linuxmafia.com 2013/2013.06.linuxmafia.com/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/newsletters/basis/basisjun.88

Text File | 1997-06-28 | 37.4 KB | 813 lines

------------------------------------------------------
June 1988 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics
------------------------------------------------------
         Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet
                   Vol. 7, No. 6
                Editor:  Kent Harker



WHAT IS REAL?

[The following was excerpted from a lecture professional magician
David Alexander gave in a recent meeting at CSICOP headquarters.
Alexander's impressive credentials are spread over a variety of
interests including private investigation and publishing. He is
working closely with the Committee for the Scientific Examination
of Religion (CSER) investigating the activities of faith healers.]

How does one determine what is real from what is fake when the fake
looks so real?

People generally do not realize, or care to admit, what poor
observers we really are, and how vulnerable to manipulation we can
be. Invariably, people describe what they think they saw, not what
they really saw. Their recollection of what is seen may be
controlled and shaped by the person who presented the effect. This
is why eyewitness accounts of the supposed miracles of psychics are
considered unreliable by any investigator familiar with the
psychology of the presentation of magic.

In order to spot the fake, one must have certain kinds of
knowledge. Being fooled by a magician or psychic is not a case of
being stupid. It is a matter of not having specific kinds of
knowledge.

The great French magician and father of modern magic, Jean Eugene
Robert-Houdin, stated that a magician is an actor playing the part
of a psychic.

A magician's success is in the skill he exhibits in influencing the
spectator's mind. It is completely a matter of controlling the
audience's thinking. Misdirection is the single-most-important tool
in influencing what the spectators sense and perceive. The skilled
magician is adept at attention control and physical and
psychological disguise.

What is the difference between a magician performing and a psychic
working? They both look the same; that is, they both look "real."
Since many times both the magician and the psychic employ the same
physical and psychological methods, how are they different?

They are different in the context and mind-set in which their
performance takes place, and in their goals and results. The
psychic's ethic is completely different. He uses the same methods
and psychology as the magician, but in a different context and to
a different end.

In both cases, when the objective is realized -- that is, the
acceptance of the performer's false premise -- careful examination
almost invariably stops. This happens in a magic show when the
audience gets caught up in the mystery and good humor. They stop
examining and simply enjoy the show. With a psychic it usually
happens at the beginning of the relationship with the client when
the psychic validates his or her powers quite thoroughly. Once the
client accepts the "reality" of the psychic's ability, little or
no further questioning occurs. A leap of faith has taken place.

We must always remember that the psychic has one additional
advantage at his disposal: the client's unflagging belief in the
paranormal and faith in the particular psychic. Faith may move
mountains, but it also moves a lot of money into the pockets of
those who would exploit it.

I once when to a seance and asked for the spirit of my father, who
had died when I was quite young.

When he "appeared," I asked his name. I received the answer, "You
know, son." Well, I knew this was all a crock, yet there was a
tremendous emotional pull at that moment. It was all very powerful,
but came from within me, not from any spirit manifestation. In
order to fully understand why people go to mediums and psychics
again and again, we must understand the powerful emotional
component that is within all of us.

Mark Twain is credited with the line, "A lie can be all the way
across the country before the truth can get its boots on."

Much of the credit or blame for the widespread and uncritical
belief in the paranormal can be laid at the feet of the media. The
media are very poor at accurately reporting the paranormal, and
rarely follow up when skeptics become involved.

Unfortunately, in examining paranormal claims, the media and modern
society have gotten their methodology backwards. Claims are made
by almost anyone, and skeptics are then challenged to disprove
them. Actually, what a skeptic or any rationally inquiring
individual must do is prove nothing, but dispassionately and
carefully examine the evidence alleged as substantiating the claim.
It is not the job of the rational investigator of paranormal or
supernatural claims to disprove them. The person making the claim
has the burden of proof.

