Subject: Re: Part 1. +quot;Crybaby+quot; by Philip Klass Date: 24 Nov 91 19:56:30 GMT pisc

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano Subject: Re: Part 1. "Crybaby" by Philip Klass From: (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) Date: 24 Nov 91 19:56:30 GMT Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system Message-ID: Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal (L. M. P. McPherson) writes: > > I do not understand why these long postings were cross-posted to > alt.paranormal, expect perhaps because CSICOP has the word "Paranormal" > in its name. Anyway, for those less interested in political > wranglings among skeptics and more interested in examining the scientific > data vis a vis the relation of Mar's position at birth to success as an > athlete, I include the following (non-exhaustive) list of > references to scientific articles on the Gauquelins' "Mars effect"; for > those These long posting were placed in alt.paranormal for a very good reason; the accusation that CSICOP fudged the Gauquelin data has been circulated for many years, on alt.paranormal as well as sci.skeptic, and it's about time to set the record straight. I believe your characterization of the matter as 'political wranglings among skeptics' is misleading, and maliciously so. Yes, these matters are wranglings, among skeptics, but it's given rise to vicious smear against CSICOP that's been circulated among pro-paranormalists as well. Please recall, the article I discussed-- Rawlins's "sTARBABY"-- was published in FATE magazine. Similarly, in the recently published "Parapsychology-- The Controversial Science," a lengthy footnote repeats Rawlins's accusations almost verbatim. The authors of this book, to my knowledge, did not attempt to learn the other side of the issue; and thanks to FATE, as I pointed out before, they weren't able to learn that there _was_ another side to the matter. You metioned several good references to Gauquelin's work. That;'s perfectly fine and good (I've seen some of them, BTW), but criticisms of Gauquelin's work are also valuable. Yes, I'm thinking of the failed replication with the American sample base described in the article. However, consider this; if all you knew about the Rawlins controversy is the mtyh that 'CSICOP fudged the data,' and heard nothing to the contrary, you might be inclined to dismiss the study-- or, at least, to be less likely to accept it with this taint of suspicion on it. That's why it's important to circulate this information. And although this'll sound like a grace note, you may not find it at all interesting, but there are several people on this echo who've found the information very valuable, and felt it had to be circulated. Also, there are people on these echoes who have circulated Rawlins's charges without knowing about the other side of the story. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Brian Siano, Delaware Valley Skeptics Rev. Philosopher-King of The First Church of the Divine Otis Redding revpk@Cellar.UUCP "Ecrasez l'enfame!" - Voltaire """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank