Encounters: The UFO Phenomenon, Exposed!/Encounters - The UFO Phenomenon, Exposed (1995).iso/misc1/misc087.txt

Internet Message Format | 1995-10-20 | 53KB

From: [e-mail] (Bob Dunn)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: CSICOP & Skeptic
Date: 8 Feb 94 04:45:00 GMT


   Here, at last, is the article that's been causing such a rucous on Fido
   UFO, so please feel free to forward this to all _other_ echos which
   deal with paranormal phenomon. This piece was originally published in
   _The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research_ Vol. 86,
   January 1992, and is reprinted here with the permission of the author
   who requests that all comments and criticisms be directed to him at
   the address below (I would welcome them also). A complete list of
   the references originally included in the article is available upon
   request by sending an SASE to me at the Fortean Research Center, PO
   Box 94627, Lincoln, Ne. 68509.

   Many thanks and apologies to Don Allen for scanning this and to Pete
   Theer and Michael Corbin for allowing it to be posted.

   Bob Dunn
   Sysop, The Fortean Research Center BBS
   [phone]
   Fido address: 1:285/205

 -=BEGIN ARTICLE=-


    CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview (1)

                    BY

             George P. Hansen
      Princeton Arms North 1, Apt. 59
             Cranbury, NJ 08512

 Pg. 19

 ABSTRACT: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of
 the Paranormal (CSICOP) has become the most publicly visible
 institution engaged in the debate on the paranormal. Initially CSICOP
 was primarily a scholarly body but soon after its beginning it adopted
 a popular approach that fostered a more broadly based social movement.
 It actively promoted the formation of local societies with similar
 aims. Both CSICOP and the local groups have some distinguishing
 features. Prestigious scholars are affiliated with these or-
 ganizations, a disproportionate number of magicians are involved, the
 groups are dominated by men, and many members hold religious views
 that are antagonistic to the paranormal. Despite the name of the
 organization, actual research is a very low priority of the Committee.
 In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing research itself.
 CSICOP's highest priority has been to influence the media. Its
 rhetoric and activities are designed to appeal to a broad audience
 rather than to scientists who investigate unusual or controversial
 phenomena. Recently, the Committee broadened its focus to include
 areas outside the paranormal.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 In the last 15 years, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation
 of claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) (3) has become a major force in
 the debate on the paranormal. It has generated considerable attention,
 not only in the popular media but also in scientific forums. The
 readership of its magazine, the Skeptical Inquirer (SI), has grown to
 over 35,000 subscribers in 62 countries. CSICOP is now the most
 well-recognized institution commenting on the paranormal; it claims to
 receive scores of inquiries daily. A number of local groups have
 formed. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the dramatic growth. The data
 suggest a social movement of considerable influence.

 There are several reasons CSICOP has flourished. Much of the organi-
 zational success can be attributed to the dynamic leadership of
 philosopher Paul Kurtz, the publicity skills of magician James Randi,
 and the wide influence of writer Martin Gardner. Although none of
 these three are scientists, CSICOP has attracted prestigious
 scientists who serve as figureheads and increase the organization's
 visibility. A high priority has been given to the media, and CSICOP's
 style is geared for a broad audience rather than for practicing
 scientists who study the paranormal. In fact, after the first five
 years, CSICOP abandoned its own scientific research ("Policy on
 Sponsoring," 1982).

 Pg. 20

 Because of its rapid growth and the nature of its subject matter, the
 organization has received considerable attention-some positive (e.g:,
 Cornell, 1984; Hofstadter, 1982; Meyer, 1986; Otten, 1985; Schultz,
 1986; Weisburd, 1991) and some neutral (Wallis, 1985; see also Kurtz,
 1985a). But it is not surprising that the Committee has been involved
 in a number of heated controversies. These produced internal schisms
 and provoked rebukes from outsiders. A few examples will give a flavor
 of some of the disputes. In examining the scientific status of CSICOP,
 sociologists Pinch and Collins (1984) described the Committee as a
 "scientific-vigilante" organization (p. 539). Commenting on an article
 in "SI", medical professor Louis Lasagna (1984) wrote: "One can almost
 smell the fiery autos-da-fe' of Torquemada and the Spanish
 Inquisition" (p. 12). Engineering professor Leonard Lewin (1979) noted
 that in SI articles "the rhetoric and appeal to emotion seemed rather
 out of place" (p. 9); Rockwell, Rockwell, and Rockwell (1978b) called
 CSICOP members "irrational rationalists" (see also Kurtz, 1978b;
 Rockwell, Rockwell, & Rockwell, 1978a). Sociologist Hans Sebald (1984)
 described contributors to "SI" as "combative propagandists" (p. 122).
 Adams (1987) compared CSICOP with the Cyclops; Robert Anton Wilson
 (1986) labeled CSICOP the "New Inquisition" and White (1979) called
 them "new disciples of scientism." McConnell (1987) wrote: "I cannot
 escape the conviction that those who control CSICOP are primarily bent
 upon the vilification of parapsychology and parapsychologists" (p.
 191). Clearly, CSICOP has its share of detractors.

 Pg. 21

 After an historical overview, I discuss factors that characterize
 CSICOP and its local affiliates, and I examine their rhetorical
 strategies and review the major activities of the various groups.
 Coverage is limited to the rise of skepticism in the U.S., although
 CSICOP has established official sections of the Committee in foreign
 countries.

 Pg. 22

                       HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

 CSICOP can be regarded as the first case of ongoing, organized de-
 bunking of the paranormal, (4) but there are some precursors. Prior to
 the organization of CSICOP, attacks on the paranormal have come
 largely from three groups: magicians, academic psychologists, and
 rationalists/atheists. (5) Magicians have been involved with
 controversies on the paranormal for over 400 years, and they have
 written numerous books on the topic (for an overview, see Hansen, in
 press). Academic psychologists critiqued early psychical research and
 parapsychology (for discussions, see Coon, in press; Mauskopf &
 McVaugh, 1980; Murchison, 1927; Pratt, Rhine, Smith, Stuart, &
 Greenwood, 1940; Prince, 1930). Rationalists and atheists have long
 been antagonistic to claims of miracles (see Keller & , 1968/1969).
 They actively combatted spiritualistic phenomena and psychical
 research, but little has been written about their involvement with
 these controversies. Even the section on the paranormal in "The
 Encyclopedia of Unbelief" (Hyman, 1985) ignores this connection.

