|
Originally
published in The Journal of the
American Society for
Psychical Research,
Volume 86, No. 1, January
1992, pp. 19-63.
CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview1
GEORGE P. HANSEN2
_________________________________
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 organizations, 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 (CSICOP3) 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 organizational 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 fig-
________
1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the
30th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, Edinburgh
University, Edinburgh, Scotland, August 5-8, 1987.
2 I would like to thank Michaeleen Maher, Keith Harary,
Robert Durant, and Marcello Truzzi for commenting on earlier drafts of
this paper. I would also like to thank Marcello Truzzi, William Rauscher,
Jerome Clark, Diane Morton, and Tom McIver for providing materials.
3 Pronounced “sigh cop.”
The Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research Vol. 86, January 1992
|
20 Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research
Fig. 1. Total Paid Circulation for Skeptical
Inquirer, Free Inquiry, Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research,
and Journal of Parapsychology
ureheads 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).
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
pro-
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
21
Fig. 2. Growth of Local Groups in the U.S. as
Listed in the Skeptical Inquirer as Having Aims Similar to CSICOP
voked 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.
After an historical overview, I discuss factors
that characterize CSICOP and its local affiliates, and I examine their
rhetorical strategies and review
|
22 Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research
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.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
CSICOP can be regarded as the first case of ongoing,
organized debunking 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 & 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 Lamont6 (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
________
4 There are groups that have scientifically investigated
psychic claims, notably the Society for Psychical Research, founded in
1882, and the American Society for Psychical Research, founded in 1885.
The Parapsychological Association, established in 1957, is an association
of professional researchers and is affiliated with the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
5 A fourth group, conservative Christians, have also
attacked the paranormal (e.g., North, 1988; for an overview of some recent
works, see Lewis, 1989). Though their literature is sizeable, it has had
little impact on secular academic debates, but it should not be overlooked
when considering the paranormal in larger social contexts.
6 Lamont was made Honorary President of the American
Humanist Association in 1974, shortly before it sponsored the formation
of CSICOP.
7 Haldane, Lamont, and McCabe were all promoters of the Stalinist
U.S.S.R.
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
23
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,
Watts & 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
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
________
8 The reader should not be left with the impression that
only skeptics are associated with rationalist positions. Several psychical
researchers have been allied with rationalism, atheism, and humanism.
9 A couple years earlier, Kurtz garnered media attention
by promoting his Humanist Manifesto II (1973; Martin, 1973).
|
24 Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research
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 abandonment of its own scientific research. During the early days
of 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
________
10 Before the study, Kurtz (1975) had expressed strong
opposition to astrology. In a lengthy editorial, he urged newspapers to
label their astrology columns as follows: “Warning: If taken seriously,
this column may be dangerous to your health!” (emphasis in original,
p. 20). This suggests a strong bias in anticipated outcome of the research,
a charge CSICOP members have made regarding proponents of the paranormal.
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
25
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).
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
disproportionate 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
|
26 Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research
writers and scientists. Of the 56 Scientific and Technical Consultants,
32 give college or university affiliations.
Leaders of the local groups frequently come from
the academic community. 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
constit-
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
27
uency 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.
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 Milboume 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
Table 1
MAGICIANS WHO ARE OR HAVE BEEN OFFICIAL MEMBERS OF CSICOP
Richard Busch
Shawn Carlson
Milboume Christopher*†
Persi Diaconis*†
Eric Dingwall*
Martin Gardner*†
Henry Gordon*
Ray Hyman*
Joe Nickell
Mark Plummer
James Randi*†
Robert Steiner*
Marcello Truzzi*
_______________________________
* Indicates sufficiently known to be included in Who’s
Who in Magic (Whaley, 1990).
† Indicates sufficient prominence to be included in The
Encyclopedia of Magic and Magicians (Waters, 1988).
|
28 Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research
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 Ian 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).
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”
(Anderson, 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
Table 2
DISTRIBUTION OF MEN AND WOMEN IN SKEPTICS’ GROUPS
Fellows Scientific and
Leaders of
Technical Consultants Local Groups
Men
53
52
38
Women
3
4
2
Figures based on pages 447-48 and the inside covers of
the Summer 1990 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
29
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:
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.
|
30 Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research
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
& Thalboume, 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.
Religious and Philosophical Factors
Several organized and informal religious channels
(primarily atheistic11) 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 University 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 (Bartlett, 1987). Kurtz’s views on the paranormal are firmly linked
to his views on religion.13 The title of his
________
11 Atheism may or may not be considered a religion. However,
atheism is clearly a religious position or religious view.
12 Kurtz retired from the university in 1991 (personal
communication from Paul Kurtz, August 14, 1991).
13 Kurtz’s definition of religion seems rather broad.
For instance, he denounced the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind,
calling it a “sequel to The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, and other
religious extravaganzas” (Kurtz, 1978c, p. 4), and he went on to decry
the religious symbolism in it.
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
31
Table 3
MEMBERS OF CSICOP WHO HAVE PUBLICLY IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES
AS HOLDING NONTHEISTIC OR ATHEISTIC VIEWS
|
|
CSICOP Member |
Source of Information |
|
|
|
|
George Abell |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Isaac Asimov |
Free Inquiry, Spring 1982, p. 9 |
|
Brand Blanshard |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Vern Bullough |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Mario Bunge |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Bette Chambers |
Humanist, September/October 1973, p. 9* |
|
Francis Crick |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Jean Dommanget |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Paul Edwards |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Antony Flew |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Yves Galifret |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Murray Gell-Mann |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Stephen Jay Gould |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Sidney Hook |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Marvin Kohl |
Humanist, November/December 1973, p. 5* |
|
Paul Kurtz |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Gerald A. Larue |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Paul MacCready |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Ernest Nagel |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
John W. Patterson |
American Atheist, May 1983, p. 12-14 |
|
Mark Plummer |
American Atheist, June 1983, p. 29-33 |
|
W. V. Quine |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
James Randi |
Who's Who In America (1990, p. 2683) |
|
Carl Sagan |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† |
|
Al Seckel |
Free Inquiry, Summer 1986, p. 54 |
|
B. F. Skinner |
Humanist, September/October 1973, p. 9* |
|
Gordon Stein |
Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 48-50 |
|
Robert Steiner |
Robertson (1984) |
|
Marvin Zimmerman |
Humanist, September/October 1973, p. 9* |
__________________________________________
† See “The Academy of Humanism” (1983) for statement on nontheistic
beliefs.
* See “Humanist Manifesto II” (1973), p. 5, for statement
on nontheistic beliefs.
book, The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the
Paranormal (Kurtz, 1986), speaks for itself (for a review, see Stokes,
1987).
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)
|
32 Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research
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 modem 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 connections 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
________
14 Gerald Piel, former president of the AAAS and editor
of Scientific American, made the decision against Mims. Shortly
thereafter, Piel gave the keynote address at CSICOP’s 1990 convention and
received the Committee’s “In Praise of Reason Award” (Shore, 1990).
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
33
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.
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, 1986/87).
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 the American Atheist, the publication of Madalyn O’Hair
(e.g., “Yahweh: A Mor-
|
34 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
ally 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).
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 paranormal 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).
Psychological and social consequences. Skeptics
sometimes speak derisively 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
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
35
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 formu-
|
36 Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research
lating the policies of the Committee” (p. 2).15 The even
smaller Board of Directors16 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
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 personnel 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.
Although I have mentioned them before, some additional background information
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-
________
15 As of March 1991, the Executive Council included James
Alcock, Barry Beyerstein, Kendrick Frazier, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman,
Philip Klass, Paul Kurtz, Joe Nickell, Lee Nisbet, and James Randi (personal
communication from Barry Karr, March 12, 1991). In May 1991, James Randi
resigned because of legal problems, and Susan Blackmore became a member
shortly before that. Blackmore’s role on the Executive Council will not
be considered in this paper because she has not served long enough to substantially
influence policy; of course, Randi’s contribution will be discussed.
16 The Board of Directors consists of Alcock, Frazier,
Kurtz, and Nisbet.
17 The Summer 1991 issue of SI listed 55 Fellows
and 58 Consultants (113 official members). The same day I interviewed Kurtz,
Barry Karr, CSICOP Executive Director, told me that CSICOP had about 200
members. This directly contradicted Kurtz. I was told that a full list
of members was not available.
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
37
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).
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 conventions 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 “godfather 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
|
38 Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research
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 switchblade” (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.
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; Morris, 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
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
39
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.”
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 member18 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, 199la). Ironically, the Committee had previously prided itself
on exposing hoaxers and con artists, but CSICOP has made no public comment
on the Seckel affair.
RHETORIC AND ACTIVITIES
The primary focus of the Committee has been to influence
the media and public opinion on the paranormal, and its rhetorical methods
and activities are mainly directed to that goal. Thus, the group’s language
and projects have been fashioned for a popular approach rather than for
disinterested scientific commentary.
