DOCSLIB.ORG

Three-Country Evolution Poll: Stark Contrast in U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Three-Country Evolution Poll: Stark Contrast in U.S SI New Nov Dec pages_SI new design masters 9/29/10 12:16 PM Page 5 [ NEWS AND COMMENT Three-Country Evolution Poll: Stark Contrast in U.S. vs. Canadian and British Beliefs Kendrick Frazier We already know that compared with Origin of Humans most developed countries of the world, Which of these statements comes closest to your own point of view acceptance of evolution in the United regarding the origin and development of human beings on Earth? States is dismal. Jon Miller and col- leagues reported in 2006 that polls in thirty-four countries showed that only Canada United States Great Britain one—Turkey—had a lower rate of ac- Human beings evolved from less 6 1% 3 5 % 6 8 % ceptance of evolution. The United advanced life forms over millions States was, as he put it, “out on a limb of years. by ourselves” (SI, May/June 2006). God created human beings in their 2 4 % 4 7 % 16 % A new three-country poll not only present form within the past re veals data on how far behind the 10,000 years. United States is on this point—com- I’m not sure. 15 % 18 % 15 % pared to its two closest nations in the English-speaking world, Canada and Britain—but also gives fascinating re- gional details. Polls of representative samples of In Britain, two-thirds of respondents Amer icans, Canadians, and Britons (68 percent) side with evolution, while were carried out by Angus Reid Public fewer than one-in-five people (16 per- Opinion in the first nine days of July c ent) c hoo se creationism. At least 2010 and announced on July 15. The Am eri ca ns rema i n se ve n-in-ten respondents in the South contrast among nations is starkly of England (70 percent) and Scotland worded in the title of the company’s firmly on the wrong ( 7 5 p e r c ent) believe that human beings own an nouncement of the results: evolved from less advance d life forms “Amer icans are Creationists: Britons sid e of the science over m illions of years. At 58 percen t, and Canadians Side with Evolution.” London holds the smallest proportion Americans remain firmly on the when it comes to of evolutionists. wrong side of the science when it comes In Canada, three-in-f ive respon- to evolution, which is perhaps the key e vol utio n, which is dents (61 percent) select evolution from fundamental unifying principle of biol- the options provided, while one-in- ogy. Evolution has strong multiple lines per haps the key fun- four p eople (24 percent) choose cr e - of supporting evidence and has long ationism. Quebec (66 percent), along been accepted by life scientists, who damental unifying with British Columbia and the Atlantic value its explanatory power. principle of biology. provinces (64 percent), hold the highest The online survey asked respondents proportion of respondents who believe whether their own point of view is closest human beings evolved. At the other end to the notion that human beings evolved of the spectrum, 39 percent of the resi- from less advanc ed life forms over mil- de nt s of M anitoba and Saskatch ewan lions of years or the idea that God created think God created human beings in human beings in their present form their present form. within the past 10,000 years. Skeptical Inquirer | November/ December 2 010 5 SI New Nov Dec pages_SI new design masters 9/24/10 2:27 PM Page 6 In the United States, almost half of GREA T B RITAIN re spondents (47 percent) believe that Which o f these statements comes closes t to you r own poin t o f view regarding God created human beings in their the origin an d deve lopm ent of human b e ings o n Earth ? present form within the past 10,000 years, while one-third (35 percent) think human beings evolved from less GREAT BRITAIN ad vanced life forms over millions of years. Half of midwesterners (49 per- cent) and southerners (51 percent) agree with creationism, while those in the Northeast are more likely to side with evolution (43 percent). In the United States, more males than females accept that human beings evolved UNITED STATES Which of these statements comes closest to your own point of view from less advanced regarding the origin and development of human beings on Earth? life forms. REGION UNITED STATES Northeast Midwest Sou th West Gender and age breakdowns showed Human beings evolved from 3 5 % 4 3 % 3 7 % 2 7 % 3 8 % less advanced life forms over some interesting differences as well. In millions of years. the United States, more males than fe- God created human beings in 4 7 % 3 8 % 4 9 % 5 1 % 4 5 % males accept that human beings evolved their present form within the from less advanced life forms (43 per- past 1 0 ,0 0 0 years. cent vs. 28 percent). Americans aged I’m not sure. 1 8 % 1 9 % 1 3 % 2 1 % 1 6 % eighteen to thirty-four were evenly di- vided between evolution and creation (41 percent vs. 41 percent), while those age fifty-five and over were less accept- ing (32 percent saying humans evolved vs. 51 percent saying God created hu- CANADA mans in their pres ent form). Those in Which of these statements comes closest to your own point of view the intermediate age group (35–54) regarding the origin and development of human beings on Earth? showed beliefs not much different from their older counterparts (33 percent evolution, 49 percent creation). CANADA In Britain, 72 percent of males vs. 65 percent of females accept evolution; the age distribution is fairly even. In Can - ada, 69 percent of males and 54 percent of females accept evolution, and younger people are more accepting. The accompanying tables display some of the comparisons. The full poll is available online at www.visioncritical.com/2010/07/amer- icans-are-creationists-britons- and- n canadians-side-with-evolution/. 