Many times, when evidence is presented, it turns out to be nothing
more than a personal story, told with conviction to be sure, but
an anecdote nonetheless. We are finding more and more that belief
in the paranormal is being sold like soap and religion by highly
personable and charismatic individuals who have books, movies,
self-development classes or tapes, or some other product to sell
a public which lacks the specific knowledge necessary to critically
examine their claims.

Recently, the L. A. "Times" quoted David Griffin, Director of the
Center for a Post-Modern World, as saying that he encourages people
to abandon skepticism of any extra-ordinary phenomena. It is
frightening to see a theologian at a major seminary accept aspects
of the paranormal as valid without any critical judgment.

To encourage people NOT to be skeptical is very sad, when it is
skeptical inquiry that is the basis for scientific investigation,
creativity, and the expansion of human thought and understanding.
If we give up the ability to be skeptical, to inquire, to question,
we have given up a great part of what makes us human.



FLOOD THEORISTS SINK
by Edgar Deacon

The recent defeat of fundamentalist Christian creationists (FCC)
in the Supreme Court was a blow, but not a mortal one. The
principal grounds upon which the appeal was overturned was the view
that creationism promoted or endorsed a particular religion. That
is not really how the argument should have been settled, but the
FCC brought suit, realizing they could not make their case the way
normal science does: by presenting evidence.

Australia has no equivalent constitutional provision for the
prohibition of state-sanctioned preferential religious
indoctrination. Thus, the eyes of the academic community have been
focused upon the Land Down Under to see how they fare --
particularly since they have a very strong and active FCC faction.
The following article first appeared in an Australian publication,
"Future Age".

In Australia, the fundamentalists, have achieved some success,
particularly in Queensland where the former Minister of Education
encouraged the teaching of creationism in state high schools. In
every state in Australia, fundamentalist private schools are
subsidized by taxpayers.

The Aussie FCC use the same tack as here in the US: Attack
evolutionary theory, and, by perpetrating a false dichotomy,
declare that creationism is thus established.

A major tactic is to try to show that the methods developed to
determine the ages of rock formations are unreliable. Many of their
arguments are designed to be confusing and hard to refute
convincingly for those not well acquainted with the particular
branch of science involved. But creationists have been rash enough
to attribute coal formations to Noah's flood, which, they claim on
biblical grounds, to have occurred about 2500 BCE. This claim is
nonsensical; and it can be shown quite simply without appealing to
complex scientific issues.

Before outlining the creationists' ideas on coal formation, it is
necessary to give the geological account, which holds that coal
seams are consolidated and modified plant material resulting from
the growth over long periods in the distant past of vegetation in
luxuriant swamp forests near sea level.

Later subsidence of the land covered the deposits with sediments
such as mud and sand. This deposition, perhaps aided by subsequent
uplift of the sea floor and changes in sea level, led eventually
to another period of swamp conditions.

Many repetitions of this cycle of events sometimes occurred,
resulting in the formation of various layers of vegetable matter
separated by layers of sediment.

In the course of time, heat and pressure from the overlying
deposits converted the layers of vegetable matter into seams of
coal.

The creationist scenario is based on the fact that after the 1980
explosive eruption of densely forested Mt. St. Helens, a gigantic
raft of broken logs and stumps floated on nearby Spirit Lake. these
eventually sank to form a stratum which the creationists maintain
would soon form coal, after being covered by further deposits of
volcanic ash and sediments. The conversion, they say, would be
speeded by heat and the catalytic action of clay mixed with the
deposits.

In their 1985 article "Coal, Volcanism and Noah's Flood," published
by the Creation Science Foundation, the authors conclude that "It
is entirely feasible that all today's coal seams were formed by the
volcanism, flooding, erosion, tectonism and hydrothermal activity
during the global year-long Noah's Flood catastrophe and its
aftermath."

Even if a world-wide flood was credible, one obvious objection to
this story is that broken logs and stumps pack very loosely: even
if coal could be so formed, it would inevitably contain much
volcanic ash and mud. But many bituminous coals contain little more
ash than that derived from the original vegetation -- some as
little as two percent.