Choice of Targets
When CSICOP first began, it focused on paranormal
topics. This position has shifted slightly over the years, but the Committee
primarily re-
________
18 Seckel wrote at least three articles for SI;
he edited two volumes published by Prometheus Books. Seckel’s picture appeared
three times in SI; two of these were taken by Executive Council
member, Philip Klass; the third included Klass. Randi served on the board
of directors of SCS. Seckel served on CSICOP’s College and University Lecture
Series Subcommittee along with Paul Kurtz and Ray Hyman. The leadership
of CSICOP was well acquainted with Seckel.
|
40 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
stricts its commentary to areas considered marginal or “fringe” by the
scientific establishment. Carl Sagan (1987) gave an extensive listing of
topics covered by the Committee:
the Bermuda Triangle; “Big Foot” and the Loch
Ness monster; “crashed” flying saucers; claims that you can levitate yourself
by meditating; ESP; the view that the Earth is really flat; the Shroud
of Turin; divining rods and water witching; Nostradamus; the notion that
more crimes are committed when the moon is full; palmistry; numerology;
“remote viewing”; cult archaeology; a Soviet elephant that talks fluent
Russian and a Soviet “sensitive” who, blindfolded, reads books with her
fingertips; Edgar Cayce and other “prophets,” sleeping and awake; diet
quackery; ancient maps of Antarctica; “dream telepathy”; faith-healer fraud;
analysis of a poltergeist in Columbus, Ohio, and how the scam was discovered;
fire walking; phrenology; the “hundredth monkey” confusion; biorhythms;
creationism; the emotional lives of plants; the systematically inept predictions
of Jeanne Dixon and others; dianetics; Carlos Castenada [sic] and “sorcery”;
the search for Noah’s Ark; the “Amityville Horror” hoax; miracles; mummies’
curses; Atlantis and other “lost” continents; and innumerable cases of
acute credulity by newspapers, magazines, and television specials and news
programs. (p. 12)
Although this is not a complete list, it is representative. A quick scan
of the above will reveal few topics that have any substantial scientific
constituency that champions their investigation. The International Society
of Cryptozoology, the Society for Scientific Exploration, and the Parapsychological
Association (PA) are perhaps the only three professional scientific societies
that could be said to investigate a few of these areas. Of these three,
the PA has by far the highest professional-level publication standards.
CSICOP has a policy of not conducting research itself,
and this has reduced its vulnerability to criticism. Sociologists of science
Pinch and Collins (1984) examined the benefits of this policy. They noted
that CSICOP’s tactics:
can only be used in complete safety by organizations
that do not engage in controversial science themselves. Only by avoiding
having to face up to the problems of doing controversial science, and by
avoiding the changed consciousness concerning scientific method which accompanies
such engagement, can an attack from the canonical model be sustained without
difficulty. (p. 539)
In fact, they specifically suggested that the critics not engage in empirical
research if they were to be effective in promoting their agenda. They pointed
out that in controversial areas, qualified scientists are often engaged
in disputes over research findings and interpretations and that a large
component of establishing scientific knowledge involves human negotiation
and not just “consulting the facts.” If CSICOP had continued to undertake
its own research, scientists might again point out errors in its
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
41
procedures and ambiguities in its interpretations. That could threaten
CSICOP’s image of authority.
Rhetorical Stance
Statements by CSICOP stress the importance of its
mission and urge that others become involved. CSICOP portrays itself as
a tiny minority battling an overwhelming, irrational tide.19
In fact, there is almost an apocalyptic strain in some writing. An announcement
of the founding of the Committee stated: “We ought not to assume that the
scientific enlightenment will continue indefinitely . . . like the Hellenic
civilization, it may be overwhelmed by irrationalism, subjectivism, and
obscurantism” (Kurtz, 1976b). Members suggest that some beliefs are dangerous
and must be combatted urgently.
Rhetoric to establish scientific legitimacy.
The Committee emphasizes its claim of being “scientific,” and the leadership
seems very conscious of this task. The back cover of most issues of SI
lists
the stated objectives, all of which are scientific. The recruiting
of prestigious scientists as figureheads also enhances its credibility.
However, Dennis Rawlins, former Executive Council member (and still an
extreme skeptic), reported that some fellow councillors privately admitted
to him that the word “scientific” should not have appeared in the name
of CSICOP (personal communication, April 20, 1987). He directly quoted
one member as describing SI as “a propaganda sheet. . . essentially
[a] rhetorical magazine that is to go to shapers of opinion like editors.”20
Rawlins has considerable documentation for this and many other revealing
statements.
In seeking to enhance its legitimacy, CSICOP largely
ignores the refereed scientific journals that deal with the paranormal
(e.g.. Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Journal of UFO Studies,
Cryptozoology). The PA-affiliated Journal of Parapsychology
has been published for more than 50 years, the Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research for more than 80. The existence of these
journals is rarely acknowledged in the pages of SI, and when they
are mentioned, it is usually only in passing.21 In fact, the
Committee claims that “the Skeptical Inquirer is the only major
periodical in the world that examines paranormal
________
19 Despite their self-portrayal as a small, struggling
minority, the circulation of SI dwarfs that of the scientific parapsychology
journals, as seen in Figure 1.
20 This can be compared with a published statement made
by Gardner (Barcellos, 1979, p. 242).
21 Elsewhere I have described this strategy as “dissuading
as debunking,” as displayed in articles by Ray Hyman (Hansen, 1991). By
implying that there is little or no scientific parapsychological research,
readers are dissuaded from locating the refereed scientific journals and
examining the reports themselves.
|
42 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
and occult claims from a scientific viewpoint” (CSICOP fund-raising
letter of September 18, 1987).
Religious metaphor. CSICOP’s rhetoric sometimes
invokes religious metaphors. The dust jacket of one of Randi’s (1990b)
recent books describes him as having “missionary zeal.” In introducing
an earlier book of Randi’s, Isaac Asimov wrote: “We may find salvation
through the wise use of science” (1980, p. x). Lawrence Cranberg, a president
of the Austin society, has described his group as “engaged in scientific
missionary work” (Clarke, 1986). Even some behavior of skeptics can be
seen as metaphorically religious. Members of local affiliates have worked
as “missionaries,” passing out skeptical literature to heretical “believers”
at psychic fairs and similar events (e.g., Leonhard & Butler, 1986;
Mayhew, 1985-1986). A quasireligious orientation was apparent to one reporter
from a major science magazine when Susan Blackmore presented at the 1986
CSICOP conference in Colorado. Blackmore emotionally described her own
failure to find evidence for ESP. Speaking to me, the reporter characterized
Blackmore’s
presentation as being “like a testimonial at an AA [Alcoholics
Anonymous] meeting.” Nicholas Wade (1977a), writing in Science,
described CSICOP’s magazine as “the sword of its faith” (p. 646).
Decrying the “dangers” of the paranormal.
Even at the beginning of CSICOP, the Committee decried the “dangers” of
the paranormal. Boyce Rensberger (who was awarded CSICOP’s “Responsibility
in Journalism Award” [“CSICOP Awards,” 1986]) reported that the Committee
claimed that belief in “parapsychology may bring a society of ‘unreason.’”
It was also asserted that “some 200 people were known to have killed themselves
as a result of believing an unfavorable horoscope, palm reading or other
alleged forecast of the future” (Rensberger, 1977). No support was given
for this statement, and as far as I can tell, none has appeared since.
CSICOP has continued to proclaim the “dangers.” A fund-raising letter signed
by the Executive Council declared: “Belief in paranormal phenomena is still
growing, and the dangers to our society are real” (dated March 23, 1985).
Gary Posner, an M.D. and leader of the Tampa Bay
Skeptics, has claimed that believers in the paranormal may have a pathological
medical condition, saying they may be “afflicted with a thought disorder
that manifests in ... a faulty sense of reality” and their “irrational
behavior ... may be more compatible with a diagnosis of ambulatory schizophrenia
. . . than with mere naivete” (1978, p. 79). Posner made this statement
despite the fact that surveys show that over half the population in this
country has had psychic experiences (Greeley, 1975; Haraldsson & Houtkooper,
1991).
James Alcock (1981) expresses fear in his anticipation
of psi application:
But what chaos we would have. There would, of
course, be no privacy, since by extrasensory perception one could see even
into people’s minds.
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
43
Dictators would no longer have to trust the words
of their followers; they could “know” their feelings. . . . What would
happen when two adversaries each tried to harm the other via PK? The gunfights
of the Old American West would probably pale by comparison, (p. 191)
Several scientists have suggested that emotional resistance and fear of
psi are partly responsible for the opposition to parapsychology (e.g.,
Eisenbud, 1946; Irwin, 1989; LeShan, 1966; Tart, 1982a; Wren-Lewis, 1974).
The comments of Wren-Lewis are noteworthy; even before CSICOP began, he
wrote: “But the plain fact is that the clearest evidence of strong emotion
nowadays comes from those who have antireligious feelings” (emphasis
in the original; Wren-Lewis, 1974, p. 43). Alcock’s writings provide examples
that support this contention.
Vilification of advocates of the paranormal.
Several CSICOP members portray advocates of the paranormal as loathsome
human beings. According to his book. Henry Gordon frequently proclaims:
“Every psychic I know or have heard of is an absolute fraud” (1987, p.
ix). Medical doctor and writer Michael Crichton (1988)22 observed
this tendency of the debunkers and wrote: “I was disturbed by the intemperate
tone of many writers I admired; there was a tendency to attribute the basest
motives to their opponents” (p. 356).
Use of ridicule. The use of ridicule is a
pervasive element in the rhetoric of CSICOP and SI. Gardner encouraged
it by popularizing H. L. Mencken’s now frequently quoted “one horse-laugh
is worth ten thousand syllogisms” (Gardner, 1981, [p. vii]). Lest there
be any remaining confusion, Gardner later made his position explicit:
The rest of us did not regard debunking as such
a negative word. We felt that when pseudoscience is far enough out on the
fringes of irrationalism, it is fair game for humor, and at times even
ridicule. (1983a, p. 213)
Yet another example of belittling the opposition is the subtitle of the
first edition of Randi’s (1980) book, Flim-Flam!: The Truth About Unicorns,
Parapsychology, and Other Delusions. The general use of ridicule by
CSICOP can be seen in the pages of SI, where caricatures and cartoons
are used to denigrate those discussed. Such illustrations are very rare
in scientific journals but are common fare in religious magazines such
as American Atheist and Free Inquiry.