 One of the most prolific detractors of early psychic research was
 Joseph McCabe, a Catholic priest who became an atheist (Stein, 1985).
 McCabe authored a number of attacks (e.g., Chesterton et al., 1914;
 McCabe, 1914, 1920a, 1920b; "Verbatim Report," 1920). Rationalists
 Clodd (1917), Mann (1919), and Whyte (1920) wrote similar books. Many
 of these were produced for the Rationalist Press Association (RPA)
 under the imprint of Watts & Co. Mercier's (1917) "Spiritualism and
 Sir Oliver Lodge" was also published under that imprint. The
 rationalists' attacks diminished somewhat after the second decade of
 this century, but their influence continued. In the 1930s, Corliss
 Lamont (6) (1932, 1935) and rationalist J. B. S. Haldane wrote on
 miracles and psychic phenomena (Lunn & Haldane, 1935). (7) These two
 individuals took a more moderate position than the earlier writers and
 seemed to accept the reality of some psi events. The 1950s again
 produced sharper attacks. Joseph Rinn (1950), president of the
 Brooklyn Philosophical Association (a "free thought" group), wrote his
 scathing "Sixty Years of Psychical Research", which was published by
 the Truth Seeker Company, a major "free thought" publisher. In 1953,
 Wans & Co. produced Antony Flew's "A New Approach to Psychical
 Research." Two decades later, in 1975, the annual convention of the
 RPA was devoted to parapsychology ("Contents," 1975; "Science and the
 Paranormal," 1975), and their program listed C. E. M. Hansel, Antony
 Flew, Eric Dingwall, and Christopher Evans-all of whom soon became
 members of CSICOP. Today the tradition continues, and the American
 Rationalist frequently carries commentary critical of the paranormal.
 (8)

 Pg. 24

 In the early 1970s, there was a tremendous upsurge of interest in the
 occult in the U.S. (see Dutch, 1986; Melton, Clark, & Kelly, 1990).
 This occult explosion was not viewed favorably by many, and some
 academics perceived it to signal a rise of irrationality. One group
 that shared an interest in the matter was Resources for the Scientific
 Evaluation of the Paranormal (RSEP). The members included Martin
 Gardner, Ray Hyman, James Randi, and Marcello Truzzi, all of whom were
 magicians ("New Association," 1975). At that time, Truzzi, also a
 sociologist, was publishing a privately circulated newsletter called
 the "Zetetic". RSEP was barely organized and achieved little public
 notice but can be considered the immediate predecessor to CSICOP.

 Shortly after the formation of RSEP, Paul Kurtz independently of that
 group, orchestrated a campaign against astrology. (9) Signatures from
 186 scientists were collected for a manifesto titled "Objections to
 Astrology" (1975). It was published in the "Humanist", an obscure
 religious and philosophical magazine of the American Humanist
 Association (AHA) edited by Kurtz. According to an article by Kurtz
 (1977b), this manifesto "was sent to every newspaper in the United
 States and Canada" (p. 42). It was widely noticed and was discussed on
 the front page of the New York Times (Rensberger, 1975). The AHA held
 its 1976 annual convention on April 30 to May 2 with the theme "The
 Old and New Irrationalisms: Attacks on Science," and during that
 meeting CSICOP was formed ("American Humanist Association," 1976;
 Kurtz, 1976a, 1978a). It was initially sponsored by the "Humanist."
 RSEP disbanded, and Truzzi, Gardner, Randi, and Hyman joined CSICOP,
 with Truzzi becoming cochair and editor of the "Zetetic", it then
 being made the official organ of the Committee. Truzzi was probably
 the most moderate of the original members of CSICOP, and under his
 editorship (two issues) the magazine contained diverse viewpoints. He
 desired a scholarly publication devoted to debate and dialogue,
 whereas others wanted a more aggressive, popular approach. The two
 sides readily admitted their differences (Wade, 1977b), and while
 Truzzi was editing the "Zetetic". Kurtz was still running the
 "Humanist" and publishing vitriolic attacks on the paranormal by
 CSICOP members. In August 1977 Truzzi resigned as editor, and shortly
 thereafter he left the Committee and started a new publication called
 "Zetetic Scholar"; it was published irregularly for 11 issues, the
 last one appearing in 1987 (see Clark & Melton, 1979a, 1979b;
 Rensberger, 1978; Wade, 1977b). Kendrick Frazier was appointed editor
 of CSICOP's magazine; the name was changed to the "Skeptical
 Inquirer"; and it took on a more aggressive, debunking tone. Cartoons
 and illustrations were later added, some of which poked fun at persons
 discussed in the articles. Lee Nisbet, CSICOP's Executive Director,
 articulated the Committee's position for Nicholas Wade (1977a) of
 Science, saying: "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" (p. 646) .

 One controversy, the Mars Effect debate, was perhaps especially
 instrumental in consolidating CSICOP's approach to the paranormal and
 the Committee Kurtz and several others were engaged in a scientific
 study of astrology. (10) Dennis Rawlins, an astronomer and member of
 the Executive Council of CSICOP, conducted the detailed calculations
 and data analysis for the project. He began noticing severe problems:
 The results were supporting the case for an astrological influence of
 Mars on sports ability, much to the consternation of the
 investigators. Rawlins tried to bring this to the attention of other
 Committee members. This lead to a bitter dispute, with Rawlins
 charging that serious mistakes had been made and that Kurtz had
 undertaken a Watergate-style cover-up. Rawlins (1981) was forced out
 of CSICOP, and he published an expose' in "Fate". There was no real
 answer to the charge of a cover-up, and much was published about it in
 "Zetetic Scholar." The upshot was that several of the more moderate
 people resigned from the Committee. Rawlins's article appeared in the
 October 1981 issue of "Fate", and that same month CSICOP instituted a
 policy of not conducting research itself ("Policy on Sponsoring,"
 1982).

