<HTML>Joanne wrote:
"I can't see much difference between CSICOP and the medieval Catholic Church during the Inquisition."
Perhaps Joanne can give us the names of the heretics from "scientism" whom CSICOP have put on the rack, or seared with branding irons, or burned alive at skeptics' conferences? I see a rather large difference between an organization that insists extraordinary claims be tested in controlled conditions (CSICOP) and one that enforces a doctrinal orthodoxy with physical torture and execution (the Inquisition). But perhaps that's just me.
The pages of Skeptical Inquirer (CSICOP's journal), by the way, have criticized pure "scientism" as well as other unsubstantiated beliefs. It is no enforcer of an imagined "orthodoxy." Rather, the organization requires that people who go public with extraordinary claims that are testable be held accountable for those claims and prove them accurate. What is wrong with that? If CSICOP didn't do that, who would? The astute and critically-minded journalists out to sell a good story? Yeah, right.
Let's take John Edwards, the host of Sci-Fi's "Crossing Over." Here's a guy who preys on the grief of the recently bereaved using the well-known mentalist device of "cold reading" to claim he is talking to their departed loved ones. The "spirits" invariably have only banalities to offer us, never any serious insights from the other side. Edwards makes his living from this act. Personally, I think it's despicable to take advantage of vulnerable people in public. But again, that just may be me.
Anyway, Edwards and other "psychic mediums" appeared on Larry King Live this last spring. But on this occasion, King also had on Paul Kurtz from CSICOP. King mediated the discussion equitably, and all Kurtz had to do was ask a few pertinent questions to get Edwards to start the "poor-me-victim" tirade and the abuse of Kurtz. (Funny how people who make extraordinay claims only seem to be able to back them up with rhetoric rather than evidence, isn't it?)
A little later, TV Guide ran a story on Edwards in a unique format: they had a producer of the show on one side of the page saying that she thought Edwards was genuine; and James Randi (a CSICOP fellow) on the other saying how he was a fake. The reader could make up his/her own mind.
So, Joanne, how is this the Inquisition? Is it not good that the public be exposed to both sides of a debate? Nobody is forcing anyone's opinions down anyone's throats here. Certainly, last time I checked, it was not compulsory for every household in America to have Skeptical Inquirer on their shelves. If you don't want to listen to CSICOP, turn off the sound when Kurtz comes on, don't buy the SI from your local store. You have that choice. Nobody from CSICOP is going to torture you if you don't. That's what CSICOP set out to do: put the other, rational side of controversial "paranormal" issues on the table too. What people do with that information is their business. But at least it's there.
Garrett</HTML>