Influencing the Media
The treatment of the paranormal in the media is a
primary concern of CSICOP. This emphasis is obvious in its Manual for
Local, Regional and
________
22 Crichton had originally prepared a lecture after a
promise from CSICOP Fellow Paul MacCready to secure an invitation to speak
to the Southern California Skeptics. The invitation never came, and Crichton
included the prepared talk as a 23-page chapter in his book. The Public
Relations Director of CSICOP reviewed Crichton’s book for SI but
did not even allude to the chapter dealing with CSICOP and the skeptics
(Karr, 1989).
|
44 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
National Groups (1987). Seventeen pages are devoted to “Handling
the Media” and “Public Relations”; in contrast, only three pages are given
to “Scientific Investigation.” No scientific references were cited in the
“Scientific Investigation” section, but the reader was referred to Kurtz’s
(1986) book The Transcendental Temptation, for an explanation of
the scientific method.23 The priority given to the media is
also apparent in many articles in SI and in newsletters of the local
groups.
Kurtz (1985c) recognizes that “the media are a dominant
influence in the growth of belief in the paranormal” (p. 357), and at one
time he was reported to appear on 5 to 10 TV or radio shows a week (Bartlett,
1987), which attests to the priority he gives to the media. In fact, the
mass media may be the most effective way to communicate with the scientific
community regarding the paranormal. McClenon (1984) found that most elite
scientists form their opinions about parapsychology from newspaper reports.
Nationally aired television programs that treat
psychic topics in a neutral or positive light are a CSICOP target. The
Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) under the Fairness Doctrine regarding the NBC series “Exploring the
Unknown” (Kurtz, 1977a, 1978d). The FCC rejected the complaint, and CSICOP
appealed the ruling in U.S. District Court (Kurtz, 1979b). The Committee
also complained to NBC regarding its program “The Amazing World of Psychic
Phenomena” (Kurtz, 1979a). CSICOP was especially disturbed by the NOVA
program, “The Case of ESP,” even though a number of Committee members were
featured in it. CSICOP wrote an open letter of complaint to the executive
producer, and the cover story of the Summer 1984 issue of SI was
an attack on that NOVA segment.
One of the long-term projects of CSICOP has been
to get every newspaper astrology column to carry a disclaimer. At the beginning
of the project, the Committee issued a press release; two weeks later,
it sent a letter to “all U.S. newspapers,” calling on them to publish CSICOP’s
disclaimer (Frazier, 1985). The project has met with limited success. The
Summer 1986 issue of SI noted that six papers then carried a statement,
and the Spring 1990 magazine reported that 33 papers did (Frazier, 1990a).
The Committee has made a concerted effort to cultivate contacts within
the media. For example, Leon Jaroff, an editor for Time, was made
a Fellow of the Committee. He wrote an article for Time focusing
on Randi’s debunking work; the piece included a full-page picture of Randi
(Jaroff, 1988). Needless to say, such publicity would be expensive, if
purchased. CSICOP publicizes its “Responsibility in Journalism” awards,
which are given at their conventions, and Committee members have presented
material at a science workshop for journalists (Frazier, 1989a, p. 123).
________
23 Among other things, The Transcendental Temptation
suggested that Jesus and Lazarus had a homosexual relationship.
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
45
In the summer of 1990, SI carried an announcement of the formation
of a new organization called the Center for Inquiry (“Center for Inquiry,”
1990; Flynn, 1990) whose purpose was to promote the skeptical view in the
electronic media. Tom Flynn, cofounder of Catholics Anonymous, was named
director. One of the projects was to produce a news magazine format radio
show with skeptics such as James Alcock, Susan Blackmore, and Ray Hyman.
(For several months the term “Center for Inquiry” was used by CSICOP in
more than one context; it now refers only to the headquarters complex [Karr,
1991].)
The local groups have been active with the media
also. As might be expected, the affiliates concern themselves more with
local radio and newspapers rather than with the national television networks.
Some of the groups have been especially active. Even as early as its fourth
meeting, the Austin group listed seven different media contacts or appearances
for that month. One member volunteered to organize a “Psychic Alert” system
to contact other members by phone when call-in radio shows covered the
paranormal (McFadden, 1982). The Cleveland society states that they “try
to serve as a media resource in Northeast Ohio” (“Membership,” 1986). One
of their members agreed to organize a speakers bureau, and others were
reported to be developing a weekly radio program (O’Connor, 1985). Another
issue of their newsletter carried an article on how to write effective
letters to editors (Rickards, 1986). The Colorado organization is likewise
involved; in a letter from Bela Scheiber dated June 8, 1986 requesting
payment of dues, it noted that they have “assisted local TV stations in
news projects. Provided speakers for radio talk shows. Responded to articles
in the local press.” The Northwest Skeptics have been active too. Some
of the lead articles in their newsletters have such titles as “Media &
Skeptics” (Dennett, 1985a) and “Skeptics on T.V.” (Dennett, 1985b). The
above are just few examples. Contact with the media is one of the most
common topics discussed in newsletters of the local groups.
Magicians’ Activities
The conjurors in CSICOP have influence, and their
involvement has proven beneficial for both the organization and the magicians.
Magic performances are frequently included in CSICOP’s conferences. Daryl
Bem performed at the first international conference in 1983, and David
Berglas performed at the London conference 1985. Three magicians performed
at the banquet of the 1986 conference held in Colorado, and Penn and Teller
presented a show at the 1987 convention.
Many of the local groups have also featured magic
performances. Conjuror David Alexander performed at a banquet of the Southern
California Skeptics (Mitchell, 1986); the Cleveland debunkers’ group arranged
for Randi to speak (“Professional Charlatan,” 1985), and the Houston group
presented Steve Shaw as a guest speaker (“HAST Dinner,” 1987). Rory Coker
performed and explained several mentalism effects for the Austin
|
46 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
society (McFadden, 1983). One of the founding members of the National
Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) is Jamy Ian Swiss, an active magician who
appeared on the September 1987 cover of Genii. Swiss performed a
number of times to promote the skeptics, and members of NCAS produced a
seance show apparently based on Eugene Burger’s (1986) book Spirit Theater.
One of the most aggressive groups in promoting magic has been the Sacramento
Skeptics Society. They published a column describing fake psychic effects
and methods in their newsletter,24 and their March 1987 meeting
featured seven conjurors.
The educational efforts by magicians are effective
in attracting publicity to the groups. The conjurors also benefit because
professional magicians need publicity in order to obtain new bookings.
Leadership roles in CSICOP and local groups can provide visibility and
have thus enhanced the careers of several, notably James Randi and Robert
Steiner.
Research by magicians. As mentioned earlier,
CSICOP conducts no research itself, and even the three scientist members
of the Executive Council have undertaken little research on their own.
As far as I know, of the three (Alcock, Beyerstein, and Hyman, all psychologists),
only Hyman has published even one scientific ESP experiment (McClenon &
Hyman, 1987), and that study fell “short of scientific acceptability” under
Hyman’s (1984-1985, p. 129) own criteria because it was not published in
a refereed journal. In contrast, magician James Randi has engaged in much
“research,” and this has been given frequent coverage in the pages of SI
(e.g., Randi, 1983a, 1983b).
In 1983, sociologist Harry Collins warned against
giving nonscientists control over scientific procedures. He spoke specifically
of conjurors, noting that the magic community is “a group whose values
include secretiveness and financial self-interest above the quest for truth”
(Collins, 1983, p. 931). Collins’s words were to prove prescient, as illustrated
by Randi’s involvement in the “high dilution” affair. In 1988, Jacques
Benveniste and colleagues published a paper in Nature that gave
support to some ideas of homeopathy (Davenas et al., 1988). After the publication
of the Davenas et al. report, a small group was named to examine the procedures
of the experiments, and Randi was appointed as one of the three members.
The subsequent accounts depict Randi as capitalizing on the opportunity
for showmanship and disrupting the business of the laboratory (Benveniste,
1988). Randi made public innuendoes of fraud and incompetence. Later he
gave presentations about his involvement. During one of them, he mimicked
the Gallic mannerisms of Benveniste and made highly
________
24 These columns sometimes have been taken word for word
from Magick, a newsletter for mentalists (e.g., compare the column
in Psientific American, July 1986, pp. 3-4, with Magick,
No. 316, pp. 1577-1578; or Psientific American, January 1987, pp.
5-6, with Magick, No. 322, p. 1609; no credit was given to Magick).
Terence Sandbeck, president of the Sacramento Skeptics Society, admitted
he was responsible for this (personal communication, April 4, 1987).
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
47
derogatory comments about “French science”; many in the audience were
offended (Inglis, 1988b).
SI eventually published an article critical
of Randi (Shneour, 1989), though it was relegated to the back pages. Shneour
wrote specifically of “careless” criticisms, “squander[ing]” “credibility”
(p. 95), and even noted that there was a “preconceived bias that Benveniste’s
data was fraudulently generated” (p. 94). Both Collins (1988) and Shneour
(1989) warned that such practices could be destructive to the conduct of
science. Randi (1990a) had little to say in reply.25
Although the magicians in CSICOP have attacked psychics,
they have said very little about people such as Kreskin,26 David
Hoy, or other similar entertainers who are well connected in the magic
community.27 Many mentalists maintain that performers should
claim genuine abilities even if they do not believe in them. Certainly
Randi, Ray Hyman, and Martin Gardner28 are well aware of this
situation, yet they rarely, if ever, criticize publicly such performers.