 After the moderate members left, little dissent or criticism of the
 Committee has been seen in the pages of "SI". The magazine nearly
 always presents only one side of a controversy in its articles.
 Although "SI" sometimes publishes letters of complaint, full papers
 from CSICOP's critics almost never appear. This is in remarkable
 contrast to refereed parapsychology journals and even some of the
 pro-paranormal magazines. For instance, the popularly written magazine
 "Fate" has carried full articles by CSICOP members Susan Blackmore, L.
 Sprague de Camp, Kendrick Frazier, Martin Gardner, Philip Klass, Larry
 Kusche, Lawrence Jerome, David Marks, Joe Nickell, James Oberg, Dennis
 Rawlins, Robert Sheaffer, Gordon Stein, and Marcello Truzzi. In
 keeping with CSICOP's one-sided approach, "SI" has given scant
 attention to papers in well-known, orthodox scientific journals that
 present evidence for psi (e.g., Child, 1985; Jahn, 1982; Radin &
 Nelson, 1989; Rao & Palmer, 1987; Winkelman, 1982).

 Pg. 25

 Another major development in the skeptics' movement occurred in the
 early 1980s with the formation of local groups. The first was founded
 in Austin, Texas in the fall of 1981 by several persons affiliated
 with the University of Texas (McFadden, 1981). The first approved
 local chapter was the Bay Area Skeptics, which was organized in June
 1982 (Frazier, 1982). Groups in other parts of the country soon
 followed, and in the last nine years the growth has been dramatic (see
 Figure 2). Some of these organizations have hundreds of members.

          CHARACTERISTICS OF CSICOP'S MEMBERSHIP

 There are four major features that characterize CSICOP, affect its
 choice of goals, and determine its spheres of influence. Perhaps the
 single most important factor is the high educational level of the
 membership; many hold prominent positions within academia. Another
 aspect is that a dis-proportionate number of members are magicians,
 and many of them were involved with parapsychological controversies
 long before the establishment of the Committee. A third distinguishing
 feature is that the vast majority in CSICOP are male, and this has
 affected the tone and demeanor of the group. A final characteristic is
 the influence of religious convictions; a substantial portion of the
 members share similar views and are active in promoting them.

 Education

 The most salient feature of the Committee is the academic status of
 many of its members. Their scholarly prestige gives the organization
 its visibility, power, and legitimacy in the eyes of important
 segments of society. CSICOP has actively recruited people such as
 Murray Gell-Mann (Nobel laureate in physics), F.H.C. Crick (Nobel
 prize for physiology and medicine), Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, and
 the late B.F. Skinner. A large percentage of the membership is
 involved in scholarly pursuits. The inside front cover of the Summer
 1990 issue of "SI" shows that 28 of the 56 Fellows list college or
 university affiliations; the remainder are mostly writers and
 scientists. Of the 56 Scientific and Technical Consultants, 32 give
 college or university affiliations.

 Pg. 26

 Leaders of the local groups frequently come from the academic com-
 munity. The lists of affiliates in back issues of "SI" show that a
 number of the chairpersons have been based in university departments
 (often in psychology). These groups have sought support (and thus
 prestige) from academics. According to their letterhead, the Southern
 California Skeptics (SCS) had 13 of 18 board members and technical
 advisors who held Ph.D. degrees. In fact, the SCS was granted
 affiliation with the Pacific Division of the American Association for
 the Advancement of Science ("Corrections to Last Laser" 1986; SCS
 Becomes Affiliated," 1986). Four of five members of the core committee
 of the Sacramento Skeptics Society held doctoral degrees (Sandbeck,
 1987). The May 1985 issue of the "Northwest Skeptic" listed 27
 consultants for that group, 18 of whom gave academic affiliations.
 Thirteen of 19 advisors of the Bay Area Skeptics held doctoral degrees
 ("Advisors," 1986), as did 5 of 6 Advisors and Supporters of Hawaii
 Skeptics, according to their press release of June 11, 1985.

 The highly educated provide a large source of CSICOP's constituency.
 In the last 30 years, higher education has been a major growth
 industry; the number of Ph.D.'s awarded in 1975 was more than three
 times that of 1960 ("A Century of Doctorates," 1978). In the process
 of pursuing advanced degrees, graduate students become familiar with
 the world views of those prominent in academia. When such prestigious
 people lend their names to an antiparanormal crusade, a student might
 automatically presume that those persons are scientific authorities on
 the topic. The result is a sizeable number who look to the Committee
 for expert opinion on the paranormal. In fact, CSICOP conducted a
 survey of its readership and found that 83% have some type of college
 degree, 54% have some type of advanced degree, and 27% hold a doctoral
 degree (personal communication from Barry Karr, August 19, 1991).
 These are impressive figures, and the relatively recent rapid growth
 of academe may help explain why organized debunking has been able to
 flourish now rather than in earlier times.

 The prominence of the membership gives the Committee a number of
 benefits. It allows CSICOP's voice to be heard in academic debates on
 the paranormal. The National Research Council report on parapsychology
 is an example (for a discussion, see Palmer, Honorton, & Utts, 1989).
 Non-member academics are likely to consider CSICOP's views when
 refereeing papers, evaluating grant proposals, and counseling
 students. It seems virtually certain that CSICOP will have a long-term
 impact on all in the academic world who become involved with
 parapsychology. CSICOP's views are likely to be influential when it
 comes to deciding how, and to what extent, the paranormal will be
 scientifically investigated within academia.

 Magicians

 The proportion of magicians in CSICOP is much higher than in the
 general population, and the magic fraternity has provided another
 constituency for the Committee. Kendrick Frazier (1984) noted that the
 first international CSICOP conference was attended by scores of
 amateur and professional magicians. The publishing house Prometheus
 Books, which produces skeptical works, is one of the few nonmagic
 vendors to advertise in conjuring magazines.

