**************************************************************** The REALL News **************************************************************** The official newsletter of the Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land Volume 1, Number 2 March 1993 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Version If you like what you see, please help us continue by sending in a subscription. See the end of newsletter for details. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In This Issue: From the Editor -- Wally Hartshorn From the Chairman -- David Bloomberg Proper Criticism -- Ray Hyman REALLity Check -- David Bloomberg ---------------------------------------------------------------- Purpose: The Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land (REALL) is a non-profit educational and scientific organization. It is dedicated to the development of rational thinking and the application of the scientific method toward claims of the paranormal and fringe- science phenomena. REALL shall conduct research, convene meetings, publish a newsletter, and disseminate information to its members and the general public. Its primary geographic region of coverage is central Illinois. REALL subscribes to the premise that the scientific method is the most reliable and self-correcting system for obtaining knowledge about the world and universe. REALL not not reject paranormal claims on a priori grounds, but rather is committed to objective, though critical, inquiry. _The REALL News_ is its official newsletter. Membership information is provided elsewhere in this newsletter. Editor: Wally Hartshorn Editorial Board and Organizing Committee: David Bloomberg (Chairman), Wally Hartshorn, Bob Ladendorf. REALL P.O. Box 20302 Springfield, IL 62708 Unless stated otherwise, permission is granted to other skeptic organizations to reprint articles from _The REALL News_ as long as proper credit is given. The views expressed in these articles are the views of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of REALL. ---------------------------------------------------------------- From The Editor -- Wally Hartshorn Welcome to the second issue of The REALL News! This issue is eight pages, which is what the length of future issues will be. The first issue was twelve pages, so that we could include all of the information that we needed to represent the type of articles we will be running in the future. Unfortunately, we can't afford to run newsletters that long on a regular basis. However, we hope to make these eight pages worth reading each month. Our feature article this month is "Proper Criticism," by Ray Hyman, a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and a member of its Executive Council. This article first appeared in the May 1987 issue of Skeptical Briefs. I believe it is a very important article that all skeptics should read. It was sent to us by Barry Karr, Executive Director of CSICOP. (In his letter, Mr. Karr also complimented us on our first issue of The REALL News.) Our thanks to Ray Hyman for writing this article and to Barry Karr for sending it to us. This issue also contains a rather extensive REALLity Check column. Two major pro-paranormal items attracted David's attention. One was a cover article in the Chicago Tribune Magazine about "alternative medicine." The other was a prime time CBS show about the "discovery" of Noah's Ark. David's article on page 5 discusses these and other items. In addition to those two articles, we have some scattered bits and pieces I would like to point out. One is a list of organizations of interest to skeptics. Most of you are probably familiar with CSICOP, the people who make The Skeptical Inquirer. Less well known is the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). The article about the struggle to get evolution taught in Illinois public schools, which we ran in the February issue, first appeared in the NCSE newsletter. Lastly is the St. Louis Association for the Teaching of Evolution (SLATE). The director, Ranse Traxler, is the driving force behind this organization. If any of these organizations interest you, write to the addresses given on page 6 [near end of file for electronic readers]. Also on page 6 are the addresses for two legal defense funds that everyone is urged to support. As most of you probably know, a lawsuit has been filed against James "The Amazing" Randi and CSICOP. The last news I had heard was taht the suit against CSICOP had been dismissed. However, the case against Randi is still in court and the ruling on the suit against CSICOP has been appealed, so the legal costs continue to rise. If you can afford to do so, please consider donating to one or both of these funds. ============================== From the Chairman -- David Bloomberg Well, we made it to a second issue. Not that there was really any doubt, but we spent so much time working on the first issue and getting ready for the first meeting that this issue kind of snuck up on me. Before going any further, I'd like to let you know that our next meeting will be March 15 at Sangamon State University, PAC Building, Room E (first floor). We intend to hold meetings regularly on the third Monday of every month, except for special situations, and we hope to keep this same room. As of this writing, we don't have a speaker scheduled, but I promise we'll have something interesting for you! But speaking of special situations, it looks like we'll have one already in April. The fourth Monday of April, the 26th, Detective Bruce Walstad will be in Springfield and will address REALL. Full details will appear in next month's issue. Our first meeting, for those of you who couldn't make it, went pretty well. We had 11 interested people, some of whom came from as far