Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1373 sci.misc:2180
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!husc6!cca!mirror!david
From: david@mirror.TMC.COM (David Chesler)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...)
Keywords: skepticism
Message-ID: <16899@mirror.TMC.COM>
Date: 28 Jul 88 20:43:36 GMT
References: <1911@aecom.YU.EDU> <6445@megaron.arizona.edu> <492@metapsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: david@prism.TMC.COM (David Chesler)
Organization: Mirror Systems, Cambridge Mass.
Lines: 40

In article <492@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>I found the data on the Amazing Randi's investigation of the Nature article
>unfortunate and unsurprising.
>
>Randi already "knows" that nothing unusual could ever happen.  He is no
>scientist, nor does he have the spirit of the true scientific investigator, in
>my opinion, which is a committment to discover the truth, whatever it be.
>Instead, he is committed to debunking.  He commits the same error as he
>imagines to be committed by those he attacks -- starting out from a
>determination to prove a particular point and then twisting the facts to fit
>that viewpoint.  He, and his fellow "CSICOP" professional debunkers, are, in my
>view, doing the scientific community a disservice by intimidating and
>ridiculing those who have unusual ideas that could lead to major breakthroughs

  I have read the Skeptical Inquirer, the publication of CSICOP.  In general
they bring Randi in to debunk magicians, and as an excellent magician
and mentalist he is very quick to point out sleight of hand where someone
claims e.g. telekinesis.  Other writers debunk various legends: spontaneous
human combustion (several specific reported instances diagnosed as fat
drunks falling on candles) or specific alien visitations.  They try their
best not to work on principles, but only specific acts.  

  If a scientific truth can withstand the test of reproducibility, CSICOP
will accept it, but too often we are faced with legends, half-truth and
fraud.

  The author's of the Nature article expressed their own disbelief.  Who better
to clear or condemn the experiment than the "Scientific Method Police"?

  Their charter talks about a priori beliefs.  They do have prejudices which
are  ocassionally observed in their articles (only when they debunk things I
still believe :-)) but in general they are incredibly dry and methodical,
certainly not intimidating and ridiculing.  When they claim something is
bad science, or fraud, they provide their evidence.
----
David Chesler		david@prism.TMC.COM
{mit-eddie, pyramid, harvard!wjh12, cca, datacube}!mirror!david
Mirror Systems	Cambridge, MA
617-661-0777, x170

  "He may drive a fancy car, but he sure ain't no cherry picker."