 Pg. 27

 As can be seen in Table 1, 13 official members of CSICOP are or have
 been magicians. A number of these people have achieved some eminence
 within the conjuring fraternity. Martin Gardner began contributing to
 magic magazines more than 50 years ago (Matrix, 1979) and is an
 authority on impromptu close-up magic (Waters, 1988). Randi has been
 professionally involved with magic since he was 18 and seems to be the
 person most publicly identified with CSICOP. Ray Hyman was featured on
 the cover of the October 1986 issue of "Linking Ring", the largest
 circulation magic magazine in the world. All three of these serve on
 the Executive Council of the Committee. Some of those who are no
 longer members of CSICOP are also well known within magic societies.
 Truzzi served as vice-president of Psychic Entertainers Association.
 Persi Diaconis is considered one of the top six card manipulators
 today (Waters, 1988). The late Milbourne Christopher was one of the
 most eminent historians of magic, and the late Eric Dingwall was the
 oldest living member of the Magic Circle. All of the above mentioned
 conjurors were involved with psychic topics long before the beginning
 of CSICOP, and the established social contacts within magic circles
 were very important in the formation of the Committee.

 Social networks within conjuring also facilitated the founding of the
 local groups, and these organizations too have a substantial number of
 magicians. Robert Steiner, former chair of the Bay Area Skeptics
 (BAS), has been president of the Society of American Magicians (SAM)
 as well as chair of the SAM occult investigations committee. Robertson
 (1984) noted that magic tricks were displayed by a number of people at
 the founding party of BAS. David Alexander was a board member of
 Southern California Skeptics (SCS) as well as a professional magician;
 he is now editor of the "Humanist". Richard Busch, chair of the
 Paranormal Investigating Committee of Pittsburgh, is a magician, as is
 Jamy lan Swiss, a cofounder of the National Capital Area Skeptics. All
 five members of the core committee of Sacramento Skeptics Society have
 performed magic (Sandbeck, 1987; "Magic, Mysteries, and Mirth," 1987).

 Pg. 28

 The high visibility of conjurors in CSICOP has given many people the
 idea that most magicians hold skeptical views regarding psychic
 phenomena. Surprisingly, this impression is not correct. Birdsell
 (1989) polled a group of magicians in California and found that 82%
 had a belief in ESP, and Truzzi (1983) cited a German poll of
 conjurors that revealed that 72.3% believed psi was probably real.
 Many prominent magicians have, in fact, endorsed psychic phenomena
 (Hansen, 1990a, 1990b).

 The Predominance of Men and Its Effects

 CSICOP is heavily dominated by men, and until 1991 there were no women
 at all on the Executive Council. A reporter for New Scientist
 described CSICOP as "white," "male," and "slightly geriatric" (Ander-
 son, 1987, p. 51). The inside covers of recent issues of "SI" display
 the gender imbalance; the results are summarized in Table 2. The
 predominance of men characterizes the local affiliates as well. Of the
 40 listed local leaders, only two are women.

 Certainly academia is predominantly male, and so it is not surprising
 that a majority of CSICOP's members are men. However, the percentage
 does seem disproportionate.

 Not all the local groups are totally dominated by men, and a CSICOP
 manual prepared for local groups encouraged the involvement of women.
 The East Bay Skeptics in California reported that 27% of its members
 were women ("Members Elect First Board," 1988), and in a 1990 election
 of the National Capital Area Skeptics, 3 of 11 listed candidates were
 women. Despite these efforts, the debunking movement is overwhelmingly
 run by men.

 The perceived demeanor. Some have perceived the gender imbalance as
 influencing the demeanor of CSICOP, the "Skeptical Inquirer", and the
 local affiliates. A few have even suggested that some debunkers
 project an insecure and macho attitude. Commenting on the 1985 CSICOP
 convention in California, Auerbach (1985) wrote:

 Pg. 29

  I felt an air of insecurity in the audience, and some of the
  presenters. It was very strange to be in an audience that laughed at
  the mere mention of the names of a few of the better-known
  parapsychologists, listening to presenters who seemed to enjoy that
  reaction, and even encourage it. (p. 10)

 Michael Swords (1986) painted a similar picture of the 1986
 conference.

 Such perceptions are not limited to outsiders. This has been an issue
 within CSICOP as well. In the March 1985 newsletter of the Bay Area
 Skeptics, Mary Coulman (1985) wrote a piece titled "Where Are the
 Women?" She reported that sometimes she was the only woman who
 attended meetings of the Bay Area Skeptics and that often there were
 only 2 or 3 women present with 60 to 70 men. Coulman wrote another
 column in the June issue asking the same question, noting that no
 women had yet replied. Finally, months later, Elissa Pratt-Lowe (1985)
 responded:

  I think another aspect of organized skepticism that may deter women
  is the aggressive, "macho" attitudes held by some of the (male)
  participants. It seems to me that some "skeptics" are more interested
  in ridicule than in exploring and challenging pseudoscientific
  beliefs. [This was followed by "Very true. I think. -- MC"]. (p. 7)

 The Bay Area Skeptics are not the only ones to confront the problem.
 In response to an article by physicist George Lawrence in Rocky
 Mountain Skeptic John Wilder (1988) wrote: "For all of the author's
 [Lawrence's] scientific, academic and intellectual credentials, he
 displays a level of disrespect for others that, in my opinion, is
 completely inappropriate...The author succeeded only in subjecting a
 group of sincere...people to outright ridicule" (p. 8).