away as Champaign and Metamora! Considering the state of the weather, I think we had a good turnout, and we've also been contacted by at least that many more people by mail. I'd like to give a special thanks to our first Patron Member (besides those of us on the Organizing Committee), Alan J. Burge, D.D.S., of Pekin! At the meeting, we took care of some organizational details, such as voting on and ratifying a Constitution. We also took some time to get to know each other and discuss various examples of irrationality to which we have all been exposed. I then presented some information on the Carp, Canada, UFO stories that have been circulating on various TV shows (some of the information I presented will appear in our next issue). So, we're off to a good start, and I think we have definitely seen enough interest to get us off the ground. We will be holding elections within the next 2-3 months, after everybody has a chance to get to know each other. I will keep you informed of the exact date via this column. Until then, I hope to see you at the next meeting! ============================== Proper Criticism by Ray Hyman Since the founding of CSICOP in 1976, and with the growing number of localized skeptical groups, the skeptic finds more ways to state his or her case. The broadcast and print media, along with other forums, provide more opportunities for us to be heard. For some of these occasions, we have the luxury of carefully planning and crafting our response, but most of the time we have to formulate our response on the spot. Regardless of the circumstance, the critic's task, if it is to be carried out properly, is both challenging and loaded with unanticipated hazards. Many well-intentioned critics have jumped into the fray without carefully thinking through the various implications of their statements. They have sometimes displayed more emotion than logic, made sweeping charges beyond what they reasonably support, failed to adequately document their assertions, and, in general, have failed to do the homework necessary to make their challenges credible. Such ill-considered criticism can be counter-productive for the cause of serious skepticism. The author of such criticism may fail to achieve the desired effect, may lose credibility, and may even become vulnerable to lawsuits. However, the unfavorable effects have consequences beyond the individual critic, and the entire cause of skepticism suffers as a result. Even when the individual critic takes pains to assert that he or she is expressing his or her own personal opinion, the public associates the assertions with all critics. During CSICOP's first decade of existence, members of the Executive Council often found themselves devoting most of their available time to damage control - precipitated by the careless remarks of a fellow skeptic - instead of toward the common cause of explaining the skeptical agenda. Unfortunately, at this time, there are no courses on the proper way to criticize paranormal claims. So far as I know, no manuals or books of rules are currently available to guide us. Until such courses and guide books come into being, what can we do to ensure that our criticisms are both effective and responsible? I would be irresponsible if I told you I had an easy solution. The problem is complicated, and there are no quick fixes, but I do believe we all could improve our contributions to responsible criticism by keeping a few principles always in mind. We can make enormous improvements in our collective and individual efforts by simply trying to adhere to those standards that we profess to admire and that we believe that many peddlers of the paranormal violate. If we envision ourselves as the champions of rationality, science, and objectivity, then we ought to display these very same qualities in our criticism. Just by trying to speak and write in the spirit of precision, science, logic, and rationality - those attributes we supposedly admire - we would raise the quality of our critiques by at least one order of magnitude. The failure to consistently live up to these standards exposes us to a number of hazards. We can find ourselves going beyond the facts at hand. We may fail to communicate exactly what we intended. We can confuse the public as to what skeptics are trying to achieve. We can unwittingly put paranormal proponents in the position of underdogs and create sympathy for them, and, as I already mentioned, we can make the task much more difficult for the other skeptics. What, then, can skeptics do to upgrade the quality of their criticism? What follows are just a few suggestions. I hope they will stimulate further thought and discussion. 1. _Be prepared._ Good criticism is a skill that requires practice, work, and level-headedness. Your response to a sudden challenge is much more likely to be appropriate if you have already anticipated similar challenges. Try to prepare in advance effective and short answers to those questions you are most likely to be asked. Be ready to answer why skeptical activity is important, why people should listen to your views, why false beliefs can be harmful, and many similar questions that invariably are raised. A useful project would be to compile a list of the most frequently occurring questions along with possible answers. Whenever possible, try your ideas out on friends and "enemies" before offering them in the public arena. An effective exercise is to rehearse your arguments with fellow skeptics. Some of you can take the role of the psychic claimants, while others play the role of critics. Also, for more general preparation, read books on critical thinking, effective writing, and argumentation. 