6 Volume 34 Issue 6 | Skeptical Inquirer SI New Nov Dec pages_SI new design masters 9/24/10 2:27 PM Page 7 [ NEWS AND COMMENT The Amaz!ng Meeting of 2010 Karen Stollznow “What’s a TAM?” we’re asked by the un initiated. We reply, incredulously, “You haven’t heard of TAM?” Those who self-identify as skeptics know that TAM is the acronym for The Amaz!ng Meeting, which is hosted by y h James “The Amazing” Randi and his p a r g organization, the James Randi Educa - o t o h P tional Foundation ( JREF). s s e The world’s largest conference on r P . F critical thinking, TAM is like a Tech - e c u r nology, Entertainment, Design (TED) B : o t conference, a G8 summit, or a World o h P Economic Forum (WEF) Annual Meet - D.J. Grothe interviews biologist Richard Dawkins at TAM8. ing for skeptics. Now in its eighth year, TAM has Tavris. TAM8 also concentrated on the come a long way from its humble origin history and roots of skepticism. This of merely 150 skeptics assembled in year’s meeting paid homage to seminal Fort Lauderdale, Florida, back in 2003. skeptics Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, Ken My first meeting, TAM3, attracted TAM is like a Frazier, and James Randi and paid last some 500 guests—this is where I met Tech nology, respects to Martin Gardner, arguably conference birth-giver Girl 6, as she the founder of the modern skeptical knitted quietly in the front row of the Entertainment, Design movement. conference hall. TAM has grown expo- Some skeptics deny there is a “skep- nentially to welcome some 1,300 atten- (TED) conference, tical movement”—due to the phrase’s dees in the United States, with ad ditional a G8 summit, religious and bureaucratic connota- events including meetings in England tions—and prefer “critical thinkers” or and Australia and cruises. or a World Economic “com munity.” During an interview with Held at the South Point Hotel in Forum (WEF) Annual comedy writer David Javerbaum, Javer - Las Vegas, July 8–11, 2010, the central baum argued against the idea that there themes of TAM8 were unification, ed- Meet ing for skeptics. is a “movement,” remarking that “trying ucation, and outreach. to organize skeptics is like herding cats.” Come Together Skeptics certainly aren’t cats or sheep to be herded, but there were 1,300 of us With D.J. Grothe at the helm as presi- there... dent, the JREF has focused on the uni- tions were represented by skeptics who Preaching to the Unconverted fication of the skeptical movement. appeared on various panels and work- (and the Converted) Local organizations and grassroots shops, including CSI’s Barry Karr, Ken groups are always encouraged; there is Frazier, and Joe Nickell and Skeptic Years ago, TAM moved from a winter strength in numbers, though, and we’re magazine’s Michael Shermer, Pat Linse, date to a summer schedule to enable all unified by our ideology and common and Daniel Loxton. educators to attend during their school goals. At Grothe’s insistence, TAM8 The meeting featured its usual holidays. Randi’s organization is busy was a coming together of the world’s “celebrity skeptics,” including Myth - keeping the “education” in “JREF.” major skeptical organizations, and the busters’s Adam Savage (see my Point of In their commitment to pedagogy, event was co-sponsored by the Com- Inquiry interview, excerpted in this the JREF secured Michael Blanford as mittee for Skep tical Inquiry (CSI) and issue), mentalist Banachek, and notable director of education and established a the Skeptics Soci ety.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CFI-Annual-Report-2018.Pdf
    Message from the President and CEO Last year was another banner year for the Center the interests of people who embrace reason, for Inquiry. We worked our secular magic in a science, and humanism—the principles of the vast variety of ways: from saving lives of secular Enlightenment. activists around the world who are threatened It is no secret that these powerful ideas like with violence and persecution to taking the no others have advanced humankind by nation’s largest drugstore chain, CVS, to court unlocking human potential, promoting goodness, for marketing homeopathic snake oil as if it’s real and exposing the true nature of reality. If you medicine. are looking for humanity’s true salvation, CFI stands up for reason and science in a way no look no further. other organization in the country does, because This past year we sought to export those ideas to we promote secular and humanist values as well places where they have yet to penetrate. as scientific skepticism and critical thinking. The Translations Project has taken the influential But you likely already know that if you are reading evolutionary biology and atheism books of this report, as it is designed with our supporters in Richard Dawkins and translated them into four mind. We want you not only to be informed about languages dominant in the Muslim world: Arabic, where your investment is going; we want you to Urdu, Indonesian, and Farsi. They are available for take pride in what we have achieved together. free download on a special website. It is just one When I meet people who are not familiar with CFI, of many such projects aimed at educating people they often ask what it is we do.