 One of the most extreme cases was that of Drew Endacott. He undertook
 to form a local affiliate in the Philadelphia area and sent out
 letters saying, "I am forming such an organization with CSICOP's
 backing, and I want people who are willing to get dirty...What we will
 do is employ a very thorough, proven technique for getting the point
 across to people who have no demonstrated facility to reason" (copy of
 letter in possession of author). Once Kurtz was alerted to this, he
 disavowed affiliation with Endacott and forbade him to use CSICOP's
 name. Endacott was not a lone crackpot however but a charter member of
 the Austin Society to Oppose Pseudo-science (ASTOP), and before trying
 to start his own chapter in Philadelphia, he consulted with ASTOP as
 well as with Richard Busch, chair of the Paranormal Investigating
 Committee of Pittsburgh ("Elsewhere In Philly," 1985). Certainly the
 vast majority of members of local affiliates are not this radical.
 However, these groups do attract persons with extreme views, and a
 number are active within the local societies.

 Pg. 30

 A few individuals in the national organization have expressed concern
 about the image projected by the local affiliates. Ray Hyman has been
 quoted as speaking of a "frightening" "fundamentalism" and "witch-
 hunting" when discussing the rise of the popular debunking movement
 (Clark, 1987). Hyman has also been quoted as saying: "As a whole,
 parapsychologists are nice, honest people, while the critics are
 cynical, nasty people" (McBeath & Thalbourne 1985, p. 3). Hyman (1987)
 wrote an article advising the local groups how to be effective
 critics; this was published in "Skeptical Briefs" and reprinted in a
 number of newsletters. He suggested using "the principle of charity,"
 saying "_I know that many of my fellow critics will find this
 principle to be unpalatable_" (p. 5, italics added).

 The problems caused by cynicism and hostility have been recognized by
 the organization, and steps are being taken to diminish them. The
 severity of the problem cannot be attributed entirely to male
 dominance; after all, a number of other predominantly male
 organizations do not have such a reputation. It is likely that there
 are a number of other factors that contribute to the perceived
 demeanor.

 Pg. 30

 Religious and Philosophical Factors

 Several organized and informal religious channels (primarily
 atheistic) (11) link many CSICOP Fellows, consultants, and members of
 local groups. Although CSICOP members cannot be said to hold a unified
 religious view, considerable religious influence is visible. This is
 apparent in the writings of leading spokespersons such as James
 Alcock, Martin Gardner, and Paul Kurtz-all members of the Executive
 Council. See Table 3 for a list of members who have publicly
 identified themselves as holding atheistic or at least nontheistic
 views.

 Paul Kurtz, Chairman of CSICOP and a philosopher at the State Uni-
 versity of New York at Buffalo, (12) is active in promulgating
 atheism. He is president of Promethesus Books (Berkley, 1987), which
 publishes such titles as "The Atheist Debater's Handbook and Atheism:
 The Case Against God." Kurtz was formerly editor of the Humanist, is
 now editor of the magazine "Free Inquiry" (FI), and has been
 positioning himself as a leading spokesperson for secular humanism
 (Barlett, 1987). Kurtz's views on the paranormal are firmly linked to
 his views on religion. (13) The title of his book, "The Transcendental
 Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal" (Kurtz, 1986),
 speaks for itself (for a review, see Stokes, 1987).

 Pg. 31

 James Alcock has made several attempts to associate parapsychology
 with religion in order to discredit it as a science. One of his
 concerted attempts was published in "Free Inquiry" and was entitled
 "Parapsychology: The `Spiritual' Science" (Alcock, 1985). Alcock's
 feelings toward religion were candidly revealed in his 1981 book,
 "Parapsychology: Science or Magic?", where he asserted:

  In the name of religion human beings have committed genocide, toppled
  thrones, built gargantuan shrines, practiced ritual murder, forced
  others to conform to their way of life, eschewed the pleasures of the
  flesh, flagellated themselves, or given away all their possessions
  and become martyrs. (p. 7)

 Pg. 32

 Positive attributes of religion were not acknowledged, and these
 feelings may help explain Alcock's frequent criticisms of psi
 research. For on the same page he wrote: "An examination of the
 origins and functions of religion ...is a useful starting-point for
 the study of modern parapsychology ."

 A former member of the Executive Council wrote on religion in "SI" as
 follows:

  One is continually encountering priests who express dismay and
  perplexity at their flock's attraction for the other, competing
  superstitions...Give a fellow the tools for destroying his common
  sense, and occasionally he'll finish the job.... Religion is the
  optimist's paranoia. (Rawlins, 1977, p. 65)

 Martin Gardner also acknowledged the influence of his religious
 beliefs, and he revealed that he once was a Protestant fundamentalist
 (Barcellos, 1979; Morris, 1982). Apparently his opposition to
 parapsychology is based in part on religious factors, for he has
 written:

  It is possible that paranormal forces not yet established may allow
  prayers to influence the material world, and I certainly am not
  saying this possibility should be ruled out....As for empirical tests
  of the power of God to answer prayer, I am among those theists who,
  in the spirit of Jesus' remark that only the faithless look for
  signs, consider such tests both futile and blasphemous....let us not
  tempt God. (Gardner, 1983b, p. 239)

 Such attitudes help explain why Gardner has derided the religious
 views of professional researchers in parapsychology in order to
 besmirch their reputations as scientists (e.g., Gardner, 1981, pp.
 320-321). Recently, Gardner (1991) argued that electronics writer
 Forrest Mims was rightfully denied a position as a columnist for
 "Scientific American" because Mims was an evangelical Christian
 creationist, even though "Scientific American" admitted that Mims was
 otherwise well qualified and that his writings would have had nothing
 to do with evolution (see "Science's Litmus Test," 1991). (14) Gardner
 asserted that Mims' personal beliefs would have embarrassed the
 magazine, and that alone was sufficient reason to reject Mims. One can
 only conclude that issues of religious belief are important in the
 life of Martin Gardner.

