Re: CO2

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>]

At 0:57 -0700 8/8/01, William Beaty quoted:

>   "It's [belief in the paranormal] a very dangerous phenomenon, dangerous
>   to science, dangerous to the basic fabric of our society... We feel it
>   is the duty of the scientific community to show that these beliefs are
>   utterly screwball."      - Lee Nisbet, CSCICOP Executive Director, 1977

Is the bracketed phrase yours or someone else's? I don't have the
context of the statement handy, but whether I would wholeheartedly
endorse it depends on what is meant by "paranormal." If it includes
everything that doesn't fit into the current paradigm, then it is
obviously silly. But I seriously doubt that is what the term meant to
the author of this statement. My understanding of "paranormal" as
used by the folks at CSICOP is limited to those things, like the
various pranches of ESP, telekinesis, distant viewing, channeling,
speaking with the dead, mindreading, ghosts and spirits, astrology,
homeopathy, UFOs, alien abductions, crop circles, humanoid monsters,
perpetual motion and the like. It is this collection of hokum that I
refered to in my last post on the subject. Things which have been
investigated for decades with absolutely no positive evidence to show
for it. The oddds that we have missed something important in these
arenas are, IMO, vanishingly small. I think that after this time it
is sufficient to say "Enough! When you bring me some substantial,
credible evidence I will look at it. But without that I will reject
your claims out of hand and do what I can to discredit your efforts."
In that sense, and with these caveats, I would say that I entirely
agree with Nisbet's statement as you quoted it.

I do not have the same sense of CSICOP's abandonment of scientific
investigations as you do. They frequently carry articles which detail
investigations of various claims. And they often carry extensive
rebuttals from the owners of the gored oxen. They are not in the same
issue usually, but I have no problem with doing these debates over
several issues. And their Letters column often involves lively
debates. So I don't see it as nearly so one-sided as you do.

I will grant, however, that Martin Gardner has gotten a bit
irrascible in the past few years. I suspect that he is getting tired
of fighting the same battles over and over, a la Sisyphus [sp?], and
after all he is in his 80s. He is entitled to a bit of irrascibility
by now, I would think.

Shermer and his folks are hardly less harsh on the paranormal types
(as outlined above) than CSICOP. But his magazine has taken a
slightly different tack (much credit to him for not just putting out
a clone of SI). He has debates on current issues, where there is
something of substance to debate. That's why I can read and enjoy
both journals--they don't have much overlap. Shermer hasn't dealt
with UFOs and alien abductions to any extent (if memory serves--I
haven't gone back through his index to verify that), but SI deals
with it all the time. OTOH, Skeptic has spent a lot of time on
holocaust deniers, and Shermer has even written a book about them,
and I can't recall SI ever dealing with that topic. I don't think it
is very far within the boundaries of their purview, if at all.

I will admit that there are phenomena that escape proper detection
for long periods of time, and are ridiculed by the establishment
(meteroites and ball lightning are two examples), so we have to keep
the door open for such things, but I find a useful guidline to be
"Always keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

I wish I knew who said that. I've heard it attributed all over the
place, but with no documentation to back it up.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto://haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto://hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
have to..
******************************************************