    [Show full text]
  • Qanon • 75 Years of the Bomb • Vaccine History • Raising
    SQANON • K75 YEARS OF ETHE BOMB P• VACCINE HISTORYT • RAISINGI CTHE DEAD? Extraordinary Claims, Revolutionary Ideas & the Promotion of Science—Vol.25Science—Vol.25 No.4No.4 2020 $6.95 USA and Canada www.skeptic.com • WHAT IS QANON? • HOW QANON RECYCLES CENTURIES-OLD CONSPIRACY BELIEFS • HOW QANON HURTS THEIR OWN CAUSE • QANON IN CONSPIRATORIAL CONTEXT watch or listen for free Hear leading scientists, scholars, and thinkers discuss the most important issues of our time. Hosted by Michael Shermer. #146 Dr. DonalD Prothero— # 130 Dr. DeBra Soh—the end # 113 Dave ruBIn— # 106 Dr. DanIel ChIrot— Weird earth: Debunking Strange of Gender: Debunking the Myths Don’t Burn this Book: you Say you Want a revolution? Ideas about our Planet about Sex & Identity in our Society thinking for yourself in an radical Idealism and its tragic age of unreason Consequences #145 GreG lukIanoff—Mighty # 129 Dr. Mona Sue WeISSMark Ira: the aClu’s controversial involve- —the Science of Diversity # 112 ann Druyan—Cosmos: # 105 Dr. DIana PaSulka— ment in the Skokie case of 1977. Possible Worlds. how science and american Cosmic: ufos, # 128 MIChael ShellenBerGer civilization grew up together religion, and technology #144 Dr. aGuStIn fuenteS— —apocalypse never: Why environ- Why We Believe: evolution and the mental alarmism hurts us all human Way of Being # 127 Dr. WIllIaM Perry and #143 Dr. nICholaS ChrIStakIS— toM CollIna—the Button: the apollo’s arrow: the Profound and new nuclear arms race and Presi- enduring Impact of Coronavirus on dential Power from truman to trump the Way We live # 126 Sarah SColeS—they are #142 Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Emotional and Descriptive Meaning- Making in Online Non-Professional Discussions About Science
    ` “Nah, musing is fine. You don't have to be 'doing science'” Emotional and Descriptive Meaning- Making in Online Non-Professional Discussions about Science Oliver Martin Marsh UCL Department of Science and Technology Studies Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2017 1 ` Declaration I, Oliver Martin Marsh, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 ` Abstract In this thesis I use online settings to explore how descriptive and emotional forms of meaning-making interact in non-professional discussions around ‘science’. Data was collected from four participatory online fora, from March 2015 to February 2016. Posts and comments from these fora were examined through discourse analysis, supplemented by interviews with participants and computer-aided text analysis, over the period August 2015 to August 2017. Theoretical background drew on Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Fan Studies (FS), to examine how science was presented in both descriptive and emotional terms. There were two main findings. Firstly, discussions were shaped by an expectation that members should respect mainstream scientific consensus. In a manner familiar from STS, participants treated claims which went against scientific consensus as incorrect or non- credible. Responses also showed emotional aspects which shaped participation. Respect for scientific consensus facilitated social bonding and expression of community values, while disrespect was met with anger and/or ridicule. Through normalisation of such behaviour, scientific authority was maintained by communal sanctions rather than accredited expertise. The second main finding was a distinction between two forms of discourse, which I refer to as musing and identifying.