While some coal deposits give evidence of plant material having
been carried by flooding into depressions to form thick coal seams,
there are many other instances where bituminous coal seams of
fairly even thickness extend over large areas.

There is reason to believe that they mark the site of the original
swamps in which the parental vegetation lived and died, and that
there has been no appreciable influx of plant material from
surrounding areas -- a view supported by the fact that the clay
below such seams is riddled with innumerable rootlets of the plants
that originally colonized the swamp.

A well-explored example of an extensive seam is the Pittsburgh seam
of bituminous coal, which has an average thickness of ten feet
under some 3,500 square miles around West Virginia. In the 1/2 mile
below this seam there are a dozen others interleaved between strata
of sandstone, limestone and shale (consolidated clay). There are
no layers of volcanic origin.

The limestone formed by the deposition of the shells of small
marine organisms along with some precipitated calcium carbonate,
represent very long quiet periods quite inconsistent with
creationist catastrophism.

The orderly sequence of strata, according to orthodox geological
reckoning, belongs to the Upper Carboniferous period and was laid
down over a 15-million-year period some 300 million years ago.

Some realistic idea of the vast extent of geological time can be
gained if the catastrophic coal theory is rejected in favor of the
swamp-forest origin. An estimate of the time represented by the
thickness of a coal seam can be inferred from the amount of
vegetation produced annually under favorable conditions by a
complete plant cover in a moist tropical climate, which is of the
order of 40 tons to the acre of dry plant material. Consolidated
into a uniform layer, this material would have a thickness of less
than one-quarter inch. However, much material is lost during decay
as carbon dioxide and methane (marsh gas).

After the formation of peat there is further loss. It has been
estimated that at least three feet of peat is needed to produce 1/2
inches of coal. So it should be fairly conservative to take each
measure of thickness of a coal seam to be the product of one year's
growth of the original swamp forest. Then the 10 feet thickness of
the Pittsburgh seam corresponds to a lifetime of the swamp forest
to the order of 3000 years -- a sizable fraction of the age of the
FCC universe. And, in the half mile below this seam there are a
dozen others, all representing just one interval in the latter half
of the Carboniferous period.

Flood geology cannot account for the absence of fossils of animals
and birds in the strata that sandwich such coal seams as the
Pittsburgh one. According to Genesis, the world was well stocked
with animals and birds at the onset of the flood, but the highest
forms of life associated with the Carboniferous strata are
primitive land reptiles, and marine fishes and sharks. Had higher
forms of life existed their fossils could hardly have been missed,
because of the great attention given to these commercially
important strata.

But fossils of more advanced creatures are found associated with
the coal seams of later geological periods. For example, in
Cretaceous seams, were laid down around 160 million years after the
Pittsburgh seam. The fossils include dinosaurs and birds, but only
small mammals.

Cretaceous seams are distinguished from the carboniferous by the
associated vegetation: they include fossils of flowering plants and
trees which are absent in Carboniferous seams because they had yet
to evolve.

The assumption of a world-wide flood is the major absurdity of
Flood geology. The FCC choose to ignore the remarkable parallels
between the Genesis account and the earlier Babylonian legend,
according to which the flood was also a punishment for sin, with
only certain favored individuals being saved by building an ark.

Indeed, a remarkable flood does seem to have occurred during a
prehistoric period of settlement beside the Euphrates. Excavations
at Ur, the birthplace of Abraham, according to Genesis, conducted
by Sir Leonard Wolley earlier this century, uncovered pottery and
other objects, the period interrupted by a three-foot depth of
clean water-laid clay. The clay layer is tangible evidence of a
mighty flood, but there is no reason whatever to suppose it
extended beyond the lowlands of Mesopotamia.

Memories of such a flood, embroidered with myth, undoubtedly would
have persisted into the historic period.

[Edgar Deacon is a former principal research scientist with the
CSIRO division of atmospheric research.]



RAMPARTS

[Ramparts is a regular feature of "BASIS", and your participation
is urged. Clip, snip and tear bits of irrationality from your local
scene and send them to the Editor. If you want to add some
comment with the submission, please do so.]