2. _Clarify your objectives._ Before you try to cope with a paranormal claim, ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish. Are you trying to release pent-up resentment? Are you trying to belittle your opponent? Are you trying to gain publicity for your viewpoint? Do you want to demonstrate that the claim lacks reasonable justification? Do you hope to educate the public about what constitutes adequate evidence? Often our objectives, upon examination, turn out to be mixed. Also, especially when we act impulsively, some of our objectives conflict with one another. The difference between short-term and long-term objectives can be especially important. Most skeptics, I believe, would agree that our long-term goal is to educate the public so that it can more effectively cope with various claims. Sometimes this long-range goal is sacrificed because of the desire to expose or debunk a current claim. Part of clarifying our objectives is to decide who our audience is. Hard-nosed, strident attacks on paranormal claims rarely change opinions, but they do stroke the egos of those who are already skeptics. Arguments that may persuade the readers of the National Enquirer may offend academics and important opinion-makers. Try to make it clear that you are attacking the claim and not the claimant. Avoid, at all costs, creating the impression that you are trying to interfere with someone's civil liberties. Do not try to get someone fired from his or her job. Do not try to have courses dropped or otherwise be put in the position of advocating censorship. Being for rationality and reason should not force us into the position of seeming to be against academic freedom and civil liberties. 3. _Do your homework._ Again, this goes hand in hand with the advice about being prepared. Whenever possible, you should not try to counter a specific paranormal claim without getting as many of the relevant facts as possible. Along the way, you should carefully document your sources. Do not depend upon a report in the media either for what is being claimed or for facts relevant to that claim. Try to get the specifics of the claim directly from the claimant. 4. _Do not go beyond your level of competence._ No one, especially in our times, can credibly claim to be an expert in all subjects. Whenever possible, you should consult appropriate experts. We, understandably, are highly critical of paranormal claimants who make assertions that are obviously beyond their competence. We should be just as demanding on ourselves. A critic's worst sin is to go beyond the facts and the available evidence. In this regard, always ask yourself if you really have something to say. Sometimes it is better to remain silent than to jump into an argument that involves aspects that are beyond your present competence. When it is appropriate, do not be afraid to say "I don't know." 5. _Let the facts speak for themselves._ If you have done your homework and have collected an adequate supply of facts, the audience rarely will need your help in reaching an appropriate conclusion. Indeed, your case is made stronger if the audience is allowed to draw its own conclusions from the facts. Say that Madame X claims to have psychically located Mrs. A's missing daughter and you have obtained a statement from the police to the effect that her contributions did not help. Under these circumstances, it can be counter-productive to assert that Madame X lied about her contribution, or that her claim was "fraudulent." For one thing, Madame X may sincerely, if mistakenly, believe that her contributions did in fact help. In addition, some listeners may be offended by the tone of your criticism and become sympathetic to Madame X. However, if you simply report what Madame X claimed, along with the response of the police, you not only are sticking to the facts, but your list eners will more likely come to the appropriate conclusion. 6. _Be precise._ Good criticism requires precision and care in the use of language. Because, in challenging psychic claims, we are appealing to objectivity and fairness, we have a special obligation to be as honest and accurate in our own statements as possible. We should take special pains to avoid making assertions about paranormal claims that cannot be backed up with hard evidence. We should be especially careful, in this regard, when being interviewed by the media. Every effort should be made to ensure that the media understand precisely what we are and are not saying. 7. _Use the principle of charity._ I know that many of my fellow critics will find this principle to be unpalatable. To some, paranormalists are the "enemy," and it seems inconsistent to lean over backward to give them the benefit of the doubt, but being charitable to paranormal claims is simply the other side of being honest and fair. The principle of charity implies that, whenever there is doubt or ambiguity about a paranormal claim, we should try to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the claimant until we acquire strong reasons for not doing so. In this respect, we should carefully distinguish between being wrong and being dishonest. We often challenge the accuracy or the validity of a given paranormal claim, but rarely are we in a position to know if the claimant is deliberately lying or is self-deceived. Furthermore, we often have a choice in how to interpret or represent an opponent's arguments. The principle tells us to convey the opponent's position in a fa ir, objective, and non-emotional manner. 