Hyman holds membership in the Psychic Entertainers Association, which has
a number of members who encourage performers to falsely claim psychic abilities.
If Gardner, Hyman, or Randi undertook an expose, they would likely antagonize
the conjuring establishment.
Protesting the Paranormal in Academia
Another task of the local groups has been to protest
courses favorable to the paranormal. CSICOP encouraged such opposition
by publishing an article, “Pseudoscience in the Name of the University,”
subtitled: “What
________
25 Randi’s antics should have come as no surprise to
members of CSICOP because he has engaged in similar behavior in relation
to psi research. Krippner (1977), Rao (1984), Targ and Puthoff (1977, pp.
182-186), and Tart (1982b) have all documented glaring errors of Randi.
Dennis Stillings has demonstrated that “Randi is capable of gross distortion
of facts” (Truzzi, 1987, p. 89). Randi has been quoted as saying, “I always
have an out” with regard to his $10,000 challenge (Rawlins, 1981, p. 89).
Puthoff and Targ (1977) documented a number of mistakes. In a published,
handwritten, signed letter, Randi replied offering $1,000 if any claimed
error could be demonstrated (see Fuller, 1979). Fuller proved Randi wrong.
In a rejoinder to Puthoff and Targ (1977), Randi reversed himself (for
a clear example, see point number 15 in Randi, 1982, p. 223). Randi should
have paid the $1,000, but he never did.
26 Kreskin appeared at the 1991 CSICOP convention as
an authority on hypnosis, and a recent Prometheus catalog advertises one
of his books. Surprisingly, Kreskin (1973) claims psychic ability (e.g.,
“In using ESP as a form of communication, I receive information in images
rather than in symbols” [p. 8]; “by telepathic suggestion alone,
I ordered her to choose Albuquerque, which she did” [p. 40]). His more
recent publicity material makes similar claims (e.g., “The Amazing Kreskin:
Biography,” 1988).
27 A rare exception was a brief attack on Russ Burgess,
a member of the Psychic Entertainers Association (Rawlins, 1977, pp. 74-75).
28 Earlier in his career, Gardner wrote an article under
a pseudonym suggesting that magician Stanley Jaks had genuine psychic powers
(Groth, 1952) (personal communication, June 7, 1989).
|
48 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
Should be Done About Extension Courses That Use the University’s Prestige
to Promote Pseudoscience?” (Lederer & Singer, 1983). This piece decried
the growing number of such courses affiliated with universities.29
It appears that not all local affiliates have been active in these protests,
but some have (e.g., “CSU Sells Pseudoscience,” 1988a, 1988b; Dennett,
1985-1986; “Psychics and Skeptics,” 1985; Scheiber, 1986). The efforts
have been directed primarily toward noncredit courses in adult education
programs, but some have targeted university courses for credit. Not surprisingly,
these campaigns generated antagonism toward the groups, and in the Pendragon
case, discussed later, legal action was taken because of such a campaign.
In November 1987, CSICOP issued a short statement saying that academic
institutions should “ensure that there is a proper procedure for the approval
of the content of such courses and that the persons teaching such courses
should have the appropriate training and qualifications” (“CSICOP statement,”
1987).
Other routes have been taken to promote skeptical
views within academia. Some of the local groups offer courses, lecture
series, and workshops on the paranormal. Others have awarded prizes for
essay contests and science fairs, and CSICOP has instituted a campus lecture
series (Sandhu, 1990). The 1991 conference had a session titled “Teaching
Critical Thinking With the Skeptical Inquirer.”30
NEW HORIZONS
In a 1986 editorial, Kendrick Frazier discussed CSICOP’s
broadening horizons. He indicated that the Committee would revise its scope
to include topics outside the paranormal. Some of the topics listed were
creationism, chiropractic, dream interpretation, and arthritis cures. The
cultural scene of the paranormal has been continually shifting, and CSICOP
has had to slightly redefine its role.
New Topics
Opposition to the creationists is one activity that
attracted attention. The Southern California Skeptics enlisted the aid
of 72 Nobel laureates in filing an amicus curiae brief regarding a Louisiana
statute promoting creationism (Seckel, 1986-1987). This provided CSICOP
with increased visibility and attracted allies in its battle against the
paranormal. The National Center for
________
29 Ironically, this article was coauthored by CSICOP
member Barry Singer, who was charged with “inappropriate” teaching of his
own course. He lost his academic position because he openly gave students
credit for sexual experiences (Singer, 1982/83). CSICOP member Vern Bullough
(1982/83) stated that “Singer’s account . . . raises serious questions
of ethics” and “he quite obviously violated the rights of his students”
(p. 10).
30 An article by Swords (1990) indirectly suggests that
the use of SI might not be altogether effective.
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
49
Science Education, an anticreationist group, has lumped psi with creationism
and health quackery in its literature (e.g., its brochure titled What
Can You Do About Anti-Evolutionism?, undated).
CSICOP also involves itself in the medical arena
and has a “Paranormal Health Claims Subcommittee.” Recently, SI
has included a few articles addressing fringe areas of medicine. Prometheus
Books published a book by two philosophers attacking holistic medicine
(Stalker & Glymour, 1985). (Stalker is a CSICOP member.) The National
Council Against Health Fraud made CSICOP an affiliate. They too have joined
the battle against the paranormal and published an article decrying Shirley
MacLaine in their newsletter (“Is Shirley MacLaine,” 1987).
As can be seen in Figure 1, the circulation of SI
has
stagnated after rapid growth. This must be of concern to the Committee.
In a recent note, Frazier (1990b) indicated that more attention was being
given to “science, critical inquiry, and science education” (p. 116). This
further suggests that CSICOP is striving to define its role. Media interest
in the paranormal can vary, and during some periods the paranormal is not
always considered newsworthy. Alternative topics may attract attention
when the paranormal fails to do so. However, there are some hazards in
diversification. If the Committee becomes too broadly focused, it runs
the risk of losing its identity. Whereas there are already a number of
organizations engaged in the fights against creationism and quackery, CSICOP
has yet to demonstrate that it has something new to offer in these arenas.
The New Age
Perhaps the most pertinent cultural change during
CSICOP’s existence has been the rise of the New Age movement (Melton, Clark,
& Kelly, 1990). The occult explosion of the 1970s resulted in an increased
level of belief in the paranormal. A number of participants in the psychic
boom were then in their early and mid-twenties. These people have moved
into positions of some financial and political power and now form the base
for what is called the New Age movement. In fact, several major publications
have run stories on this movement (e.g., New York Times [Lindsey,
1986]; U.S. News and World Report [Levine, Kyle, & Dworkin,
1987]; Wall Street Journal [Hughes, 1987]). It is not possible to
provide a crisp definition for the New Age, but typically it is associated
with channeling, wholistic health, use of crystals, Eastern thought, and
psychic abilities. It can be characterized as a network in flux rather
than a rigid hierarchical structure (Ferguson, 1980), and there is no agreed
upon institutional leadership that might provide inertia and clear identity.
The New Age is partly a search for religious and spiritual values, and
Hastings (1991, p. 195) suggested that it is a “revitalization movement,”
a term introduced by anthropologist A. F. C. Wallace (1956). From a sociological
perspective, the growth of CSICOP might be seen as a reaction to this movement.
Many aspects of the New Age are opposed by CSICOP, and the Com-
|
50 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
mittee’s 1988 conference focused on them (Shore, 1989) as did the Summer
1989 issue of SI. SI articles on the New Age are usually
derogatory and rarely display the disinterested scientific analysis found
in papers presented at scientific conferences such as those of the Society
for the Scientific Study of Religion and the Religious Research Association.
Legal Concerns
One of the problems that will confront the Committee
for some time to come is the issue of libel. This problem first emerged
with the local affiliates. The cofounder of the Northwest Skeptics, John
Merrell, sent press packages to news agencies claiming that psychic Noreen
Renier was misleading the public with fraudulent claims. Renier sued and
won a judgment of $25,000 (Auerbach, 1991; Guarino, 1986). In 1986, Gharith
Pendragon began a battle with the Hawaii Skeptics. He alleged that he lost
teaching positions because of pressure the Hawaii Skeptics brought to bear.
This led to a publicized legal fight, and CSICOP was named in the suit.
It was ultimately settled in CSICOP’s favor (Frazier, 1989b), but it undoubtedly
cost the Committee considerable time and money. Shortly after the beginning
of the Pendragon battle, CSICOP attempted to distance itself somewhat from
the local groups and no longer referred to them as affiliates.
But it is not only statements by the local groups
that have caused problems. Randi’s statements have drawn fire. In an interview
for Twilight Zone Magazine (Wiater, 1988) and at a meeting of the
New York Area Skeptics, Randi claimed that Eldon Byrd, a friend of Uri
Geller, was a child molester and in prison. The New York Skeptic
later admitted this was untrue (“Geller Files,” 1989), but Byrd sued, naming
CSICOP as one of the defendants. Randi also claimed that Geller had launched
a blackmail campaign against him (Wiater, 1988), and Geller also filed
a number of suits against Randi and CSICOP (Moseley, 1991b). This led to
Randi’s resignation from the Committee to avoid its being named in subsequent
suits. Several newsletters published an appeal from Randi (1991) that said
“I’m in trouble folks. I need help.” The battle attracted wide media attention,
including the Wall Street Journal (Marcus, 1991) and Scientific
American (Rennie, 1991). Whatever the outcomes, these legal battles
will undoubtedly prove costly, and according to Mike Sullivan (1991) of
the North Texas Skeptics, “Paul Kurtz warned at the 1991 convention in
May that the Committee may not be around for the next annual convention”
because of financial problems.