From the "Arizona Republic", Tom Haydon mailed us the latest
exploits of the bankrupt and irreverent Rev. Peter Popoff. Peter
is trying to reorganize a new ministry in the Phoenix area begging
$100 donations. His latest pitch is to get money to print Bibles
for distribution behind the Iron Curtain. (On that score, "Free
Inquiry" magazine has proof that Popoff is running a scam here,
too.)

The article goes on to inform us that "God soon would reveal to him
the name of the Antichrist. Popoff said he also knows when the next
world war will commence, and he claimed knowledge of an array of
other prophecies."

"BASIS" wonders if his wife, Elizabeth, is still giving him all his
information.

C. Baldo forwarded an item from the "Union Democrat" about the
"vanishing pet" theory; i.e., when the menagerie splits you know
it is earthquake time.

Well, some people at UC Davis did some real study, and found that
there is "no connection between lost-pet ads and the chance an
earthquake will occur." This contradicts geologist James Berkland's
notion that animals have some sense of the impending temblors.

The Davis geologists found that the more likely reason your pets
leave home is because they are lovesick, been stolen or killed, or
just don't like you. Most significant is that fact that "pet owners
often don't place ads until their dog or cat has been missing for
several days."

The ever-busy Virgin Mary is adding new ventures to her agenda. Her
personal interviews with channelers, apparitions in Yugoslavia,
appearance on tortillas, images on water tanks, and crying in icons
are never enough. The Holy Mother is gracing the exterior walls of
a home in Bakersfield so report skeptics Mr. & Mrs. Randy Smith
from an article in "The Bakersfield Californian".

The homeowner, Mr. Zamora, has done extensive testing to prove that
the apparition is not the result of special light bulbs. He has
replaced them all with K-Mart bulbs, and Mary is still there.

So as not to daunt the flow of pilgrims that nightly (Mary only
appears at night when the lights are on the house) trample the
neighborhood, Mr. Zamora has cemented his entire front yard.

BAS secretary Rick Moen routed a page from "Insight" outlining the
exploits of a New Jersey psychic who couldn't let well enough
alone. This woman told a lady that her dear departed husband had
a curse that had caused him many years of illness, hard luck and
operations. Perhaps death is not the curse of all curses. Anyhow,
the lady paid the psychic a total of $7,000 cash and another $2,000
in expenses (such as ritual candles).

Finally, the miracle woman declared the curse removed, to the great
wonder and happiness of the victim, not to mention the relief of
the deceased. The trouble began when she apparently did  not want
to let go of this ready source of cash, so she informed her pigeon
that her mother had a curse, too.

Attorney time. The mark is seeking repayment of all the monies
collected by the psychic.



"Knowledge is choked by its own undergrowth." Anon.



PANEL DISCUSSION
by Julie Stern

As a film crew from TV station WTTG in Washington looked on, a
panel of experts discussed the latest controversy concerning UFOs -

- alleged abductions -- or, in one case, changed the subject. Close
to 200 people attended NCSA's first general meeting, held on June
7 in Bethesda, and the Channel 5 new report that night gave the
fledgling organization a welcome kickoff.

The event -- billed as a lively discussion of "UFO Abductions: Fact
or Fantasy?" -- started with a review of the history of such claims
by moderator James Sharp, director of the Albert Einstein
Planetarium at the National Air & Space Museum. He started with the
1961 Barney and Betty Hill case and concluded with several claims
made in the 1970s, shortly after a movie based upon the Hill
incident was rerun on television.

Sharp then asked, "What have the aliens done for us lately?" He
cited two recent bestsellers -- Whitley Streiber's "Communion" and
Budd Hopkins's "Intruders" -- that claim that extraterrestrials
have abducted and experimented on humans. "Are these historic
claims of UFO abductions fact or fantasy?" asked Sharp of the
afternoon's speakers, Philip Klass, a founding member of CSICOP who
has been investigating famous UFO cases for more than 20 years and
written several books on the subject, and Bruce Maccabee, a
research physicist employed by the Navy and chair of the Fund for
UFO Research, who has also been investigating UFO cases for nearly
two decades and has published widely on the topic.