    [Show full text]
  • JSE 274 Online.Indd
    JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION A Publication of the Society for Scientifi c Exploration (ISSN 0892-3310) Editorial Offi ce: Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, Society for Scientifi c Exploration, Kathleen E. Erickson, JSE Managing Editor, 151 Petaluma Blvd. So., #301, Petaluma, CA 94952 USA [email protected], 1-415-435-1604, (fax 1-707-559-5030) Manuscript Submission: Submit manuscripts online at http://journalofscientifi cexploration.org/ index.php/jse/login Editor-in-Chief: Stephen E. Braude, University of Maryland Baltimore County Book Review Editor: P. D. Moncrief ([email protected]) Managing Editor: Kathleen E. Erickson, Petaluma, CA Assistant Managing Editor and Copyeditor: Eve E. Blasband, Larkspur, CA Assistant Managing Editor and Proofreader: Elissa Hoeger, Princeton, NJ Associate Editors Carlos S. Alvarado, Th e Rhine Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC Daryl Bem, Ph.D., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Robert Bobrow, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY Courtney Brown, Emory University, Alanta, GA Etzel Cardeña, Lund University, Sweden Jeremy Drake, Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA Bernard Haisch, Digital Universe Foundation, USA Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin, TX Roger D. Nelson, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ Mark Rodeghier, Center for UFO Studies, Chicago, IL S. James P. Spottiswoode, Los Angeles, CA Michael Sudduth, San Francisco State University, CA Society for Scientifi c Exploration Website — http://www.scientifi cexploration.org Chair, Publications Committee: Robert G. Jahn, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ Editorial Board Chair, Prof. Richard C. Henry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD Dr. Mikel Aickin, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ Dr. Steven J. Dick, U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, DC Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Beastly Fakes ‘Sasquatch’ Tracks — the Book Could Justi- Fiably Have Been a Compilation of Mockery and Humour
    followed by other people faking evidence, until a self-reinforcing legend is established. As more monster hunters flock to find the beast, more dubious evidence is generated. Before you know it, there is a souvenir shop POPPERFOTO/GETTY POPPERFOTO/GETTY selling T-shirts. Yet it is the hunters — ranging from out- right rogues to serious, if misguided, research- ers — who make this a gripping read. For instance, Bernard Heuvelmans, referenced as the founder of modern cryptozoology, earned a doctorate studying aardvark teeth, worked as a jazz musician and comedian, escaped from the Nazis and befriended Tintin creator Georges Prosper Remi (known by the pen- name ‘Hergé’) before producing his work on “What cryptids of all kinds. emerges is On a 1958 expedi- a never less tion to Tibet to seek than rigorous the yeti (a kind of examination Himalayan Bigfoot), of the led by Texas oil baron evidence.” Tom Slick, some members of the group allegedly performed sleight of hand on a sacred relic, swapping human finger bones for purported yeti A purported yeti footprint from the Menlung Basin in Nepal. bones. The stolen bones were reportedly smuggled out of the country in the luggage CRYPTOZOOLOGY of actor James Stewart. Going by these and other anecdotes in Abominable Science! — such as people strapping on fake wooden feet to create Beastly fakes ‘Sasquatch’ tracks — the book could justi- fiably have been a compilation of mockery and humour. In fact, it is a sensitive but Daniel Cressey delves into a sceptics’ history of devastating takedown of an entire subcul- monster hunters and their mythical quarry.