CONCLUSIONS
CSICOP has exerted enormous effort and mobilized
considerable resources in its battle against the paranormal. Some of the
leaders have devoted much of their professional careers to the cause. Their
strenuous
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
51
activity attests to the Committee’s belief in the importance of the
truth or falsity of parapsychological claims and their significance for
mankind.
Although recognizing the importance of the paranormal,
CSICOP elected not to conduct scientific research, but rather it has undertaken
an extended public relations campaign. The Committee actively attempts
to influence the media, and it has complained to the FCC under the Fairness
Doctrine. CSICOP seeks endorsements from scientific luminaries, despite
the fact that few, if any, of these luminaries have ever published scientific
research on the paranormal. CSICOP has also fostered a grass roots movement
that assists it in influencing popular opinion. These activities display
more parallels with political campaigns than with scientific endeavors.
CSICOP’s message has often been well received, particularly
among scientific leaders. The growth of CSICOP, the circulation figures
of SI, and the academic credentials of its readership prove that
there is wide interest in the paranormal among the most highly educated
members of our society. Many readers of SI undoubtedly assume that CSICOP
presents the best available scientific evidence. The readers are rarely
told of the existence of refereed scientific journals that cover parapsychology.
The effect of CSICOP’s activities is to create a climate of hostility toward
the investigation of paranormal claims; indeed, at one CSICOP conference,
the announcement of the closing of several parapsychology laboratories
was greeted with cheers.
Surveys show that over half the adult population
in the U.S. have had psychic experiences and believe in the reality of
the phenomena (Gallup, 1982; Greeley, 1975, 1987; Haraldsson & Houtkooper,
1991). Those who have had the experiences but encounter the debunking attitudes
of apparent “scientific authorities” are likely to conclude that science
is a dogma and inapplicable to important aspects of their lives. Vallee
(1990) has suggested that debunkers “are among the primary contributors
to the rejection of science by the public” and are “contributing to the
growth of irrational movements in modem society” (p. 21). Ironically, CSICOP’s
activities will likely inhibit scientific research on the paranormal and
might potentially foster an increased rejection of science generally.
REFERENCES
THE ACADEMY OF HUMANISM. (1983). Free Inquiry, 3(4), 6.
ADAMS, C. F. (1987). Debunking the “debunkers”: Where is the pike for
CSICOPs? In M. C. Rose (Ed.), Psychical Research and Spirit: Proceedings
of the Academy of Religion and Psychical Research Twelfth Annual Conference
(pp. 53-72).
ADLER, J., with CAREY, J. (1981, November 16). The magician of math.
Newsweek,
98,
101.
ADVISORS. (1986). Basis [Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet],
5(9), 2.
ALCOCK, J. E. (1981). Parapsychology: Science or Magic? New York:
Pergamon.
|
52 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
ALCOCK, J. E. (1985). Parapsychology: The “spiritual” science. Free
Inquiry, 5(2), 25-35.
THE AMAZING KRESKIN: BIOGRAPHY. (1988, November 26). Zeiterion Theatre
presents the amazing Kreskin: The world’s foremost mentalist (pp. 9-14).
New Bedford, MA.
AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION: AHA 35TH ANNIVERSARY MEETING. (1976).
Humanist,
36(2), 59.
ANDERSON, I. (1987, 16 April). Taking up the sceptics’ burden. New
Scientist, 114, 51-52.
ASIMOV, I. (1980). Introduction: The deadly misinformation. In James
Randi, Flim-Flam! The Truth About Unicorns, Parapsychology, and Other
Delusions (pp. ix-xi). New York: Lippincott & Crowell.
AUERBACH, L. M. (1985). The 1984 CSICOP conference: “Paranormal beliefs:
Scientific facts and fictions.” ASPR Newsletter, 11(3), 9-10.
AUERBACH, L. (1991). Taking a skeptic to court. Fate, 44(6),
60-68.
BARCELLOS, A. (1979). A conversation with Martin Gardner. Two-Year
College Mathematics Journal, 10, 233-244.
BARTLETT, K. (1987, April 12). His “play” is promotion of secular humanism.
Times
(Trenton, NJ), pp. DD1, DD8.
BENVENISTE, J. (1988). Dr Jacques Benveniste replies. Nature,
334,
291.
BERKLEY, M. (1987, January 16). Prometheus unbound: A skeptical man
with a mission runs a skeptical publishing house. Publishers Weekly,
231,
32-34.
BIRDSELL, P. G. (1989). How Magicians Relate the Occult to Modern
Magic: An Investigation and Study. Simi Valley, CA: Silver Dawn Media.
BOOTH, J. (1988). Dramatic Magic: The Art of Hidden Secrets.
Los Alamitos, CA: Ridgeway Press.
BULLOUGH, V. (1982/83). A dissenting view. Free Inquiry, 3(1),
10, 44.
BURGER, E. (1986). Spirit Theater: Reflections on the History and
Performance of Seances. New York: Richard Kaufman and Alan Greenberg.
CENTER FOR INQUIRY BRINGS SKEPTICISM TO RADIO, TV. (1990). Skeptical
Inquirer, 14, 428.
A Century of Doctorates: Data Analysis of Growth and Change: U.S.
PhD’s-Their Numbers, Origins, Characteristics, and the Institutions From
Which They Come. (1978). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
CHESTERTON, G. K., MCCABE, J., BELLOC, H., WARSCHAUER, J., HOB-SON,
J. A., SINNETT, A. P., CHESTERTON, C., & LEWIS, E. W. [1914]. Do
Miracles Happen? London: Christian Commonwealth.
CHILD, I. L. (1985). Psychology and anomalous observations: The question
of ESP in dreams. American Psychologist, 40, 1219-1230.
CLARK, J. (1987, February). Censoring the paranormal. Omni, 9,
33.
CLARK, J. (1990). Skeptics and the New Age. In J. G. Melton, J. Clark,
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
53
& A. A. Kelly (Eds.), New Age Encyclopedia (pp. 417-427).
Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
CLARK, J., & MELTON, J. G. (1979a). Marcello Truzzi talks about
. . . The crusade against the paranormal. Part I. Fate, 33 [32](9),
70-76.
CLARK, J., & MELTON, J. G. (1979b). Marcello Truzzi talks about
. . . The crusade against the paranormal. Part II. Fate, 33 [32](10),
87-94.
CLARKE [CLARK], J. (1986, June). Militant debunkers. Omni, 8,
90.
CLODD, E. (1917). The Question: “If a Man Die, Shall He Live Again?”
Job xiv. 14. A Brief History and Examination of Modern Spiritualism.
London: Grant Richards.
COLLINS, H. (1983, June 30). Magicians in the laboratory: A new role
to play. New Scientist, 98, 929-931.
COLLINS, H. (1988, October 21). Undiluted action. Times Higher Education
Supplement, p. 13.
CONTENTS. (1975, November). New Humanist, 91.
COON, D. J. (in press). Testing the limits of sense and science: American
experimental psychologists combat spiritualism, 1880-1920. American
Psychologist.
CORNELL, J. (1984). Science vs. the paranormal. Psychology Today,
18(3), 28-34.
Corrections to last Laser. (1986, August-October). Laser [Los
Angeles Skeptics Evaluative Report], 2, 13.
COULMAN, M. U. (1985). Where are the women? Basis [Bay Area Skeptics
Information Sheet], 4(3), 3.
CRICHTON, M. (1988). Travels. New York: Knopf.
CSICOP AWARDS. (1986). Skeptical Inquirer, 11, 14.
CSICOP STATEMENT ON INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR NON-CREDIT COURSES.
(1987, December). Skeptical Briefs, 3, 1.
CSU SELLS PSEUDOSCIENCE: PART 2. (1988a, July/August). Rocky Mountain
Skeptic, 6, 3.
CSU SELLS PSEUDOSCIENCE-AS PSEUDOPHILOSOPHY: (THIS TIME IT’S FOR 3 CREDIT
HOURS). (1988b, September/October). Rocky Mountain Skeptic, 6,
9.
DAVENAS, E., BEAUVAIS, F., AMARA, J., OBERBAUM, M., ROBINZON, B., MIADONNA,
A., TEDESCHI, A., POMERANZ, B., FORTNER, P., BELON, P., SAINTE-LAUDY, J.,
POITEVIN, B., & BENVENISTE, J. (1988). Human basophil degranulation
triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE. Nature, 333,
816-818.
D[ENNETT], M. (1985a, May). Media & skeptics. Northwest Skeptic,
No. 7, 1-2.
D[ENNETT], M. (1985b, August). Skeptics on T.V. Northwest Skeptic,
No. 8, 1.
D[ENNETT], M. (1985-1986, December 85/January 86). Astrology on campus:
News of what is happening in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Skeptic,
No. 9, 1.
|
54 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
DUTCH, S. (1986). Four decades of fringe literature. Skeptical Inquirer,
10,
342-351.
EISENBUD, J. (1946). Telepathy and problems of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 15, 32-87.
ELLIS, A. (1988). Is religiosity pathological? Free Inquiry.