Klass began by reviewing Hopkins's claim that hundreds or even
thousands of people are probably unknowing victims of UFO
abductions. He asked members of the audience whether they have ever
experienced some of the three key "Hopkins' criteria" for evidence
of abduction: "Have you ever experienced missing time (discovered
that it was either later or earlier than you thought)? Have you
ever had a nightmare in which you dreamed you saw strange-looking
creatures, or in which you dreamed strange things happened to you?
And have you ever looked at the night sky and seen a light that you
could not immediately identify?" asked Klass. Tongue in cheek, he
announced that the many members of the audience who responded "yes"
to all of these questions had probably been abducted by aliens, and
that, based on this sample, the number of abductees is probably
much higher than even Hopkins claims.

Klass went on to provide some insight into Hopkins' methods in
investigating abduction claims, describing assumptions based on the
hesitant statements and dreams of troubled people, the further
assumption that a story must be true because it is similar to a
story told by another person, and the failure to search for
evidence that would verify these stories. Klass continued with a
description of the "Kathy Davis" case, which Hopkins considers "one
of the most important UFO abductions cases because of the physical
evidence." Klass, however, failed to see any such evidence, and
presented down-to-earth explanations for many of the phenomena and
experiences described by Davis.

Maccabee began by stating that he too is a skeptic. He has long
been skeptical of UFO reports, he said, but he is also skeptical
of explanations and is bothered by on-sided skepticism. He admitted
that we have at hand no hard physical evidence, and that there
certainly have been some hoaxes. But he dismissed the opinion that
there are no unexplained reports of UFOs, saying that in fact there
have been many unexplained sightings.

Maccabee then surprised many listeners by stating, "This discussion
is concerned with abduction reports. However, I do not intend to
use my time discussing such reports. Sorry about that. Instead, I
want to provide a background for understanding." Saying that
Klass's discussion of Hopkins' work had been brief and trivialized,
he went on to state that listeners could not understand Klass's
account and its importance without a background in the subject.
"You cannot understand where the phenomenon of abduction reports
fits into the UFO picture without understanding a general history
of UFO reports," he continued. "I would like to emphasize the point
that if there were no unexplained `plain-vanilla type sightings'
I wouldn't be here today, because abductions themselves are not
particularly interesting to me unless they're tied in to something
else."

Maccabee spent the remainder of his time describing several UFO
incidents, beginning with the 1947 Kenneth Arnold sighting and
concluding with the November 1986 Japan Airlines sighting, which
he argued have never been explained. He expressed the view that,
while scientists have tried to explain these events, they have not
been skeptical enough, and have accepted explanations that do not
even match the descriptions of eye witnesses.

Klass, who looked surprised through much of the talk, began his
response by apologizing to the audience for Maccabee's failure to
address the agreed-upon topic. He countered Maccabee's argument
that the JAL sighting is unexplainable with a brief description of
his present convictions about what the 747 crew saw: the planet
Jupiter and reflections of the full moon off clouds of ice
crystals.

A lively question-and-answer session followed. When Maccabee's
responses to several questions evolved into lengthy responses to
some of Klass's comments, Klass interrupted to ask Maccabee if he
was giving a second lecture, and both Klass and Sharp cautioned him
to restrict himself to answering the questions asked. Klass, in
turn, was chastised by a questioner for his "uncharitable behavior
to other speakers and UFOlogists."



"Words are the most potent drugs used by mankind." Kipling



QUACKERY'S APPEAL

["It beats The Truth" is a first-person account by Samuel Uretsky,
D. Pharm., of his experiences with several AIDS patients whom he
has come to know in his work at N.Y.U. Medical Center. His poignant
account strikes at the sensitivity that we all must have for the
desperate victims of quackery.]