 Organizational links. Kurtz's magazine "Free Inquiry" provides connec-
 tions between humanists and skeptics' groups. But Kurtz is not the
 only one in CSICOP who is involved with "Free Inquiry"; there is
 actually considerable overlap. Four of the five associate editors of
 "Free Inquiry" are listed in "Skeptical Inquirer" as having some
 affiliation with CSICOP. The editor, senior editors, and at least four
 contributing editors of "Free Inquiry" are associated with the
 Committee. (This overlap can be seen by comparing the Summer 1989
 issues of "FI" and "SI".) The magazines have shared office space since
 1980. In October of 1990 this became more well known because CSICOP
 sent out a flyer announcing a new building (5,700 square feet) to
 house CSICOP, "SI", "FI", and the Council for Democratic and Secular
 Humanism (CODESH) (Kurtz is also Chair of CODESH). According to the
 Spring 1991 issue of SI, $333,000 of the needed $420,000 had been
 raised. Also announced was a campaign to raise another $1,500,000 for
 a 24,000-square-foot building.

 Pg. 33

 A subscription to "Free Inquiry" also brings the "Secular Humanist
 Bulletin", a newsletter published by the Council for Democratic and
 Secular Humanism. Issues have been devoted largely to short articles
 and notes on Christian Fundamentalism and Roman Catholicism. It is
 probably no accident that both Fundamentalists and Catholics have a
 belief in miracles (which can be interpreted as paranormal phenomena),
 and reports of miracles come in for derisive comment. "Free Inquiry"
 is active in promoting secular humanist centers, and these have been
 described specifically as resembling local affiliates of CSICOP
 (Flynn, 1986/1987). The Summer 1989 issue of "FI" listed 19 such
 groups in the U.S. Tim Madigan, cofounder of Catholics Anonymous and
 Executive Editor of "FI", has organized a secular humanist group as
 well as a skeptics' group.

 The Rationalist Press Association in England has waged a long battle
 against religious beliefs. Its Honorary Associates have included
 CSICOP members Francis Crick, Eric Dingwall, Paul Edwards, Antony
 Flew, Paul Kurtz, Ernest Nagel, and B.F. Skinner. Flew and Kurtz have
 served as vice-presidents of the RPA. The RPA shares some of the
 characteristics of CSICOP. A survey of the readership of its magazine
 New Humanist found that 36% are over age 70, and 80% are over 50. Only
 11% are women ("New Humanist Readership," 1990).

 Another linkage of CSICOP members is the Academy of Humanism. This was
 formed in 1983 with maximum enrollment limited to 60, and all members
 can be considered eminent. The members are described as "nontheistic"
 (Academy of Humanism," 1983). Kurtz was largely responsible for the
 founding of the Academy, and he serves in its secretariat. The
 announcement of the Academy's formation decries paranormal beliefs.
 Indeed, of the 57 names listed as members of the Academy (inside back
 cover of the Spring 1989 issue of "FI"), 18 are or have been
 affiliated with CSICOP.

 In 1985, the Academy announced the formation of the Committee for
 Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER). This committee purports to
 be "the first effective body of scientific scholars to evaluate these
 claims in the light of scientific inquiry" ("Scientists Form New
 Committee," 1985). The style and format of articles produced by
 members of this committee, and articles in "FI" generally, are similar
 to those in "American Atheist", the publication of Madalyn O'Hair
 (e.g., "Yahweh: A Mortally Retarded God" [Harwood, 1986]; "Is
 Religiosity Pathological?" [Ellis, 1988]). The articles are in
 striking contrast to the scholarly papers in the "Journal for the
 Scientific Study of Religion" and the "Review of Religious Research";
 both have been in existence for more than 30 years. Some of the
 classified advertisements give a flavor of "FI" (e.g., "Devastating
 Bible Critique," "Jesus Never Existed," "Jehovah's Witnesses
 Hilariously Exposed"). Personal ads have been accepted, as well as
 those for an apparently untested AIDS remedy and for cryogenic
 immortality (see "FI", Winter 1986/87, p. 63). Seven of 20 CSER
 members are affiliated with CSICOP, and Randi is the principal
 investigator of one of the subcommittees (see back cover of Winter
 1986/87 issue of "FI").

 Pg. 34

 Local groups. As in the parent organization, members of local
 affiliates have mixed views on religion. However, it is clear that
 religious assumptions and previously held but now-rejected beliefs are
 strong influences. As with CSICOP, religious networks link members of
 the local groups.

 The local organizations not infrequently promote secular humanism and
 mention it in their literature. The Sacramento Skeptics even
 rescheduled their meetings to avoid a conflict with the Sacramento
 Humanists ("Special Note," 1988). The newsletter of the National
 Capital Area Skeptics reported on the Tenth Humanist World Congress in
 Buffalo in 1988. That congress held a special lunch for "SI"
 subscribers, and a tour was offered of CSICOP's headquarters (Inglis,
 1988a).

 Both Al Seckel, executive director of the Southern California
 Skeptics, and Robert Steiner, former chair of the Bay Area Skeptics,
 have been involved with a subcommittee of CSER. Steiner describes
 himself as a "militant atheist" (Robertson, 1984) and even published
 an article denouncing Santa Claus in "American Atheist" (Steiner,
 1982). Seckel has contributed to publications of Atheists United and
 to the "American Atheist." Rick Rickards (1986) of the Cleveland
 skeptics' group described religion as being "only a variation on the
 same theme [as pseudoscience]" (p. [3]).

 A number of members apparently once held strong religious or para-
 normal beliefs but later became disillusioned. Bela Scheiber (1986),
 president of an affiliate in Colorado, described his views on flying
 saucers: "In fact you could say I was a believer" and went on to refer
 to his "youthful longing for something to believe in" (p. 2). Robert
 Sheaffer, a former chairperson of the Bay Area Skeptics, admitted to
 previously believing in flying saucers (Robertson, 1984). John Hill
 (1986), editor of "Rocky Mountain Skeptic", wrote of his attendance at
 a scientific creationism seminar: "It was fun in a way, but too much
 like being thrust back into my adolescence" (p. 4). Richard Brenneman,
 former editor of the newsletter of the Sacramento group, admitted to
 having been an astrologer (Sandbeck, 1987).

