jeffma@teklabs.UUCP (08/03/83)
This is a response to D. Radin's article on "mumbo jumbo", which
included the following statements:
************************************************
"The thing that really gets me about net.misc arguments
on the topic of "mumbo-jumbo pseudoscientific crap" is the
intolerance (and yes, ignorance) displayed by the skeptics."
"Taking astrology as just one example, I know a number of successful,
hard-nosed, high-tech types in industry who fully subscribe to
astrology, have developed highly sophisticated chart and interpretation
programs for various superminicomputers, use these programs
for home and work problems, and have convinced themselves through
experimentation that there is some validity to astrological lore.
These people very rarely identify themselves, however, because skeptics
can make their lives difficult and no one enjoys ridicule."
"I, on the other hand, openly admit my bias towards accepting some of the
so-called "psi" phenomena as real. I don't like ridicule any more
than anyone else. I do, however, subscribe to the hope that
frank and honest discussion of all variety of scientific anomalies will
lead to a better understanding of the nature of the universe."
"My beliefs are based on personal experience with meditation,
other altered states of consciousness, formal psycho- and parapsychological
experimentation, and discussions with people much more experienced than
myself."
"(Personally, as far as astrology is concerned, the jury is still out.)"
"This issue clearly encompasses much more than simple matters of belief
and has no chance of being resolved over the net, so please send
all flames to /dev/null. Intelligent remarks, however, will be cheerfully
considered."
Date: Sat, 30-Jul-83 14:35:32 PDT
Article-I.D.: cbosg.2909
D. Radin
******************************************************
I am:
a. A long-time skeptic with respect to pseudoscience. I do NOT,
however, sanction those who dismiss it out of hand as "crap."
I'm sure net readers will agree that, like the word "ignorant"
as used above, this label, in context, was probably a
generalization more likely to offend than inform.
b. Willing to engage in a rational discussion on the subject.
c. Prone to take exception to your generalizations about skeptics.
Probably the most educational and constructive way for you to discuss
your beliefs concerning paranormal phenomena is to tell us about them, and
provide us with some concrete information as to why you hold them. We
should also discuss the history and results to date in parapsychology
research. I trust you are familiar with this subject.
We should also make an effort to separate out "testimonial" and "ad hominem"
endorsements of paranormal phenomena (references to authority --"discussions
with people much more experienced than myself"--or the fact that some
"successful...high-tech types" believe in astrology--if they do it on
computers it must be scientific, right?--, or simply the reference to
unspecified personal experiences) from legitimate scientific tests of those
claims. Surely this "will lead to a better understanding of the nature of
the universe," provide net readers with the facts they want, and spare them
the inevitable empty rhetoric produced on both sides of the issue.
If the claims of those who endorse "paranormal" phenomena as genuine are
based on SOLID results in SOUND experiments, they have nothing to
be ashamed or afraid of. I'm sure you'll agree that criticism is a rather
important and wholly necessary part of science, and until those hiding,
persecuted believers come out of the closet and endow the rest of the world
with their sound, compelling reasons for embracing parapsychology and occult
phenomena (in the face of criticism) they will be doing no one a service.
In the meantime, their accusations/claims, although emotionally engaging,
are as vapid as the abuse raised by irresponsible critics (robust specimens
of which can be found in both camps, by the way).
Name-calling is obviously childish; but too often the proponents of
parapsychology, etc., indignantly and indifferently ignore legitimate
criticism and suggestions under the pretence that they are being
"persecuted" or "ridiculed." This is not only a disaster to the health
of the very field they are championing, but it also tends to foster the
scorn of the scientific community which has learned to use criticism
as a positive tool.
So let's not paint a sad picture of the abused "psi" proponent,
beleaguered by slavering, fanged skeptics. It has great pathos, but
not much else. And it certainly doesn't constitute a good excuse for
making unsubstantiated claims under the guise of cautious, vulnerable
attempts to penetrate the veil of scientific persecution. And, of
course, the responsible skeptic ought to realize that uncomplimentary
scatological metaphors do nothing to help matters.
Jeff Mayhew
Tektronix