AIDS patients don't merely LIKE to talk, says Uretsky, they
HAVE to talk. AIDS patients collect facts and try to fit them
together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle in the hope that enough
facts will make a truth. He tells of having saved one patient from
financial exploitation by the promoters of RNA/DNA capsules, but
wonders if the truth gave him as much as it took away by the
sadness he exhibited. After helping another victim avoid being
ripped-off by "catalyst-altered water" he says that the patient
doesn't come around anymore.

Other cases of uncertain gratitude conclude with the lament that
the money doesn't mean very much to the hapless AIDS patient. It
also reveals that people who are willing to take time and give of
themselves can provide some comfort to the condemned. Others tell
us that abandonment is more painful that the prospects of death
itself.

(From the "American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy")



NONBELIEF vs. DISBELIEF
by Hans Sebald, Ph.D.

The editorial in the current issue of "The Zetetic Scholar", a
cousin of the "Skeptical Inquirer") ruminated on the distinction
between dis- and nonbelief. The distinction was drawn so
stringently that any statement of disbelief -- denying the reality
basis of a claim and its believability altogether -- called upon
the disbeliever to prove the reality basis of his or her disbelief;
that is, actually to prove that the disbelieved phenomenon does not
exist. On the other hand, nonbelief presumably assumes a somewhat
agnostic point of view, a noncommittal attitude, merely expecting
that the claim made will first have to be proven a fact and
reality.

Though I respect the opinion and the writings of Marcello Truzzi,
the editor of "The Zetetic Scholar" -- after all, we both are
skeptics and battle irrational and bigoted belief systems -- I
differ from him on the way he distinguishes between the
responsibility that ensues from the disbelieving stance.

Certain claims or assumptions made about the nature of life and the
universe are absurd. The word absurd means that a statement or
assumption is "So clearly untrue or unreasonable as to be laughable
or ridiculous" ("Webster's"). For example, an assertion that the
center of the earth consists of one gigantic patriotic apple pie
is simply unacceptable to me, even as an hypothesis -- regardless
of whether or not I can PROVE its nonexistence. According to an
overdrawn definition of disbelief I would have to prove my claim
of nonexistence.

I think there are limits to which disbelievers may be held
responsible to actually prove that certain claims have no basis.
I do not consider a statement of disbelief as an article of faith
that has to be defended when absurdity strikes.

In my view, I draw the line between disbelief and nonbelief
according to the plausibility or absurdity of the claim. In spite
of my inability to prove that the inner core of the earth is NOT
made up of apple pie (so far spared discovery by pie-witching
dowsers), I do not have to prove it, because the claim is absurd.
Admittedly, this is a facetious example, but it makes the point.

And it is not more preposterous than the belief by certain
fundamentalist Christians, who take the Bible to contain the
literal story of the creation. While a god-inspired creation story
(in terms comprehensible to the people of that era) is plausible,
the literal 6-day creation is absurd knowing what we know now. One
could argue that the fundamentalist absurdity is greater than the
apple-pie worshiper's.

While apple-pie corers at least talk about a center that actually
exists, fundamentalists talk about things that are verifiably
incorrect. Both claims -- apple-pie core as well as 6-day creation
-- are absurd, because whatever reliable and empirical information
we have about the nature of life and the universe abrogates the
believability of them. The Bible is more realistically understood
in the historical context that created its ideas and metaphors.

On the other hand, if someone asserts that clairvoyance works quite
well under certain conditions, I would be an interested nonbeliever
asking for demonstration and verification.

My point is a simple one; let's not enshrine the sanctity of
nonbelief in absurd temples. I think there is absolutely nothing
narrow-minded or dogmatic about disbelieving when it comes to
claims characterized by such ill logic and absurdity that a
NON-believing stance would constitute a sham, a fake, and an
absurdity in itself.

I am affirming, however, the virtue and advisability of nonbelief
when we confront claims about observations and anomalies which
deserve further clarification and explanation. The point is that
a disbeliever should A PRIORI neither be judged as closed-minded
nor held responsible to bring proof for the denial of the reality-
basis of absurdities.

