πόσο true Sceptics είναι Randi et al;
Μια και πολλοί σε παλιότερες συζητήσεις θεωρούσαν τον Ραντί και την παρέα του ως την Λυδία λίθο για την απόρριψη τάχαμου ψευδοεπιστημονικών θεωριών και ερευνών, ας δούμε κάποιες πληροφορίες που όχι μόνο δεν τιμάνε καθόλου αυτή την παρέα, αλλά και δείχνουν να προσπαθούν με θράσσος να υποκαταστήσουν την Ιερά Εξέταση σε πιο λάιτ έκδοση με τακτικές δυο μέτρων και δυο σταθμών.
A French statistician, Michael Gauquelin, had published a statistical sampling which seemed to support the Mars Effect theory. The Mars Effect makes the claim that of the twelve positions that Mars occupies in the sky, two of them are particularly favorable for great athletes to be born during. Statistically, there should have been approximately 2/12 or approximately 17% of the athletes observed born in that range, but Gauquelin found 22%. The statistical odds against this occurring by chance are several million to one.
CSICOP set out to "debunk" Gauquelin�s statistics. The CSICOP report claimed to prove that 22% of sports champions were born in this time period because 22% of all humans were born in this time period. However the research did not prove this, the result was obtained by rearranging the figures, particularly by reducing the number of athletes in the study from 2088 to a selectively chosen 303. Indeed, when the entire 2088 athletes are returned to the data, they confirm Gauquelin�s findings.
When the CSICOP Executive Council member and astronomer Dennis Rawlins found out about this statistical fraud, he attempted to correct the error. The rest of CSICOP chose to ignore him, and The Skeptical Inquirer refused to publish a letter by Rawlins regarding the affair, even though he was the Associate Editor of the journal. When Rawlins did another study about the Mars Effect which did contradict Gauquelin�s findings, The Skeptical Inquirer was glad to publish it, but wouldn�t let him note the mistakes of the original report. When they published the article, they failed to publish a disclaimer that they had agreed to publish that stated they had censored his article.
At this point Rawlins asked for a group of "impartial referees" to look at the matter. When the CSICOP appointed referees looked at the data, they agreed that the original report was seriously flawed, and confirmed Gauquelin�s data. CSICOP then refused to print the referees� report.
Rawlins was subsequently forced out of the Committee, and published an article about the whole affair in the October 1981 issue of Fate, the same month CSICOP instituted its no research policy.43
In James DeMeo�s response to Martin Gardner�s 1988 criticism of Reich he notes that the editors of The Skeptical Inquirer not only refused to publish his response, but wouldn�t even acknowledge that he had sent them a letter and rebuttal. 44
One of the founding fathers of CSICOP, Professor Marcello Truzzi, a sociologist, resigned from CSICOP over their lack of objectivity, and has referred to it as "an advocacy body upholding orthodox establishment views." He published his own scientific journal, The Zetetic Scholar, where, in a novel fashion, they allowed articles on more than one side of an issue, and encouraged debate.45 In issues 12-13 of The Zetetic Scholar, Truzzi published an article he titled, "On Pseudo-Skepticism." In it he states, "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof ."46
The reasons for many scientists� and the skeptical groups� close-mindedness are hard to fathom. Perhaps some people have a psychological need for certainty in their beliefs. Maybe some scientists fear ideas that change, widen or refute established paradigms, paradigms they may have a great deal of professional or emotional attachment to.
Money, politics and power certainly could be a large part of it. Indeed, some influential "skeptics," such as Martin Gardner and "The Amazing" James Randi have created whole careers out of the skeptics� movement, and have much financially at stake in it. Politics influence anything humans participate in, and science is no different. There is certainly political motive to ignore orgone. If orgone could help those with cancer, for example, then drug corporations and allopathic physicians would stand to lose a lot of money from their established treatments if orgone accumulators became an acceptable treatment. Power goes beyond money and politics, to the power to influence peoples ideas and beliefs. Science certainly has a great deal of influence on what people believe, and CSICOP and the skeptics groups seem to seek to control these beliefs with the papal authority of a scientific church. Using science properly and open-mindedly, this is not possible, so they have to use "whatever means necessary" to support their established dogmas.
Science and Scepticism
43 The New Inquisition By Robert Anton Wilson. P. 45-47.
44 "Response to Martin Gardner�s Attack on Reich and Orgone Research in The Skeptical Inquirer." By James DeMeo, Ph.D. Pulse of the Planet No.1.
45 The New Inquisition By Robert Anton Wilson. P. 47-48.
46 "On Pseudo-Skepticism" By Marcello Truzzi. The Zetetic Scholar. No. 12-13.
Originally Posted by GG*
που θα συντελέσει στην ποιοτικότερη αναβάθμιση του μέσου.