8. _Avoid loaded words and sensationalism._ All these principles are interrelated. The ones previously stated imply that we should avoid using loaded and prejudicial words in our criticisms. We should also try to avoid sensationalism. If the proponents happen to resort to emotionally laden terms and sensationalism, we should avoid stooping to their level. We should not respond in kind. This is not a matter of simply turning the other cheek. We want to gain credibility for our cause. In the short run, emotional charges and sensationalistic challenges might garner quick publicity, but most of us see our mission as a long-term effort. We would like to persuade the media and the public that we have a serious and important message to get across, and we would like to earn their trust as a credible and reliable resource. Such a task requires always keeping in mind the scientific principles and standards of rationality and integrity that we would like to make universal. [Ray Hyman is a Fellow and member of the Executive Council of CSISCOP, and professor of psychology at the University of Oregon. This article first appeared in Skeptical Briefs, May, 1987.] ============================== REALLity Check by David Bloomberg Skeptics in the News Even before REALL's first meeting, we made the news. I would like to thank Doug Pokorski of the State Journal- Register for his story about REALL which appeared on the front page of the February 21 City/State section. As most of us know, skeptical issues usually aren't covered well in the media, so this article was doubly nice. While I'm thanking people, I'd also like to thank Don & Liz of the WYMG morning show for the plug they gave to us on the morning of the 22nd. Also in the news was Detective Bruce Walstad's appearance on CBS's 48 Hours program dealing with con games. The REALL News featured an article about a "paranormal fraud" by Detective Walstad last month, and plans to feature more of his work. On the program, he discussed a case of supposed psychics who ask those who consult them for more and more money (or in at least one case, dishes!) to alleviate curses, tell the future, etc. One woman spent $30,000 on getting curses removed! Hopefully, this program will stop some people from losing their money to cons, but it seems there is always somebody out there who will fall for even the oldest con game in the book. Medicine? On January 24, the Chicago Tribune Magazine had a cover feature dedicated to "Alternative Medicine." As reported in last month's "REALLity Check," NBC had done a good investigative report on homeopathy (no, there weren't any incendiary devices involved). It really is too bad that this magazine didn't pick up on that. Instead, they went through a whole laundry list of alternative practitioners and discussed how great each system is, without apparently having done a whit of scientific or investigative research into these methods. The patients who were interviewed seemed to ignore obvious links to their "better health." One said, "I lost 50 pounds... I quit smoking," and he felt better. Imagine that! So, rather than crediting these changes for his better health, he credits his naprapath. For those of us who don't know what naprapathy is, it is described as an offshoot of chiropractic, using muscle and ligament manipulation to "promote natural healing." A naprapath quoted in the story said, "we move energy in the body." What energy? Why doesn't science know anything about these strange energies? This story doesn't bother with such minor matters. Oh, by the way, the State of Illinois will start granting licenses to naprapaths in 1994. I wonder how they will determine who should be authorized to move these strange energies through people's bodies. Besides naprapathy, some of the alternatives covered in the story include acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal medicine, homeopathy, naturopathy, osteopathy, and reflexology. Several different practitioners were interviewed, along with some patients. Unfortunately, not a single skeptic or scientist was interviewed. Some of the practitioners seemed almost totally ignorant of the history of medicine. One woman (a former astrologer) who offers colonic irrigation, homeopathy, and reflexology said, "This is not alternative medicine as far as I'm concerned. This is original medicine, the stuff we used before drugs and surgery." Perhaps we should all listen to her, throw away all of the life-saving gifts that modern medicine has given to us, and go back to leeching and induced vomiting. All in all, this story made me ill. Also on the subject of alternative medicine, there was a brief article in the Chicago Tribune (Feb. 19, p. 4) which showed just how great herbal medicine can be. At least 53 Belgian women have suffered serious kidney disorders (including 19 total failures) after using some diet powder containing Chinese herbs. Isn't alternative medicine great? Noah's Farce Does CBS stand for "Creationist Broadcast Service"? I was forced to wonder this when I turned on "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark," a two-hour program alleging to be a "non-religious scientific investigation" of evidence for Noah's Ark (2/20, 8:00). Just the use of the word "scientific" in association with this production made me cringe. In support of their "theory" (and I really hate to call it that), they cited the Bible and used "experts" associated with Creationist causes, including Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, and Charles Berlitz, author of books on UFOs and the Bermuda Triangle. Part of the show even contained a recreation of the flood story as told in the Bible. That's supposed to be scientific? The total lack of scientific procedure was demonstrated by one of the first topics, "Why did God destroy the world in a catastrophic flood?" It is obvious that the producers were not, in fact, undertaking a scientific investigation, but rather had already made up their minds that the Bible is the source of all truth, and the facts should be made to fit their "theories." Other portions of the program