 Pg. 35

 Psychological and social consequences. Skeptics sometimes speak de-
 risively of an emotional "need to believe." If this need is a typical
 part of the human condition, skeptics are unlikely to escape its
 influence, even if they deny it. In fact, in a work published by
 Prometheus Books, skeptic John Schumaker (1990) explores the
 detrimental psychological consequences of being skeptical of religion
 and the paranormal. He frankly acknowledges that skeptics can have
 difficulty adjusting to society and are susceptible to certain mental
 disorders.

 There are striking parallels in the advertisements for membership for
 both skeptics' groups and atheistic-secular humanist organizations.
 Both appeal to the feeling of isolation in an "irrational" culture.
 The first issue of the National Capital Area Skeptics' newsletter
 asked: "Do you sometimes feel that, as a skeptic, you are all but
 isolated in a sea of credulity? ...we are eager to have you join us"
 (p. 3).

 The feelings of loneliness and isolation are quite real, and there
 seem to be reasons for them. Individuals in both groups sometimes
 display disdain for others. This is exemplified in the widely
 publicized comment made at a humanist convention by Ted Turner, who
 called Christianity "a religion for losers" ("Turner Sorry," 1990). I
 have encountered these attitudes among atheists and secular humanists.
 Some describe religious believers as "weak" or "unwilling to face
 reality ." Similar opinions are expressed by debunkers. Given such
 beliefs, it is no surprise that some skeptics feel alone and isolated.
 Certainly not all of them hold such attitudes, and some have even
 expressed dismay at the behavior of fellow debunkers.

 Although religious issues seem to be quite salient in the lives of
 many skeptics, not all are so involved. Yet as shown in Table 3, 29
 official members of CSICOP have _publicly_ identified themselves as
 holding nontheistic or atheistic beliefs. This is a remarkable number,
 and it has clearly influenced the organization. Much of the energy
 driving the controversy over the paranormal may derive from deeply
 held religious beliefs, and any attempt to understand the
 psychological factors underlying the psi controversy should consider
 religious issues.


               FORMAL ORGANIZATION OF THE MOVEMENT

 The structure of CSICOP influences its goals and activities. Here I
 briefly outline the formal organization of the Committee and its
 changing relationship with the local groups. It is crucial to
 understand the backgrounds of a few key personalities because they
 largely determine priorities. As will be described, the power in
 CSICOP is concentrated in a very small number of individuals, the vast
 majority have no vote, and few policy makers are scientists.

 Official Structure of CSICOP

 The "By Laws of CSICOP, Inc." (undated) state that "the Executive
 Council of the Committee shall have voting power with respect to
 formulating the policies of the Committee" (p. 2). (15) The even
 smaller Board of Directors (16) is vested with the financial and
 administrative power, with the Chair (Kurtz) given primary authority.
 The "Fellows" of the Committee and the "Scientific and Technical
 Consultants" (who are the only other official members of CSICOP) are
 without vote. Thus, all of the most eminent members play virtually no
 role in decisions; their names simply lend status to the organization.
 The precise number of members of the Committee is unclear because the
 membership rosters in "SI" are preceded with the words "partial list,"
 but Paul Kurtz told me that there were few if any additional members
 (personal communication from Paul Kurtz, August 14, 1991). (17)

 Pg. 36

 Although many Fellows and Consultants are scientists, few of the
 policy makers are. In fact, only one member of the Board of Directors
 is a scientist (Alcock); the others are philosophers and editors.
 Thus, nonscientific leadership controls CSICOP, and as I explain, this
 is reflected in the activities of the organization.

 CSICOP employs approximately six full-time and six part-time people
 (personal communication from Barry Karr, August 14, 1991). These per-
 sonnel produce and edit the newsletter and magazine, respond to
 inquiries, raise funds, and organize conferences. Some of the
 employees are also associated with the Council for Democratic and
 Secular Humanism.

 Key Personalities

 The dynamism and vitality of the group can be attributed to a small
 number of key individuals committed to similar goals. The three most
 influential have been Paul Kurtz, James Randi, and Martin Gardner. Al-
 though I have mentioned them before, some additional background infor-
 mation may help explain their roles.

 Paul Kurtz. Paul Kurtz is chairman and cofounder of the Committee and
 widely regarded as its driving force (Gordon, 1987, p. 213). It was he
 who arranged financial support to begin the organization. Although
 Kurtz taught philosophy, he might be described more accurately as a
 "business-person-missionary ." Kurtz is president of Prometheus Books,
 which he founded in 1970 (Berkley, 1978). This publishing house is the
 primary purveyor of antiparanormal books in this country, and its
 financial success has been aided by the growth of the debunking
 movement. The press has a reported average annual growth of 25%
 (Berkley, 1987). Kurtz is also a copresident of the International
 Humanist and Ethical Union (a coalition of humanist and atheist
 organizations). Although Kurtz has shown exceptional dynamism and
 success as a businessperson and as a missionary for secular humanism,
 his position as a philosopher seems a bit less impressive. His
 "Exuberance: An Affirmative Philosophy of Life" (1977/1985b) is
 something of a "positive thinking" book for humanists, and a recent
 review compared the level of his writing with that of Shirley MacLaine
 (Stillings, 1989).

 Pg. 37

 James Randi. Randi has been professionally involved with magic since
 he was 18, and he has received moderate acclaim within that
 fraternity. He was featured on the cover of "Hocus Pocus" (April/June,
 1980) and "Tannen's Magic Manuscript" (January/February, 1986). Randi
 has long been involved with the paranormal; in fact, his entry in
 Current Biography (Moritz, 1988) tells how he publicly confronted
 phoney spiritualists when he was a teenager. He has since enjoyed a
 colorful career; at one time, Randi published a phoney astrology
 column (Moritz, 1988); had a radio show of his own (Moseley  1965a);
 was an escape artist (Nicolson, 1974); toured with rock star Alice
 Cooper, playing the role of executioner on stage (Greene, 1986); and
 took part in "archaeological exploits" in South America with UFO buff
 James Moseley (1965b) who has admitted to grave-robbing (Pattison,
 1991). Randi is now the individual probably most widely identified
 with the skeptics' movement. His magic experience helped generate
 considerable publicity; he has appeared on Johnny Carson's "Tonight"
 show at least 32 times (Jaroff, 1988). Randi's association with CSICOP
 resulted in his receiving several major honors. The MacArthur
 Foundation gave him a "genius" award, which carried a tax-free grant
 of $272,000 (Holden, 1986). In 1989 the American Physical Society
 presented him with its Forum Award for "Promoting Public Understanding
 of the Relation of Physics to Society" ("We Hear That," 1989).