8(2), 27-32.
ELSEWHERE IN PHILLY. (1985, August). ASTOP, the Press! [Newsletter
of the Austin Society to Oppose Pseudoscience], 1, p. [4].
FERGUSON, M. (1980). The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social
Transformation in the 1980s. Los Angeles, CA: J. P. Tarcher.
FLEW, A. (1953). A New Approach to Psychical Research. London:
Watts.
FLYNN, T. (1986/87). Secular humanist center founded. Free Inquiry,
7(1), 9.
FLYNN, T. (1990). Center for Inquiry debuts on electronic media. Skeptical
Inquirer, 15, 35.
F[RAZIER], K. (1982). CSICOP briefs. Skeptical Inquirer, 7(1),
14-15.
FRAZIER, K. (1984). From psychics and ESP beliefs to UFOs and quacks:
Highlights of CSICOP’s first international conference. Skeptical Inquirer,
8,
194-202.
FRAZIER, K. (1985). CSICOP’s call for a disclaimer on newspaper astrology
columns. Skeptical Inquirer, 9, 194-196.
FRAZIER, K. (1986). The path ahead: Opportunities, challenges, and an
expanded view. Skeptical Inquirer, 11, 2-6.
F[RAZIER], K. (1989a). Conference for journalists focuses on pseudo-science.
Skeptical
Inquirer, 13, 123-124.
F[RAZIER], K. (1989b). CSICOP wins Hawaii court case. Skeptical Inquirer,
13,
114-115.
FRAZIER, K. (1990a). Astrology disclaimer now in 33 newspapers. Skeptical
Inquirer, 15, 21-22.
FRAZIER, K. (1990b). From the editor: New directions, awesome science,
and critical inquiry. Skeptical Inquirer, 14, 114-116.
FULLER, C. (1979). Randi rides again. Fate, 32(7), 37-44.
GARDNER, M. (1952). In the Name of Science. New York: Putnam’s.
GARDNER, M. (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.
New York: Dover.
GARDNER, M. (1981). Science: Good, Bad and Bogus. Buffalo, NY:
Prometheus Books.
GARDNER, M. (1983a). Order and Surprise. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus
Books.
GARDNER, M. (1983b). The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener. New
York: William Morrow.
GARDNER, M. (1991). Notes of a fringe-watcher: Cal Thomas, the big bang,
and Forrest Mims. Skeptical Inquirer, 15, 355-358.
GELLER FILES $13.5 MILLION LAW SUIT AGAINST RANDI. (1989, Fall). New
York Skeptic, 2, 9, 12.
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
55
GORDON, H. (1987). ExtraSensory Deception: ESP, Psychics, Shirley
MacLaine, Ghosts, UFOs . . . Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
GREELEY, A. M. (1975). The Sociology of the Paranormal: A Reconnaissance.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
GREELEY, A. (1987, January/February). Mysticism goes mainstream. American
Health, 6, 47-49.
GREENE, B. (1986, August 20). Even a genius has a few bad days. Chicago
Tribune, Sec. 5, p. 1.
GROTH, G. [M. GARDNER]. (1952, October). He writes with your hand. Fate,
5,
39-43.
GUARINO, V. (1986, September 14). Psychic wins suit against detractor.
Mail
Tribune (Medford, OR), p. 3A.
HANSEL, C. E. M. (1966). ESP: A Scientific Evaluation. New York:
Scribner’s.
HANSEN, G. P. (1990a). Magicians who endorsed psychic phenomena. Linking
Ring, 70(8), 52-54.
HANSEN, G. P. (1990b). Magicians who endorsed psychic phenomena. Linking
Ring, 70(9), 63-65, 109.
HANSEN, G. P. (1991). The elusive agenda: Dissuading as debunking in
Ray Hyman’s The Elusive Quarry. Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research, 85, 193-203.
HANSEN, G. P. (in press). Magicians on the paranormal: An essay with
a review of three books. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research.
HARALDSSON, E., & HOUTKOOPER, J. M. (1991). Psychic experiences
in the multinational human values study: Who reports them? Journal of
the American Society for Psychical Research, 85, 145-165.
HARWOOD, W. R. (1986). Yahweh: A morally retarded god. Free Inquiry,
6(4), 59.
HAST DINNER MEETING. (1987, April). Stoplight [Newsletter of
the Houston Association for Scientific Thinking], p. [1].
HASTINGS, A. (1991). With the Tongues of Men and Angels: A Study
of Channeling. Forth Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
HILL, J. (1986, March/May). Creation/evolution: Creation celebration
’86. Rocky Mountain Skeptic, 4, 3-4.
HOFSTADTER, D. R. (1982, February). Metamagical themas: About two kinds
of inquiry: “National Enquirer” and “The Skeptical Inquirer.”
Scientific
American, 246, 18-26.
HOLDEN, C. (1986). Amazing Randi one of 25 MacArthur genius winners.
Science,
233,
517.
HUGHES, K. A. (1987, April 1). For personal insights, some try channels
out of this world: Communicating with spirits is becoming a new rage for
new age philosophers. Wall Street Journal, pp. 1, 23.
HUMANIST MANIFESTO II. (1973). Humanist, 33(5), 4-9.
HYMAN, R. (1984-1985). Outracing the evidence: The muddled “mind
|
56 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
race.” Review of The Mind Race by R. Targ and K. Harary. Skeptical
Inquirer, 9, 125-145.
HYMAN, R. (1985). Paranormal, unbelief in the. In G. Stein (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of Unbelief (pp. 504-510). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
HYMAN, R. (1987, May). Proper criticism. Skeptical Briefs, 3,
4-5.
INGLIS, N. L. (1988a, Fall). CSICOP and SI at the Humanist World
Congress. National Capital Area Skeptical Eye, 2, 5.
INGLIS, N. L. (1988b, Fall). Randi on the offensive at the humanist
congress. National Capital Area Skeptical Eye, 2, 1, 5.
IRWIN, H. J. (1989). On paranormal disbelief: The psychology of the
sceptic. In G. K. Zollschan, J. F. Schumaker, & G. F. Walsh (Eds.),
Exploring
the Paranormal: Perspectives on Belief and Experience (pp. 305-312).
Bridport, Dorset, England: Prism Press.
Is SHIRLEY MACLAINE A VICTIM OF FRAUD? (1987, January/February). NCAHF
Newsletter, 10, 1.
JAHN, R. G. (1982). The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An
engineering perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE, 70, 136-170.
JAROFF, L. (1988, June 13). Profile: Fighting against flimflam: James
Randi uses his skill as a professional magician to expose psychics, astrologers,
spiritualists, channelers, faith healers and a host of mystics and charlatans.
Time,
131,
70-72.
KARR, B. (1989). New age wanderings. Review of Travels by Michael
Crichton. Skeptical Inquirer, 13, 189-191.
KARR, B. (1991, February). CSICOP clairifies [sic] new ventures.
Skeptical
Briefs (New Series), 1, 12.
KELLER, E., & KELLER, M-L. (1969). Miracles in Dispute: A Continuing
Debate (M. Kohl, Trans.). Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. (Original
work published 1968)
KRESKIN. (1973). The Amazing World of Kreskin. New York: Random
House.
KRIPPNER, S. (1977). Editorial. Psychoenergetic Systems, 2,
5-11.
KURTZ, P. (1975). Astrology and gullibility. Humanist, 35(6),
20.
KURTZ, P. (1976a). The aims of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation
of Claims of the Paranormal. Zetetic, 1(1), 6-7.
KURTZ, P. (1976b). Committee to scientifically investigate claims of
paranormal and other phenomena. Humanist, 36(3), 28.
KURTZ, P. (1977a). Committee files formal FCC complaint against NBC.
Zetetic:
Skeptical Inquirer, 2(1), 15.
KURTZ, P. (1977b). The psychology of belief. Humanist, 37(3),
42-43.
KURTZ, P. (1978a). From the chairman. Skeptical Inquirer, 2(2),
130-132.
KURTZ, P. (1978b). The Humanist’s crusade against parapsychology:
A discussion. Part One. On the art of quoting out of context: A response
to the Rockwells’ critique. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 72, 349-357.
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
57
KURTZ, P. (1978c). Media messiahs, psychic saviors, and space gurus.
Humanist,
38(1), 4-5.
KURTZ, P. (1978d). News of the committee. Skeptical Inquirer,
3(1), 3-4.
KURTZ, P. (1979a). Committee meets in Washington. Skeptical Inquirer,
3(3), 15.
KURTZ, P. (1979b). CSICP appeals ruling of FCC. Skeptical Inquirer,
4(1), 2-4.
KURTZ, P. (1985a, Autumn). Controversy: Paul Kurtz on sceptic baiting.
New
Humanist, 100, 39-40.
KURTZ, P. (1985b). Exuberance: An Affirmative Philosophy of Life.
Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1977)
KURTZ, P. (1985c). The responsibilities of the media and paranormal
claims. Skeptical Inquirer, 9, 357-362.
KURTZ, P. (1986). The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion
and the Paranormal. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
LAMONT, C. (1932). Issues of Immortality: A Study in Implications.
New York: Henry Holt.
LAMONT, C. (1935). The Illusion of Immortality. New York: Putnam’s.
LASAGNA, L. (1984). Let magic cast its spell. The Sciences, 24(3),
10-12.
LEDERER, R. J., & SINGER, B. (1983). Pseudoscience in the name of
the university: What should be done about extension courses that use the
university’s prestige to promote pseudoscience? Skeptical Inquirer,
7(3), 57-62.