I see nothing wrong in a strong dose of disbelief for a wide range
of absurdities which our cultural heritage has imposed on us.

(Dr. Sebald is Professor of Sociology at ASU, and first wrote this
article for the "Phoenix Skeptics News".)



SIN SIGNS
(Submitted by Dr. Leilani Allen)

AQUARIUS: You have an inventive mind and are inclined to be
progressive. You lie a great deal. On the other hand, you are
inclined to be careless and impractical, causing you to make the
same mistake over and over again. People think you are stupid.

PISCES: You have a vivid imagination and often think you are being
followed by the FBI or the CIA. You have minor influence over your
associates and people resent you for flaunting your power. You lack
confidence and are generally a coward. Pisces people do terrible
things to small animals.

ARIES: You are the pioneer type and hold most people in contempt.
You are quick-tempered, impatient and scornful of advice. In short,
you are not very nice.

TAURUS: You are practical and persistent. You have a dogged
determination and work like hell. Most people think you are
stubborn and bull-headed. You are a communist.

GEMINI: You are a quick and intelligent thinker. Everyone likes
you, because you are bisexual. However, you are inclined to expect
too much for too little. This means, in short, you're cheap.
Geminis are known for committing incest.

CANCER: You are sympathetic and understanding of other people's
problems. They think you are a sucker. You are always putting thing
off. That's why you will never amount to anything. Most welfare
recipients are Cancer people.

LEO: You consider yourself a born leader. Others think you are
merely pushy. Most Leo people are bullies. You are vain and dislike
criticism. Your arrogance is disgusting. Leo people are known
thieves.

VIRGO: You are the logical type and hate disorder. This nit-picking
is sickening to the few friends you have. You are cold and
unemotional, and have been known to fall asleep making love. Virgos
make good bus drivers.

LIBRA: You are the artistic type and have a difficult time with
reality. If you are a man, you are more likely retarded. Chances
for monetary gains are excellent. Most Libra women make good
prostitutes. All Librans die of venereal disease.

SCORPIO: You are shrewd in business and cannot be trusted. You
shall achieve the pinnacle of success because of your complete lack
of ethics. Most Scorpios are murdered.

SAGITTARIUS: You are optimistic and enthusiastic. You have a
reckless tendency to rely on luck since you lack talent. The
majority of Sagittarians are drunks and/or dope fiends. People
laugh at you a great deal.

CAPRICORN: You are conservative and afraid of taking risks. You
don't do much of anything. There has never been a Capricorn of any
importance. Capricorns should avoid standing still too long, as
they tend to take root.



EDITOR'S CORNER
by Kent Harker

The early part of May brought the startling and dismaying
revelations that the President of the United States has at least
made changes in his agenda to conform to a more propitious
arrangement of the zodiac.

There is some good to come out of all this.

When Ms. Bea Fitzbrood of Minot, N. Dakota says her life has been
changed by the omenologists it might make a lengthy page-three
article in the papers. We sigh that the editors are not selective
or critical of the folderol they purvey and we try to get a counter
to the article with little or no success. But what has happened
recently shows, I think, the real mentality of the news-watchers
and
writers.

The presidential astrological dalliance is serious
business. The world-wide repercussions are not a matter of some
amusing anecdote. The embarrassment evinced in nearly all quarters
is enough to make us realize that, despite surveys which
demonstrate that nearly two-thirds of the population accept
astrological claims, astrology is still a closet craft held in low
esteem.

The good, then, is that astrology has been held up to ridicule with
this Reagan debacle. Headlines like "Reagan's Star Wars" stick a
well-deserved needle in the side of astrology. The timing for the
resurrection of the Nostradamian prediction of a great earthquake
in the "New City" could not have been more ill-conceived if
skeptics had engineered the whole thing to embarrass astrologers:
the front-page headline in the San Jose "Mercury" rails, "A 16th-
century quack has L.A. quaking." A later article in the same paper
stabs at the nonsense by relating the antics of an Arizona radio
station that sent four tubbies (300 pounds+) to L.A. to do jumping
jacks on the beach to help Nostradamus's prediction along.

