have a
particularly interesting subject, and especially effective
publicity. Most of the people, however, are not readers of "BASIS",
and are coming because they read about the meeting in the paper.

While it is good that we are continually reaching out to new
people, some of whom remain with the organization, it is
disappointing that relatively few of our "regulars" go to a lot of
meetings. About two-thirds of those responding had been to at most
one meeting. And since I would assume that those taking the trouble
to respond are MORE likely to attend meetings than those who do
not, that suggests that most of our readers are exactly that --
readers, not attenders. I read this to mean that some of you people
like to go to a meeting once in a while, but once a month is too
often.

There are many good reasons for not being able to attend. Some must
presumably plead indifference. Interestingly, this contrasts with
the answer given to Question 12, in which most people said they
would like to attend six or more meetings a year. There seems to
be a significant gap between the number of meetings people say they
would like to attend, and the number they actually do. We are going
to a lot of trouble to keep our meetings going smoothly on a
monthly schedule, and we are fortunate to have been able to tap a
long line of excellent speakers. Unless we see more enthusiasm for
attending (and, yes, also helping organize) meetings, we may wish
to schedule them less often. To paraphrase Greta Garbo in
"Ninotchka", "there will be fewer but better meetings".

As for the times and locations preferred for meetings, the
responses confirmed what we already suspected: No consensus. As for
locations, the strongest preferences were for the East and South
Bay. Obviously, no one location will please everybody. We will
continue to move things around, usually either near
Berkeley, or near San Jose. If you would like to have a meeting
near where you live, take the initiative and help organize it!

We received some very interesting responses to the "open ended"
questions which I'll share next time. Meanwhile, if you still
haven't sent in your survey, please do so now. The more who share
their thoughts with us, the more successful we will be in making
the Bay Area Skeptics your kind of organization.



WITHOUT GRACE
by Rick Moen

"Amazing Grace", a young woman who professes to be a faith-healer,
seems to be less than pleased with her recent television encounters
with skeptics. Her displeasure has been showing quite clearly.

Last June 3, Grace appeared on the show "A.M. San Francisco",
demonstrating her talents. So, however, did BAS founder and former
board member Bob Steiner. Although both the host and the audience
seemed largely hostile to him, and although he was expected to
merely appear at the end and attempt to explain away Grace's
"healings" (a most unpromising format), Bob nonetheless managed to
cast grave doubt on Grace's abilities.

In the audience was our very own Don Henvick, man of many cures.
Don, who has been cured by various faith-healers of ailments
ranging from alcoholism to UTERINE CANCER, was picked out by Grace
as her first patient, and cured of non-existent arthritis. Others
in the audience were similarly "treated". Her routine was similar
to that of other faith-healers we have seen in the past.

However, I would like to comment specifically on Grace's tactics:
What does she do when her credibility is attacked? Well, it has to
be seen to be believed. First, she interrupts relentlessly, smiling
beatifically all the while. No critic is allowed to get an entire
sentence across if she can help it. If that does not suffice, she
has a whole range of diversionary tactics at her disposal. If she
gets a diagnosis wrong, she claims to have healed someone sitting
nearby. If that won't wash, she can bring forward one of her
followers (they seem to dominate her audiences) and talk about HIS
cure instead.

Then again, she can always attack the critic. If the critic is non-
religious, she harps on that, suggesting that she is therefore
somehow being persecuted. If told she has "cured" a subject of non-
existent ailments, she complains about "deceit".

Any doubts I had about Grace were laid to rest when I saw her
again, this time appearing on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" with a
couple of other ladies with paranormal aspirations and James Randi,
the magician. Her usual tactics were present in force. However,
here's why I suggested that the skeptics must be getting to her:
Towards the end, she felt obliged to ask (smiling demurely) "Randi,
is it true that you take young boys into your home?" (I may be
paraphrasing very slightly.) Both Randi and Winfrey were clearly
taken aback. Grace, as always, just kept on smiling. She's Amazing,
all right.

                             -----

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, 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-