Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: CO2

On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Hugh Haskell wrote:

In general this was a nice summary of why urban legends become such,
but I have to take some exception to the aspersion you cast at CSICOP
in the above snippet. I have been a member of CSICOP for many years,
and am the proud posessor of a complete set of Skeptical Inquirer

Yes, I have quite a negative opinion of CSICOP. The contempt and
demonization of their opponents that saturates the SI writing tells me
things about the authors, and the opponents are not given equal time. But
that's CSICOP. At the same time, I've become an avid reader of Shermer's
"Skeptic," and highly recommend his books. I think my problem is the
difference between "wet" versus "dry" skepticism as defined in the
SCI.SKEPTIC faq entry below. I'm firmly in the wettest side of the wet
skeptic camp, and see dry skepticism as being a cover for some very
negative behavior. If you wish, cross out my biased label "scoffer" in
the earlier message, and insert "dry skeptic." I use them as names for the
same position. In the following, which of the two positions more
fits the label "scientist?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
SCI.SKEPTIC FAQ:
0.6.1: Why are skeptics so keen to rubbish fringe ideas?
--------------------------------------------------------
Skeptics vary on the attitude they take towards a new fringe idea,
varying from the "wet" to the "dry". The question of which attitude
is better is very much a live issue in the skeptical community. Here
is a brief summary of the two extremes:

DRY: There is no reason to treat these people seriously. Anyone with
half an ounce of sense can see that their ideas are completely
bogus. Time spent trying to "understand their ideas" and
"examine their evidence" beyond that necessary for debunking is
wasted time, and life is short. Furthermore, such behaviour
lends them respectibility. If we take them seriously, so will
other people. We must ridicule their ideas so that others will
see how silly they are. "One belly laugh is worth a thousand
syllogisms" (Martin Gardner).

WET: If we lay into these people without giving them a fair hearing
then we run two risks:
1: We might miss someone who is actually right. History contains
many examples.
2: We give them a weapon against us. Ad-hominem attacks and
sloppy logic bring us down to their level. If we are truly
the rational, scientific people we claim to be then we should
ask for their evidence, and then pronounce our considered
opinion of it.

The two extremes are perhaps personified by Martin Gardner (dry) and
Marcello Truzzi (wet). Note that no particular judgement is attached
to these terms. They are just handy labels.

People who read articles by dry skeptics often get the impression that
skeptics are as pig-headed as any fundamentalist or stage psychic. I
think that this is a valid criticism of some skeptics on the dry end.
However, an article which ridicules fringe beliefs may also contain
sound logic based on careful investigation. As always, you have to
read carefully, distinguish logic from rhetoric, and then make a
judgement.
(end)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(including those issues when it was called The Zetetic), and also the
Skeptics Society, Michael Shermer's organization in Pasadena. As I
read the various publications of these organizations, I see very
little evidence of the "scoffing" that you have accused them of here.

Is Skeptical Inquirer a forum where the debunkers and debunk-ees debate
each other? I haven't looked recently, but it's my impression that the
voice of the debunkees is heard only rarely (as per the "dry skeptic"
philosophy above would have it be.) Is the whole point of Skeptical
Inquirer was NOT to provide an unbiased forum for investigating claims as
scientists, but instead to be a journal for attacking superstition(etc.),
and let their opponents go and start their own publications? Perhaps it
is not obvious to you, but to me CSICOP is very much a dry skeptic's
organization. Has this changed in the last few years?

Here's an article which echoes my dim view of CSICOP:

CSICOP and the skeptics: an overview, by G. Hansen
http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/csicop-and-skeptic.html

Among other things, this article mentions that CSICOP ceased performing
scientific investigation after the Mars/Rawlins/Astrology controversy.

I noticed James Randi in his interview in the latest Skeptic saying things
about Marcello Truzzi; that Truzzi was a fence-sitter who wanted to bring
parapsychologists into the organization. Or, is Truzzi a scientist who
avoids prejudice and refuses to take sides before seriously looking at the
evidence, and instead wants to get to the truth by using research
techniques.

I do agree that debunking is necessary, and an organization is a good
idea. Real bunk certainly exists. The world contains ripoff artists
hiding behind the "fringe researcher" mask and preying on the credulous.
Christians are trying to force their dogma into public schools. All sorts
of people with egoistic agendas are are trying to use science to give
power to their positions. But CSICOP doesn't limit itself to exposing
intentional lies and opposing the predatory criminals, and that's another
reason I like Shermer's group but have problems with CSICOP:

"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

The pro-PSI versus anti-PSI issue is on an entirely different level than
exposing scam artists. Instead it's a battle between opposing belief
systems. The possibility that some psychic phenomena are real... that's a
DANGER to science and to society? No, it's a danger to people whose
beliefs about the world would collapse should psi prove real. Science is
a powerful tool for getting at the truth. Many see science as having
disproved Religion, and as being part of the materialist/objectivist/
atheist philosophy. They assume that what is bad for this philosophy is
also harmful to Science. I see that if psi was real, it would seriously
harm the reputation of opponents of psi, and might even put Materialism
into eclipse. But science as a proven tool for investigating reality
would hardly be damaged, and might be vastly improved.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L