 Like many others in CSICOP, Randi has described himself as an atheist.
 He associates with like-minded groups and has made appearances at con-
 ventions of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. In 1990, he received
 a Humanist Distinguished Service Award, and the American Humanist
 Association sells both audio and video tapes titled "Honoring the
 Amazing Randi ."

 Martin Gardner. Martin Gardner has been aptly described as the "god-
 father of the movement" (Clark, 1990, p. 420); his influence is
 pervasive. As mentioned previously, he is highly regarded in conjuring
 circles and has contributed important works to magic (Booth, 1988). In
 1952 he published "In the Name of Science", which has turned out to be
 a landmark skeptical work. The volume established Gardner as an early
 prominent debunker. The book took a popular rather than scholarly
 approach, and it contained no footnotes or list of references. It
 displayed a snide and sarcastic demeanor, setting the tone for many
 future debunkers. Gardner's book was later revised and is still in
 print under the title "Fads and Fallacies in the "Name of Science"
 (Gardner, 1957). The temper of his writing attracted the attention of
 a "Newsweek" writer who noted: "Gentle as he is, he is driven almost
 beyond satire...he wields Ockham's razor like a switch-blade" (Adler
 with Carey, 1981, p.101). Despite his style, Gardner is no
 intellectual lightweight; for example, his "The Whys of a
 Philosophical Scrivener" (1983b) is much more sophisticated than a
 number of Kurtz's recent books.

 Pg. 38

 Gardner is primarily a writer and shuns public appearances; he has
 never made a presentation at a CSICOP convention. His entry in
 Contemporary Authors (Locher, 1978) lists 41 authored and edited
 works; many more have been published since. His skeptical influence
 has been felt in the publishing world beyond his own writings. Hansel
 (1966, p. v) specifically thanked Gardner for helping to assure
 publication of his "ESP: A Scientific Evaluation." Gardner also makes
 a point of talking with editors and publishers and informing them as
 to what can be considered as "acceptable" science (e.g., Gardner,
 1981, p. 346).

 Gardner probably received his greatest fame through his mathematical
 games column in "Scientific American." This series ran from 1957 to
 1982. I grew up reading his column, and I suspect that a substantial
 portion of today's physical scientists and engineers did too. Near the
 time of his retirement  a number of magazines carried articles on his
 career (e.g., Adler with Carey, 1981 ; Moms, 1982; Rucker, 1981), and
 Volume 22 of the "Journal of Recreational Mathematics" was dedicated
 to him (Madachy, 1990). These tributes attest to his wide influence.

 All three of these key individuals have a financial stake in the
 debunking movement. Prometheus Books publishes numerous skeptical
 titles, and Kurtz is president-a fact rarely acknowledged in the pages
 of "SI" . Randi obtains speaking and performing engagements through
 local skeptics' groups. Gardner has published a number of books via
 Kurtz's publishing house and is one of its most prolific authors.
 Writers in "SI" sometimes complain about the financial self-interest
 of those promoting the paranormal; however, such comments are seldom
 directed at those within their own ranks.

 Local Groups

 The relationship of CSICOP and the local groups has varied over the
 years, but the first officially "approved local chapter" was the Bay
 Area Skeptics, which began in 1982 (Frazier, 1982). Other chapters
 soon followed, and their growth has been impressive. The Committee has
 taken an active role in fostering these societies; CSICOP has loaned
 money for such purposes, and in one undertaking, the Executive
 Director was sent on a two-month world tour to help establish
 debunking organizations (Anderson, 1987). CSICOP published the
 newsletter "Skeptical Briefs" (SB) in order to facilitate
 communication with the groups as well as a handbook describing how to
 organize and manage them. At CSICOP conferences, there have been
 sessions devoted to representatives from the local affiliates, and at
 one time CSICOP employed a "Group Coordinator."

 Pg. 39

 The local affiliates have posed some difficulties for the Committee. A
 few members have been extremely aggressive, and some of their attacks
 have provoked lawsuits. With the rising legal problems, CSICOP became
 concerned about the groups, and in their listing in the Spring 1987
 "SI", they began to describe them as "independent and autonomous."
 Executive Director Mark Plummer (1989) claimed that CSICOP had
 designated the groups as "autonomous" and "not officially or
 unofficially affiliated with CSICOP" in 1982. However, publications of
 the Committee were referring to the groups as "affiliates" at least as
 late as July 1986 (in "Skeptical Briefs"). With the lawsuits, the
 concerns grew, and in May 1987, CSICOP published an article in
 "Skeptical Briefs" titled "Dealing with a Libel Lawsuit." It suggested
 that the organizations consider purchasing libel insurance and that if
 they were sued to contact the Committee. Incidents involving Al Seckel
 have also proved embarrassing for CSICOP. Seckel was an official and
 active member (18) of the Committee and a founder of the Southern
 California Skeptics. After years of high profile activity, it was
 discovered that he did not hold the academic credentials he claimed
 (Moseley, 1991a). Ironically, the Committee had previously prided
 itself on exposing hoaxers and con artists, but CSICOP has made no
 public comment on the Seckel affair.

 ---
  ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ This tagline stolen by Silly Little Mail Reader!
  - JetMail v1.14a3 - Unregistered QWK Mail Door for Spitfire

--
Bob Dunn - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]
======================================================================
Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should
be sent to: [e-mail].  Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/
Michael Corbin
Director
ParaNet Information Services