Look at the reportage now. Critics are being asked to relate the
problems and meaning of astrology. Locally, the notables of BAS
have been called to the forefront to explain, not the notables of
astrology. The astrologers as well as the White House are trying
to downplay the episode!

BAS board member (soon-to-be-Dr.) Shawn Carlson, whose extensive
work on astrology was published in the most prestigious scientific
journal, "Nature", has been contacted by the media to offer his
analyses of astrology claims. (Shawn's experiment took a flank
attack: rather than attempt to show the non-existence of a
mechanism that would explain how astrology could work, he simply
showed that astrologers cannot do any better than chance at what
they claim.)

Well, Shawn was the guest on KCBS (May 3) radio on a call-in
program opposite Ms. Pat Brown, prominent Bay Area astrologer and
member of the American Federation of Astrologers (and dealer in one
of my pet peeves: "and EC CETERA").

Although the general public was surprised at the disclosures in
Regan's book, Shawn pointed out that the First Family's astrology
predilections are the worst-kept secret in the White House.

Brown says the whole thing is overblown, and that the Reagans
really did not make important policy decisions based on the stars.
She did say something about astrology in general that makes us
wince: "When the planets are at right angles to each other, they
`block' the energies of each other." She explained that the block
then blocks the efforts of those with that astrological arrangement
in their charts.

The host added that astrology has been around for a long time, so
there must be something to it, to which Shawn countered that
longevity of ideas (prejudice against women, superstitious
religions, for example) does not guarantee the truth value of their
claim.

Brown then cried foul, and said that as an astrologer, "I wouldn't
bother your field of astronomy, and I don't think you should bother
us. You should leave us alone."

Wouldn't it be nice not to have to hear ones detractors?

She charged that Shawn's study was not valid because it used only
a very small branch of the astrology community, but Carlson
rejoined that they were among the most respected, and they all said
the test was fair before the fact. Only after the results proved
negative did they howl unfair.

Brown pulled out the usual "validations" routine: "I have conducted
my own tests on 44 people I work with, and I have calculated
mathematically their aspects, and I am right all the time."

I asked myself if there are such things as non-mathematical
calculations. She did say she had taught herself a great deal of
mathematics.

Shawn wrapped up the program with his study: "The bottom line is
one of consumer advocacy: do astrologers deliver what they promise?
They do not, and test after test has demonstrated this. Many
astrologers do harm. There are medical astrologers that give
medical advice without a license and those that give psychological
counseling without professional training."

(Note: Shawn was also appeared as a special guest on channel 4's
"AM San Francisco" with the Hunters, a man/wife Christian healing
team. Mr. Hunter performed a miraculous leg-growing routine for the
cameras in which Jesus grew the leg a full inch to heal "pain in
the ankle" of a volunteer.)

The newspapers have been scrambling for comment and information
about astrology. Here, too, the scientific side has gotten the
call. Astronomer Andy Fraknoi, director of the Astronomical Society
of the Pacific, BAS board member, and popular guest on radio shows,
has been contacted by all the big Bay Area newspapers.

In a feature article for the "San Jose Mercury", Andy asked the
reader to ask him or herself some simple questions: What could
possibly be the rationale for choosing the moment of birth as the
instant when the stars begin their influence? Why not the moment
of conception? It is apparent that the time of conception is very
difficult (or potentially embarrassing) to determine. What is there
in the layer of skin, water and tissue between the fetus and the
outside world that protects it from the celestial sway? Andy
quipped that if the aspects are not entirely favorable for your
infant at the blessed moment, one could wrap the newborn in
protective steak until the cosmos lumbers into a more auspicious
pattern.

                             -----

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 June, 1989 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) 1989 BAY AREA SKEPTICS.  Reprints must credit "BASIS,
newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco,
CA 94122-3928."

                             -END-