From: exudeb@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Breeding, xt-dGR,)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Repost of Truzzi Lecture:  How to Hand
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:41:06 GMT
Reply-To: exudeb@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson TX
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 2An@cs.uiuc.edu, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.003135.20240@netcom.com>, noring@netcom.com (Jon
Noring) writes in part:
>|> 
>[...]
>|> REFLECTIONS ON THE RECEPTION OF UNCONVENTIONAL CLAIMS IN SCIENCE
>|> 
>|> November 29, 1989 Colloquium presented by Marcello Truzzi, Ph.D., Professor
>[...]
>|> Reported by Simona Solovey
>
>[...]
>|> As a sociologist of science I remain outside of the controversies surrounding
>|> unconventional claims in science.
>[...]
>|> There are three broad approaches to anomaly studies.  The first approach is
>|> usually called the Fortean approach.  It is generally characterized by what
>|> critics would call mystery mongering. 
>[...]
>|> The second common approach is what critics usually call the debunkers'
>|> approach.  This is the main attitude of the orthodox scientific community
>|> towards anomaly claims.  It is characterized by the Committee for the
>|> Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).  "Whatever is
>|> claimed is nothing but ... something else."  
>[...]
>
>Hmm.  I am surprised to hear that either of these two approaches qualifies
>as "science"!  This, of course is very "balanced" of Truzzi--he stands
>firmly between a straw scylla (sp?) and a straw charibdis (sp?)!  Truly
>the only place for any reasonable (straw) philosopher to stand.
>
>I leave a cataloging of the flaws in this kind of argument as an 
>exercise for undergraduate rhetoric students.
>

Hi Robert:

Unfortunately, I'm not an undergraduate rhetoric student, so please
help me with this.  My understanding of the Truzzi article was that he
was simply enumerating three ways that people commonly approach these
anomalies, and that he was arguing that the third way was the most
appropriate for the scientific community.  He seems to me to be saying
that the first two ways are not science, which is what you seem to be
saying also.  And yet you seem to be disagreeing with him.  ???


>[...]
>|> I found that the Committee [CSICOP] was much more interested in attacking
>|> the most publicly visible claimants such as the "National Enquirer".  The
>|> major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy
>|> body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy.  The Committee has
>|> made many mistakes.  My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I
>|> chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it
>|> represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick
>|> claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury
>|> when they were simply lawyers.
>
>This is a very legitimate criticism.  This is a criticism of 
>CSICOPs PR claims (or Truzzis interpretation of them, at least), NOT 
>of the validity of the role of debunker, or of the validity of the 
>debunking done.  Solid debunking of nonsense is essential, and
>an advocate and forum for such plays its role.
>

I think I agree with both of you on this.  And perhaps debunking (2 above) is most appropriately aimed at mystery mongering (1 above), neither of which have anything to do with science.

Dave

>-- 
>  Robert E. McGrath
>  Urbana Illinois
>  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:26:09 GMT
Subject: Re: What Do I Do?
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.