Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1401 sci.misc:2220
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (D Gary Grady)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...)
Summary: CSICOP != Inquisition
Keywords: skepticism debunking
Message-ID: <5497@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>
Date: 1 Aug 88 15:53:19 GMT
References: <495@metapsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Organization: Datalytics, Inc.
Lines: 56

In article <495@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>...  To me, what CSICOP
>was founded to do, and what it does do, is to engage in intellectual
>lynchings of people whose views are disturbing to its members.  I
>believe their actions are intended to be coercive, even if not in a
>physical way.

I know CSICOP founder Paul Kurtz and their chief operating officer Mark
Plummer personally, and I can state that this simply isn't true.
CSICOP's own statement of purpose condemns rejection of novel phenomena
antecedant to inquiry, and they mean that sincerely.  I'll grant that
sometimes some members get a little overenthusiastic about debunking,
but that is not characteristic of the organization.  For example, one
article in the Skeptical Inquirer showed experimental results strongly
suggestive that astrology had no predictive power.  Nevertheless, it
said that advice offered by astrologers was frequently as sound as that
offered by clinical psychologists.  It even recommended that if someone
had minor problems, an astrologer might be a better sourse of help than
a psychologist, since they charge less and are no more likely to be
charlatans!

>It would be nice, though, if, in this modern age, scientists with new
>ideas or observations did not have to go through what Galileo et al
>had to go through in the old days.  The last thing we need is a New
>Inquisition.

The Inquisition used force, not mere investigation and criticism.
Are we going to equate any disagreement or any attempt to examine
scientific procedures as an Inquisition or McCarthyism?

One more point:  It seems to me some recent comment smacks of elitism.
James Randi started out as a magician, but he has devoted the past
several years of his life to examining "claims of the paranormal" and
has received a McArthur Foundation grant (a so-called "genius" grant
given to numerous scientists) to support his work.  He has uncovered
outright fraud but also has illuminated instances of mere ineptitude.
He produces solid evidence, not mere innuendo, to back up his
criticisms.  (I have heard plenty of people claim otherwise, which
suggests to me they simply are not familiar with his writing but rely
on hearsay.)  In short, I have no reason to consider Randi less than a
competent investigator in his area of expertise.  But because he has
been a stage magician, some people are prepared to dismiss his work
out-of-hand.  Just who is closed-minded here, I wonder?


>Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
>Institute for Research in Metapsychology
>950 Guinda St.  Palo Alto, CA 94301

I never metapsychology I didn't like.

-- 
D Gary Grady
(919) 286-4296
USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
BITNET:  dgary@ecsvax.bitnet