told us about "geologists" who claimed that they had evidence for the flood, because they had unearthed fossilized fish who were "buried in terror". Maybe I'm missing something, but how can you tell that a fossil fish was in terror? The rest of the "scientific" evidence was of the same quality. Of course, they also trotted out the same tired photographs showing a rock formation that some people claim looks like a piece of a boat. And they had "eyewitness" testimony about people who have seen the ark. They know it's all true because one person passed a lie detector test. Well, that certainly convinces me. Of course, they glossed over the fact that the eyewitnesses and pictures often contradict each other as to the location of the ark, but why let silly little details get in the way of a good story? Far from being scientific and non-religious, this show was religious and unscientific, brought to us by the same people who want to force public schools to teach their religion in place of science. The fact that CBS showed this at all, let alone during prime time, certainly gives me cause to worry about just how we can trust that network to cover controversial issues like this in a neutral, scientific manner. I would like to thank Ranse Traxler, the southern Illinois liaison for the National Center for Science Education, and Director of the St. Louis Association for the Teaching of Evolution, who sent out a summary, including quotes from the show. He has asked me to encourage everybody to write to both your local CBS affiliate and the national organization to complain about this horrible show. Also, he would like everybody to encourage any scientific organizations to which you belong to also register their complaints. The address for the national offices of CBS is: CBS, 51 W. 52nd St., New York, NY 10019. Locally, for the Springfield and Champaign area, the address is: WCIA-WCFN, 109 S. Neil, Champaign, IL 61824-0020. If you would like to get in touch with Mr. Traxler, you can find his address below. Psychic Business Booming The Chicago Tribune (Chicagoland Section, 2/28) continues to spotlight psychics and pseudo-science rather than actually educating the public. This time it was a long article about how great business is for people who claim psychic powers. In and of itself, such an article on business practices isn't so bad. It's the little things, like the woman who claims her psychic is "99% correct," that get to be annoying when they are reported without any statements to the contrary, which would show that such a success rate has never been attained under controlled, scientific, conditions. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people who will see this article and see it as a reason shell out their money to hear a bunch of generalized guesses. I suppose it's their money to waste. But should a quality newspaper really be encouraging them? Send in your clippings! If you see something in the news that you want to share with our readers, by all means, send it in! Any comments that you might have are also welcome. ============================== Organizations of Interest to Skeptics Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) Box 703 Buffalo, NY 14226-0703 National Center for Science Education (NCSE) P.O. Box 9477 Berkely, CA 94709 (510) 843-3393 St. Louis Association for the Teaching of Evolution (SLATE) P.O. Box 462 O'Fallon, IL 62269-0462 ============================== Help Defend Skepticism Against Lawsuits Most of you are probably familiar with the lawsuits brought against James Randi and CSICOP. These lawsuits have a chilling effect on skeptic groups. The sooner they are settled, the better. Two funds have been established to accept contributions to help defend against these lawsuits. The James Randi Fund P.O. Box 659 El Cerrito, CA 94530 CSICOP Legal Defense Foundation Box 703 Buffalo, NY 14226 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Predictions for Future Issues Review of the UFO slide show presented in Springfield by Bill Knell of Island Skywatch Evolution Misconceptions Martin Kottmeyer on Flying Saucers Psychic Detectives Survey Results ---------------------------------------------------------------- Skeptics Online If you have a computer and a modem, you owe it to yourself to participate in the skeptic message areas on the computer BBS networks. Here in Springfield, call The Temples of Syrinx at (217) 787-9101. David Bloomberg operates this BBS, which carries the FidoNet SKEPTIC and UFO conferences, internationally distributed message areas for discussing topics of interest to skeptics. He is also carrying ParaNet conferences, all dedicated to UFO and paranormal topics. You can also find a wide variety of skeptic text files. The Temples of Syrinx -- (217) 787-9101 ---------------------------------------------------------------- MEMBERSHIP FORM Regular membership includes _The REALL News_ and all of the benefits of membership. A subscription to _The REALL News_, without membership, is available. Full-time students can join at the discounted rate. A patron membership includes all of the benefits of a regular membership, plus a listing in _The REALL News_ and our eternal gratitude (where "eternal" is defined as "one year"). Name: _________________________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________________ City, State, ZIP: _____________________________________________ Phone: ________________________________________________________ Interests: ____________________________________________________ ___ Regular Membership ($20/Year) ___ Student Membership ($15/Year) ___ Patron Membership ($50 or more/Year) ___ Subscription Only ($12/Year) ___ Trial or Gift Subscription ($3 for 3 issues) Bring to a meeting or mail to: REALL, P.O. Box 20302