SUBJECT: FATE MAG. & CSICOP GO AT IT OVER STARBABY ! FILE: UFO1486 Article 4837 of alt.paranormal: Path: bilver!tous!peora!masscomp!usenet.coe.montana.edu!rpi!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!wyrm!UUCP From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) Newsgroups: alt.paranormal Subject: Re: "fate" replies to elec Message-ID: <709197344.0@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG> Date: 22 Jun 92 00:06:09 GMT Sender: UUCP@p0.f201.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG Lines: 82 tzf@cs.arizona.edu (Theron Friedman) writes as follows: > How are we to know if we don't see the original article? (Does the bay > area sceptics' BBS offer the FATE article for downloading?) No. I'd be very glad to do so, but that would be a violation of _FATE's_ copyright, and I am extremely careful about such things. However, I have been told (but haven't verified) that reprints of the Rawlins article are available for $1 US or so. There's obviously a huge amount of rhetorical flummery concerning the sTARBABY article and the whole so-called Mars Effect scandal so very long ago. I haven't kept score as carefully as Jim Lippard and Jan Nienhuys have, and the sheer amount of detail is overwhelming. However, this much I have gleaned: (1) The irony of paranormal advocates using Rawlins, an intolerant zealot whose ill-thought-out rants against astrology (etc.) were so extreme that that he was quietly eased out of CSICOP (a move later vindicated by the Peary/National Geographic affair), and his confused diatribe in _Fate_ to attack CSICOP is quite delicious. (2) The worst CSICOP was justly accused of was making excuses and indulging in minor abuses of statistics, by some authors in its journal, when the Zelen Test results came in. HOWEVER, the test was merely of ONE hypothesis about ONE way that Gauquelin's data could have been a statistical artifact. As George Abell said, right at the beginning, before CSICOP was even founded, the only truly telling test would be to try to replicate Gauquelin's results independently with a fresh set of data. The ONLY decent attempts to do this have been published by skeptics, and mostly by _Skeptical Inquirer_. (3) The excuses from paranormal advocates as to why _Fate_ refused to print Klass's critique of Rawlins's claims OR ANY OTHER of the salient criticisms offered by people to them (including me) are also wonderfully risible. One such fellow (the guy who wrote "Parapsychology: The Controversial Science", which uncritically repeats Rawlins's story) actually had the chutzpah to tell me on a CompuServe forum that _Fate_ turned down Klass's piece because it wasn't endorsed by CSICOP's Executive Council! (That one went straight into my Non Sequitur Hall of Fame.) I can't help thinking that there's a much more parsimonious explanation than those offered. By way of contrast, _SI_ printed a couple of intemperate blasts against CSICOP's leadership (penned after he had been finessed out), numerous criticisms of Mars Effect critiques it has published, and some recent research with pro-Gauquelin results, from Professor Ertel. My fellow skeptics Jan and Jim correctly pointed out the one area where Rawlins apparently had a point: that the Zelen test was likely from its design to give incorrectly pro-Gauquelin results, and that the results that followed were poorly and conveniently analysed. (However, the _SI_ writers, in proper scientific honesty, presented their data, allowing people to make up their own minds and do their own analysis.) What Jan and Jim fail to point out is that Rawlins's paper consisted almost 100% of egregiously mistaken foam-at-the-mouth charges against the people who manoeuvred him out of CSICOP, when he himself suffered from most of the faults he alleged in them. The overall picture that those bandying the Mars Effect stuff against CSICOP paint is profoundly distortive, in that CSICOP is nearly alone in its efforts to sponsor and publish real, meaningful research on the claimed Mars effect, and its critics on this matter would have you believe the exact opposite. Please note that The Skeptic's Board BBS has moved from San Francisco to San Mateo, and therefore has a new number: 415-572-0359. It has a partial Usenet feed via a gateway (for this group, sci.skeptic, talk.origins, and comp.org.eff.talk) and the Internet, and operates free of charge to the public. To reiterate, I'd be delighted to offer _Fate's_ writings on this subject for public download or File REQuest, but someone would have to get copyright permission from the editors. My board DOES aim to carry as wide a selection of writings from various viewpoints as possible on fringe-science issues, without particular regard to merit. Best Regards, Rick Moen, Sysop & Owner, The Skeptic's Board BBS Vice-Chair, Bay Area Skeptics (but absolutely NOT purporting to speak for anyone else, including CSICOP) Best reached at address Rick_Moen@blyth.com * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207) ********************************************** * THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo * **********************************************