LEONHARD, A., & BUTLER, K. (1986, December 30). Summary of activities
and accomplishments. Hawaii Skeptics Action Letter, pp. 1-6.
LESHAN, L. (1966). Some psychological hypotheses on the non-acceptance
of parapsychology as a science. International Journal of Parapsychology,
8,
367-385.
LEVINE, A., KYLE, C., & DWORKIN, P. (1987, February 9). Mystics
on main street: While skeptics cast doubts, psychics count dollars. U.S.
News & World Report, 102, 67-69.
LEWIN, L. (1979). Science and the Paranormal. Tunbridge Wells,
Kent, England: Institute for Cultural Research.
LEWIS, J. R. (1989). The New Age Movement: A Bibliography of Conservative
Christian Literature (Santa Barbara Centre Occasional Paper #2). Santa
Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Centre for Humanistic Studies.
LINDSEY, R. (1986, September 29). Spiritual concepts drawing a different
breed of adherent. New York Times, pp. Al, B12.
LOCHER, F. C. (Ed.). (1978). Gardner, Martin 1914-. Contemporary
Authors Volumes 73-76 (p. 226). Detroit, MI: Gale Research Company.
[LUNN, A., & HALDANE, J. B. S.]. (1935). Science and the Supernatural:
A Correspondence Between Arnold Lunn and J. B. S. Haldane. New York:
Sheed & Ward.
MADACHY, J. S. (1990). Martin Gardner-A 75th birthday dedication. Journal
of Recreational Mathematics, 22(1), 1.
|
58 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
MAGIC, MYSTERIES AND MIRTH FROM ACE AND THE CORE-MEN. (1987, March).
Psienlific
American [Newsletter of Sacramento Skeptics Society], p. 1.
MANN, W. (1919). The Follies and Frauds of Spiritualism. London:
Watts.
Manual for Local, Regional and National Groups (1st ed.). (1987,
January). Buffalo, NY: Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims
of the Paranormal.
MARCUS, A. D. (1991, June 6). Their lawyers will all attempt to select
jurors of a special bent. Wall Street Journal, p. Bl.
M[ARTIN], J. R. (1973). Worldwide press response to Humanist Manifesto
II. Humanist, 33(6), 4.
MATRIX, I. J. [M. GARDNER]. (1979). Martin Gardner: Defending the honor
of the human mind. Two-Year College Mathematics Journal, 10,
227-232.
MAUSKOPF, S. H., & MCVAUGH, M. R. (1980). The Elusive Science:
Origins of Experimental Psychical Research. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
MAYHEW, J. (1985-1986, December 85/January 86). Ejected from the psychic
fair. Northwest Skeptic, No. 9, 10-11.
MCBEATH, M. K., & THALBOURNE, M. A. (1985). Type A personality and
its relationship to belief in psi. Paper presented at the Southeastern
Regional Parapsychological Association Conference, February, 15, 16, Durham,
NC.
MCCABE, J. (1914). The Religion of Sir Oliver Lodge. London:
Watts.
MCCABE, J. [1920a]. Is Spiritualism Based on Fraud? The Evidence
Given by Sir A. C. Doyle and Others Drastically Examined. London: Watts.
MCCABE, J. (1920b). Spiritualism: A Popular History From 1847.
New York: Dodd, Mead.
MCCLENON, J. (1984). Deviant Science: The Case of Parapsychology.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
MCCLENON, J., & HYMAN, R. (1987). A remote viewing experiment conducted
by a skeptic and a believer. Zetetic Scholar, Nos. 12 & 13,
21-33.
MCCONNELL, R. A. (1987). Parapsychology in Retrospect: My Search
for the Unicorn. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
MCFADDEN, D. (1981). Austinites for Scientific Evaluation of Paranormal
Claims. Minutes of Second Meeting-11/22/81. Austin, TX.
MCFADDEN, D. (1982). Austin Society To Oppose Pseudoscience (STOP).
Minutes of Fourth Meeting 2/28/82. Austin, TX.
MCFADDEN, D. (1983). Austin Society to Oppose Pseudoscience (ASTOP).
Minutes of the 24th Meeting (10/16/83). Austin, TX.
MELTON, J. G., CLARK, J., & KELLY, A. A. (1990). New Age Encyclopedia.
Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
MEMBERS ELECT FIRST BOARD: PANEL ON MODELS A LIVELY SUCCESS.
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
59
(1988, November 1). The Beacon [Newsletter of the East Bay Skeptics,
Berkeley, CA], 1, 1.
MEMBERSHIP. (1986, April). South Shore Skeptic (Cleveland, OH),
3, 2.
MERCIER, C. A. [1917]. Spiritualism and Sir Oliver Lodge, London:
Watts.
MEYER, P. (1986, March/April). Ghostboosters: The press and the paranormal.
Columbia
Journalism Review, 28, 38-41.
MITCHELL, D. (1986, February-April). First annual skeptic banquet an
unqualified success. Laser [Los Angeles Skeptics Evaluative Report],
2,
3-4.
MORITZ, C. (Ed.). (1988). Randi, James. Current Biography Yearbook
1987 (pp. 454-458). New York: H. W. Wilson.
MORRIS, S. (1982, January). Interview: Martin Gardner. Omni,
4, 66-69, 80-86.
MOSELEY, J. W. (1965a, March). More lectures sponsored by Saucer News.
Saucer
News, 12, 19.
MOSELEY, J. W. (1965b, June). Report on our trip to Ecuador. Saucer
News, 12, 20, 21.
MOSELEY, J. W. (1991a, May 1). Saucer Smear, 38, 1, 2,
5-7.
MOSELEY, J. W. (1991b, October 10). The lawsuits against James Randi
(part one). Saucer Smear, 38, 1-3.
MURCHISON, C. (Ed.). (1927). The Case For and Against Psychical Belief.
Worcester, MA: Clark University.
NEW ASSOCIATION TO STUDY ESP. (1975). Parapsychology Review,
6(4), 8.
NEW HUMANIST READERSHIP SURVEY: SATISFIED BUT AGED READERSHIP. (1990,
May). New Humanist, 105, 17-20.
NICOLSON, C. (1974, November 5). Randi-The Houdini who didn’t. Toronto
Sun (Final Edition), p. 3.
NORTH, G. (1988). Unholy Spirits: Occultism and New Age Humanism.
Forth Worth, TX: Dominion Press.
OBJECTIONS TO ASTROLOGY: A STATEMENT BY 186 LEADING SCIENTISTS. (1975).
Humanist,
35(5), 4-6.
O’CONNOR, P. (1985, June-July-August). Nuts and bolts: Minutes of June
16 meeting. South Shore Skeptic (Cleveland, OH), 2, 4-5.
OTTEN, A. L. (1985, July 19). People will believe anything, which is
why Csicops exist. Wall Street Journal, pp. 1, 18.
PALMER, J. A., HONORTON, C., & UTTS, J. (1989). Reply to the National
Research Council study on parapsychology. Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research, 83, 31-49.
PATTISON, K. (1991, May 31). Key West’s Indiana Jones? Jim Moseley robbed/collected
pre-Columbian artifacts. Key West Citizen, pp. 1, 12.
PINCH, T. J., & COLLINS, H. M. (1984). Private science and public
knowledge: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the [sic]
Claims of the Paranormal and its use of the literature. Social Studies
of Science,
14, 521-546.
|
60 Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research
PLUMMER, M. (1989). CSICOP, groups, and spokespersons. Skeptical
Inquirer, 13, 120-121.
POLICY ON SPONSORING RESEARCH, TESTING INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS, AND CONDUCTING
INVESTIGATIONS OF ALLEGED PARANORMAL POWERS AND PHENOMENA. (1982). Skeptical
Inquirer, 6(3), 9.
POSNER, G. P. (1978). Faulty sense of reality. Skeptical Inquirer,
3(2), 79.
PRATT, J. G., RHINE, J. B., SMITH, B. M., STUART, C. E., & GREENWOOD,
J. A. (1940). Extra-Sensory Perception After Sixty Years: A Critical
Appraisal of the Research in Extra-Sensory Perception. New York: Henry
Holt.
PRATT-LOWE, E. L. (1985). “Where are the women”-Reprise. Basis
[Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet], 4(9), 7.
PRINCE, W. F. (1930). The Enchanted Boundary: Being a Survey of Negative
Reactions to Claims of Psychic Phenomena 1820-1930. Boston, MA: Boston
Society for Psychic Research.
“PROFESSIONAL CHARLATAN” HITS CLEVELAND. (1985, May). South Shore
Skeptic (Cleveland, OH), 2, 1.
PSYCHICS AND SKEPTICS AT WILEY MIDDLE SCHOOL. (1985, October). South
Shore Skeptic (Cleveland, OH), 2, 1-2.
PUTHOFF, H. E., & TARG, R. (1977). Letter to the editor. Psychoenergetic
Systems, 2, 173-176.
RADIN, D. I., & NELSON, R. D. (1989). Evidence for conscious-related
anomalies in random physical systems. Foundations of Physics, 19,
1499-1514.
RANDI, J. (1980). Flim-Flam! The Truth About Unicorns, Parapsychology,
and Other Delusions. New York: Lippincott & Crowell.
RANDI, J. (1982). The Truth About Uri Geller (rev. ed.). Buffalo,
NY: Prometheus Books.
RANDI, J. (1983a). The Project Alpha experiment: Part 1. The first two
years. Skeptical Inquirer, 7(4), 24-33.
