From: steve.crabtree@synapse.org (Steve Crabtree) 
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Skeptical Inquirer / CSICOP
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:41:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: steve.crabtree@synapse.org (Steve Crabtree) 

To: alt.paranormal
From: steve.crabtree

Robert McGrath writes:
RM> In article <277.1631.uupcb@synapse.org>, steve.crabtree@synapse.org
RM> (Steve Crabtree)  writes in part:

RM>|> To my dismay, it did not provide this balance. It seems to exist
RM>|> solely to promote the secular humanist disbelief in all things
RM>|>supernatural,

RM>...its main value is that SI is the ONLY source of such debunking.

I'm not looking for a sales pitch from people who "know" where to find
"bunk" and how to remove it.

RM> If you were expecting a totally neutral balance, I'm not surprised
RM> you were unhappy.  Without SI there would be no voice at all for the
RM> debunkers, so don't tell me about 'balance'.

My search for whatever truth may be gleaned about the workings of the
universe is not helped by partisan advocacy for a materialist belief
system. I was looking for objective criticism of psi claims, and to that
extent I remain disappointed with the magazine.

RM>|> CSICOP, the sponsoring organization, is not open to the
RM>|> public for membership but is run by a self-appointed committee.

RM> All magazines are run by appointed committees.  There is no such
RM> thing as "membership" in CSICOP.  There is no such thing as
RM> "membership" in the Republican Party either.  So?

Our most trustworthy sources of information include peer reviewed
journals of societies with qualified memberships who exercise control
over the activities and publications of that society.

Publications emanating from private organizations tend to support that
organization's specific viewpoint exclusively and/or support it's
profit. I would include in this category such publications as Fate
Magazine and National Enquirer.

RM>|> According to George Hansen, only
RM>|> one member of the policy board is a scientist (Alcock),

RM> False.

I should have used the expression "board of directors". If this is your
sole point of contention, we now agree. Otherwise, please refute me by
naming another. The article in which the quotation appears was published
in January 1992 and the author specifically excludes philosophers and
editors from the category of scientist.

RM>|> Put simply, it seems to me that the only purpose of the magazine
RM>|> is to discredit pro-psi or pro-paranormal claims

RM> True.

Could you then, with a clear conscience, recommend this magazine to
someone who is looking for objective information without warning them of
its bias?

RM>|> and that they will use any tactics necessary to achieve that
RM>|> goal.

RM> False.  Blatantly and flagrantly false.  You might not like the
RM> magazine, but impugning the integrity of it's authors is a lie and
RM> an insult.

I must be missing the point. Are we talking about saints? Have these
guys taken some vow never to select only information which supports
their case, not to ridicule people on irrelevant grounds in an attempt
to discredit their claims, not to appeal to "common sense" when no
better argument can be mustered or not to try and discredit phenomena by
such debating tactics as guilt by association?

When Hyman was advising local groups on how to be effective critics he
suggested using "the principle of charity," saying "I know that many of
my fellow critics will find this principle to be unpalatable". Again
from Hyman, "As a whole, parapsychologists are nice, honest people,
while the critics are cynical, nasty people." Moral indignation on
behalf of this group seems, in general, most inappropriate.

RM> There are many things wrong with CSICOP and SI (and you haven't hit
RM> all of them yet), ..

Please elaborate.

RM> ... but the use of unfair tactics is NOT one of them.

You know we disagree on this one...