From Our Readers

From Our Readers Editor's column: Exploring irritation. Creationism, on the other the fringes of science hand, is part of a powerful and intoler ant belief system, and one that has real While there is much that is admirable and attainable political goals. in Kendrick Frazier's long editorial on Doing battle with Russell Targ and "Exploring the Fringes of Science" (SI, Fate magazine may be amusing. It may Winter 1984-85) 1 find his optimism, even be useful. But it's also easy, and guarded though it is, unjustified and a the victories are cheap and without bit disturbing. much significance. Perhaps pseudoscience books do Don't pat yourself on the back for not sell as well as they did a decade swatting mosquitoes when there are real ago, though most diet and self-help tigers out there after your blood—and books are pseudoscience and are doing mine. very nicely thank you. The hottest growth area in. publishing today is Daniel Cohen religion—and what religion! I don't Port Jervis, N.Y. think trading von Daniken for Falwell is much of a bargain. The social upheavals of the sixties and early seven 1 find myself in the position of having ties are over, as Frazier says, and just to disagree with Mr. Frazier's statement look what we have: a president who that "there may be somewhat less public has not only supported the teaching of acceptance of pseudoscience now than creationism in public schools but appar ten years ago." The problem seems to ently feels the biblical apocalypse is be just the opposite: Much of the public almost upon us. And he was reelected accepts the paranormal tenets matter- by an overwhelming majority of the of-factly, almost with a "So what?" atti American people. The Age of Aquarius tude. is no longer with us, but is the Age of When the Air Force sent me to Fundamentalism an improvement? Europe, I'd hoped that I'd be leaving What's disturbing about Frazier's the cacophony of occultists far behind. editorial is its lack of proportion. Adding to this hope was the fact that Though he acknowledges the pernicious the military's newspaper, Stars and influence of creationism, he doesn't Stripes, has no astrology column seem able to make a proper distinction (although it often reports developments between a creationist and a UFOlogist. in the psychic world as "news"). This is a difficulty that some other SI Until I went to the on-base book writers seem to have. Belief in UFOs, store! The National Enquirer, other spoon-bending, Bigfoot, even astrology, scandal sheets, and various books on never represented a serious threat to astrology and horoscopes all clamored rational thinking. They are at worst an for the buyers' dollars. They didn't have Summer 1985 391 to try very hard. Our nation was founded on a free The base broadcasting system dom of belief, just as it was founded regularly scheduled airings of "In Search on a freedom of action. But these of . ," and would sometimes use it as expressions are inspirational and should a filler when other programs failed to be handled with care. From "You have arrive. a right to do as you please," it does not When conversations turned to The follow that you have a right to do just Amityville Horror and The Philadelphia anything; and from "You have a right Experiment, the general consensus to believe as you please," it does not seemed to be meek acceptance of the follow that you have a right to believe versions presented by the authors and just anything. film producers. I recently took a trip to Scotland, William D. Gray spending one night in Inverness. After Dept. of Philosophy I returned, my co-workers wanted to San Diego City College know whether I'd seen Nessie. The San Diego, Calif. question of its existence was not a factor; it was as much reality to them as the Leaning Tower of Pisa. I was very pleased to read of Si's Perhaps Frazier's reports of a trend growth. This is a good sign for rational toward skepticism are simply harbingers thinkers and thus for the future of of an attitude that has not yet become society. prevalent among the U.S. military in I was disturbed by two aspects of Europe. If so, I apologize for my cri your editorial "Exploring the Fringes ticism and eagerly await the arrival of of Science: Critical Inquiries, Shifting rationality. Trends." Specifically, I was worried that Thank you for your efforts at you were taking to heart criticism that injecting a-little sense into life. you have been "too harsh" and that you "don't take claims seriously Steve R. Graham enough." If anything, I fear that you APO, NY. have been far too charitable and for giving in your treatment of various paranormal claims. I enjoyed your column "Exploring the I have been planning to write you Fringes of Science . ." but 1 would since 1 read the letter in the Fall '84 like to comment on your statement "We issue called "Science and Pseudo- ardently support each person's right to science," by P. Naslin. I too was an hold any belief he or she wishes." This ardent supporter of the SKEPTICAL seems at least misleading, if not com INQUIRER from the moment I received pletely false. After all, we are concerned my first issue. I too, however, have been over the alarming proliferation of belief finding myself growing bored by the in the paranormal, and much of the rather staid and serious treatment that text of SI criticizes belief where logic you and your authors give to truly wild and/ or evidence is lacking. Such criti and extraordinary claims. cism, moreover, has a strong moral I feel that you are faced with a dimension because of the possible or somewhat difficult choice. On one hand, actual consequences affecting our lives you desire (correctly, in my opinion) to and well-being. be a reliable and quotable scientific Now, if we criticize Jones for reference source. On the other hand, believing x, then we are saying that you wish to reach as large an audience Jones ought not believe x (else we have as possible. To do this, to reach and no justification for being critical), i.e., hold an ever wider audience, you must that it is wrong for him to believe x, entertain. and therefore that he has no right to I believe that the best way for you believe x. to entertain is to treat your subject mat- 392 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 9 ter with as much humor as possible. I is dedicated to protect. do not believe that this approach would be in any way counter to the scientific David Gerr principles that you wish to maintain. Throgs Neck, N.Y. Quite the contrary: Levity as a result of a paper or report that utilized reductio ad absurdum to maximum effect would I'm getting a bit fed up with people be both extraordinarily effective and who write to say that you should tone highly entertaining. It is your humorous down your articles. If something is reports and anecdotes that have left the obviously absurd why not say so? To greatest impression. Further, reading do less is not being intellectually honest. and quoting such humorous bits to my If these people need their debunking friends and acquaintances has left us spoon-fed to them, then they're obvi all rolling with laughter. Some of these ously not totally out of their paranormal individuals, 1 regret to say, formerly closets. kept an "open mind" about Uri Geller I find honest, frank opinion and others of his breed. But after a few refreshing. By toning down your articles sessions of uproarious laughter they you may give more credence to the ceased to be potential "believers." phenomena that you're investigating It is for this very reason that you than you intend. That would be dis are attacked so sharply when you use honest, counterproductive, and against humor and reductio ad absurdum in the standards that you have set for your magazine. It is extraordinarily yourself and that we have come to effective. The average individual simply expect. Keep up the good work! cannot take paranormal claims seriously when they are exposed to the light of August Berkshire reason in such a way that they become Minneapolis, Minn. impossible, absurd, and funny. Just imagine what the effect would be if the next time a "psychic detective" Keep up the good work and continue approached the police and the press he to stress what you expressed in your or she was greeted with uncontrollable first-rate editorial, especially: "And the mirth. idea that all ideas are equal has begun The second item that gives me to be replaced by a willingness to throw- cause for concern is your editorial policy out those that don't work." toward religion. I believe that you are The magnitude of the task ahead faced with a major contradiction and came into sharp focus once again this that to maintain the integrity of your morning as 1 received advertising journal you must grapple with it in no material from Reader's Digest for a uncertain terms. paranormal book. As long as a buck is Religious belief almost universally to be made from the gullible, it would contravenes physical laws, logical seem that spurious claims will never thought, and Occam's Razor—in other really die. words, the very scientific principles and approach that the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Walter Shropshire is dedicated to protect and uphold.

Load more