RANDI, J. (1983b). The Project Alpha experiment: Part 2. Beyond the
laboratory. Skeptical Inquirer, 8(1), 36-45.
RANDI, J. (1990a). The Clamart controversy. Skeptical Inquirer,
14, 218.
RANDI, J. (1990b). The Mask of Nostradamus. New York: Scribner’s.
RANDI, J. (1991, May 13). Randi needs help: Open letter from James Randi
[dated May 11, 1991]. Local-Group Bulletin, pp. 1-2.
RAO, K. R. (1984). Review of Test Your ESP Potential: A Complete
Kit with Instructions, Scorecards and Apparatus by J. Randi. Journal
of Parapsychology, 48, 356-358.
RAO, K. R., & PALMER, J. (1987). The anomaly called psi: Recent
research and criticism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10,
539-551.
RAWLINS, D. (1977). What they aren’t telling you: Suppressed secrets
of the psychic world, astrological universe, and Jeane Dixon. Zetetic:
Skeptical Inquirer, 2(1), 62-83.
RAWLINS, D. (1981). sTARBABY. Fate, 34(10), 67-98.
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
61
RENNIE, J. (1991, September). Psychic vs. skeptic: A spoonbender sues
his arch critic for libel. Scientific American, 265, 39-40.
RENSBERGER, B. (1975, September 3). Scientists scan astrology, find
a universe of hokum. New York Times, pp. 1, 62.
RENSBERGER, B. (1977, August 10). Panel fears vogue for the paranormal:
Scientists say belief in astrology and parapsychology may bring a society
of “unreason.” New York Times, p. All.
RENSBERGER, B. (1978, June 25). Skeptics are scored on paranormal issue:
Scholar tells scientists that occult and U.F.O. phenomena merit legitimate
inquiry. New York Times, p. 21.
RICKARDS, R. (1986, October). You’re on the air!! South Shore Skeptic
(Cleveland, Ohio). 3, [2-3].
RINN, J. F. (1950). Sixty Years of Psychical Research: Houdini and
I Among the Spiritualists. New York: Truth Seeker.
ROBERTSON, M. (1984). The skeptics who debunk pseudo-science. In M.
McCarthy (Ed.), The Best of Basis 1982-1983 (p. 77). Martinez, CA:
Bay Area Skeptics.
ROCKWELL, T., ROCKWELL, R., & ROCKWELL, W. T. (1978a). The Humanist's
crusade against parapsychology: A discussion. Part Two. Context vs. meaning:
A reply to Dr. Kurtz. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 72, 357-364.
ROCKWELL, T., ROCKWELL, R., & ROCKWELL, W. T. (1978b). Irrational
rationalists: A critique of The Humanist's crusade against parapsychology.
Journal
of the American Society for Psychical Research, 72, 23-34.
RUCKER, R. (1981, July/August). Who makes math marvelous, turns magic
satin smooth, tends the looking-glass garden, and can make a winner of
anyone who plays his games? Science 81, 2, 32-37.
SAGAN, C. (1987, February 1). The fine art of baloney detection: How
not to be fooled. Parade Magazine, pp. 12-13.
SANDBECK, T. (1987, January). The core committee, who and why, they
are. Psientific American [Newsletter of the Sacramento Skeptics
Society], pp. 6-7.
SANDHU, R. (1990). CSICOP’s campus lecture series. Skeptical Inquirer,
15, 28-29.
SCHEIBER, B. (1986, June-August). Dr. J. Allen Hynek (1910-1986). Rocky
Mountain Skeptic, 4, 2.
SCHULTZ, T. (1986, Fall). Scrutinizing the paranormal: Access to skeptical
books and magazines. Whole Earth Review, No. 52, 15-17.
SCHUMAKER, J. F. (1990). Wings of Illusion: The Origin, Nature and
Future of Paranormal Belief. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
SCIENCE AND THE PARANORMAL: RATIONALIST PRESS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE
1975. (1975, June). New Humanist, 91, between pages 34 &
35. [Announcement of conference]
SCIENCE’S LITMUS TEST. (1991, March). Harper's Magazine, 282,
28-32.
|
62 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
SCIENTISTS FORM NEW COMMITTEE TO STUDY RELIGION. (1985). Free Inquiry,
5(3), 8.
SCS becomes affiliated with the AAAS. (1986, March-July). Laser
[Los Angeles Skeptics Evaluative Report], 2, 3.
SEBALD, H. (1984). New-age romanticism: The quest for an alternative
lifestyle as a force of social change. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations,
77(2), 106-127.
SECKEL, A. (1986-1987). Science, creationism, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Skeptical
Inquirer, 11, 147-158.
SHNEOUR, E. A. (1989). The Benveniste case: A reappraisal. Skeptical
Inquirer, 14, 91-95.
SHORE, L. A. (1989). CSICOP conference in Chicago: New light on the
New Age: CSICOP’s Chicago conference was the first to critically evaluate
the New Age movement. Skeptical Inquirer, 13, 226-240.
SHORE, L. A. (1990). 1990 CSICOP conference in Washington: Skepticism
in the light of scientific literacy. Skeptical Inquirer, 15, 3-15.
SINGER, B. (1982/83). My ordeal at Long Beach. Free Inquiry,
3(1), 6-10.
SPECIAL NOTE. (1988, April). Psientific American [Newsletter
of the Sacramento Skeptics Society], p. 1.
STALKER, D., & GLYMOUR, C. (Eds.). (1985). Examining Holistic
Medicine. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
STEIN, G. (Ed.). (1985). The Encyclopedia of Unbelief (2 vols.).
Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
STEINER, R. A. (1982). No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. American
Atheist, 24(12), 25-28.
STILLINGS, D. (1989). “Mistah Kurtz-he dead.” Review of Exuberance:
An Affirmative Philosophy of Life by P. Kurtz. Artifex, 8(4),
38.
STOKES, D. M. (1987). Promethean fire: The view from the other side.
Journal
of Parapsychology, 51, 249-270.
SULLIVAN, M. (1991, August). CSICOP eyes Dallas for 1992 convention:
Special to The Skeptic. The Skeptic [Newsletter of the North Texas
Skeptics], 5, 1.
SWORDS, M. D. (1986). The 1986 CSICOP conference. Pursuit, 19,
84-87.
SWORDS, M. D. (1990). Using the study of anomalies to enhance critical
thinking in the classroom. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4(2),
123-136.
TARG, R., & PUTHOFF, H. E. (1977). Mind-Reach: Scientists Look
at Psychic Ability. New York: Delacorte Press/Eleanor Friede.
TART, C. T. (1982a). The controversy about psi: Two psychological theories.
Journal
of Parapsychology, 46, 313-320.
TART, C. (1982b, September). Unlucky winner. Omni, 4, 119.
TRUZZI, M. (1983, June 16). Reflections on conjuring and psychical research.
Unpublished manuscript.
|
CSICOP and the Skeptics
63
TRUZZI, M. (1987). Reflections on “Project Alpha”: Scientific experiment
or conjuror’s illusion? Zetetic Scholar, Nos. 12 & 13, 73-98.
TURNER SORRY FOR ‘LOSERS’ REMARK. (1990, June 14). Times [Trenton,
NJ]. p. E2.
VALLEE, J. (1990). Confrontations: A Scientist’s Search for Alien
Contact. New York: Ballantine Books.
Verbatim Report of a Public Debate on “The Truth Of Spiritualism”
Between Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, M.D., LL.D. (Representing Spiritualism),
and Joseph McCabe (Representing the Rationalist Press Association).
(1920). London: Watts.
WADE, N. (1977a). A pyrrhonian sledgehammer. Science, 197,
646.
WADE, N. (1977b). Schism among psychic-watchers. Science, 197,
1344.
WALLACE, A. F. C. (1956). Revitalization movements. American Anthropologist,
58, 264-281.
WALLIS, R. (1985, Summer). The origins of CSICOP. New Humanist, 100,
14-15.
WATERS, T. A. (1988). The Encyclopedia of Magic and Magicians.
New York: Facts On File.
WE HEAR THAT: APS PRESENTS A HOST OF AWARDS AT SPRING MEETING IN BALTIMORE.
(1989). Physics Today, 42(6), 95-98.
WEISBURD, S. (1991, August 12). What’s beyond belief? Magazine puts
startling claims, tabloid hype under close scrutiny. Los Angeles Times,
p. B3.
WHALEY, B. (1990). Who’s Who in Magic: An International Biographical
Guide From Past to Present (Standard Edition). Oakland, CA: Jeff Busby
Magic.
WHITE, J. (1979). Second thoughts: The new disciples of scientism. Human
Behavior, 8(2), 70, 73.
Who’s Who In America. (1990). 46th Edition, 1990-91. Wilmette,
IL: Marquis Who’s Who.
WHYTE, A. G. (1920). The Great Ghost Illusion. London: Watts.
WIATER, S. (1988, June). Truth’s bodyguard. Twilight Zone Magazine,
8, 32-35, 45.
WILDER, J. S. (1988, March/April). Letter to the editor. Rocky Mountain
Skeptic, 5, 8.
WILSON, R. A. (1986). The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism
and the Citadel of Science. Phoenix, AZ: Falcon.
WINKELMAN, M. (1982). Magic: A theoretical reassessment. Current
Anthropology, 23, 37-44.
WREN-LEWIS, J. (1974). Resistance to the study of the paranormal. Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 14(2), 41-48.
Princeton Arms North 1
Apartment 59
Cranbury, New Jersey 08512
|
|
|