    [Show full text]
  • O Que É O Cepticismo? Respostas Simples Para Algumas Questões Frequentes
    O que é o Cepticismo? Respostas Simples Para Algumas Questões Frequentes Adaptado de: The Media Guide to Skepticism Objectivo: Providenciar um guia claro e de fácil leitura sobre o ponto-de-vista “céptico” subscrito por muitos que podem chamar-se a si mesmos de cépticos ou pensadores críticos; para distinguir o cepticismo prático do uso popular da frase “eu sou céptico” e daqueles que afirmam ser “cépticos” de alguma conclusão científica bem-estabelecida (como as alterações climáticas). O que é o cepticismo? O cepticismo é uma abordagem usada para avaliar alegações que enfatiza as provas e aplica as ferramentas da ciência. O cepticismo é mais frequentemente aplicado a alegações extraordinárias – aquelas que contrariam a visão consensual actual. O processo céptico considera as provas obtidas por observação sistemática e pela razão. A conclusão a que se chega no fim deste processo céptico é provisória porque podem surgir posteriormente provas adicionais ou melhores que apontem para outra explicação mais adequada. Exemplo: O Sr. X diz-nos que um novo comprimido melhorou bastante a sua memória. Esta alegação, se for verdade, é importante e extraordinária. Desta forma, seria apropriado aplicar o cepticismo à mesma. Nós quereríamos ver as provas de que a sua memória melhorou e que o comprimido foi responsável por isso. Nós consideramos também explicações alternativas que possam explicar por que o Sr. X diria que o novo comprimido melhora a sua memória: ele pode estar enganado, pode estar a atravessar um período menos stressante, ele quer sentir que gastou o seu dinheiro nos comprimidos de forma sensata, ele foi pago para promover os comprimidos, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Skepticism of Clara Peller
    [SKEPTICAL INQUIREE BENJAMIN RADFORD Benjamin Radford is a research fellow at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and author or coauthor of seven books, including Mysterious New Mexico: Miracles, Magic, and Monsters in the Land of Enchantment. The Skepticism of Clara Peller Who do you consider to be one of the most types looking over a hamburger at a under-appreciated or neglected skeptics of the past company called “Big Bun” whose giant few decades? bun obscured a tiny beef patty appar- : —L. Roe ently about the size of a hockey puck. Q While the other two little old ladies politely poke around the fluffy bun looking for the meat, the diminutive That’s an interesting track of skeptical contributors over the Peller acts as the brash, outraged voice ques tion. There are many years, and there are dozens of candidates. of directness and reason, uttering her immortal skeptical phrase: “Where’s great, hard-working skep- But I’m going to go with a widely : the Beef?” She plays the role of the boy tics who are little-known known pop culture figure who left a who said the emperor has no clothes— outside of the skeptical lasting (if unlikely) legacy of skep- A the original outspoken skeptic. community, and many more ticism. I’m referring to Clara Peller who are no longer with us. In a follow-up commercial, while (1902–1987), best known for her fa- the two other ladies are on the phone Historians of the skeptical community, mous skeptical question, “Where’s the debating what to say to the Big Bun such as Daniel Loxton and Tim Farley Beef?” in ads for Wendy’s hamburgers.
    [Show full text]
  • Letters to the Editor
    SI March April 2010 pgs_SI J A 2009 1/27/10 10:48 AM Page 63 L E T T E R S T O T H E E D I T O R could hardly be enthralled by the prospect of the worth of items. receiving a text message that read, “OMG!!! U The other day my wife came across a pro- RASKEPTIC!!! AWESOME!!!” Since I don’t even gram on the A&E channel called Extreme have a cell phone, let alone a Blackberry, this Paranormal. Perhaps we need to counter that won’t happen. I fully realize that serious with a program called Extreme Skeptic! devices such as computers, mine included, David W. Briggs are often used for frivolous purposes. Still it [email protected] is difficult for me to envision serious scien- tific investigations being bandied about on cell phones and YouTube. Heidi Anderson’s article “Skeptical Parent - I am also concerned about quality. There is no law that states that the product of ing: Raising Young Critical Thinkers” should quantity and quality is a constant, but it raise a red flag for skeptics. In discussing the often works that way, alas. I thus can only be decision to have children, she quotes a skep- concerned that so-called skeptical investiga- tic who “admits that choosing to have a child tions will be half-baked and injurious to the was a ‘bit of a leap of faith,’ an approach for- health of the skeptical movement. Scientific eign to many skeptics.” She goes on to list investigations are able to dispel rumor and reasons for remaining childless.
    [Show full text]
  • CFI Calls on FDA to Label Homeopathic Drugs As Untested and Unproven
    [ NEWS AND COMMENT CFI Calls on FDA to Label Homeopathic Drugs as Untested and Unproven Consumers spend $3 billion a year on homeopathic drugs, yet most remain unaware that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not evalu- ated them for safety and effectiveness. In comments filed with the FDA the week of August 17, the Center for Inquiry (CFI) urged the FDA to sub- ject homeopathic drugs to the same testing requirements as conventional drugs. Failing that, CFI urged the FDA to at least require homeopathic prod- ucts to be clearly labeled as untested and unproven. Homeopathy is a centuries-old pseudoscience, developed before the discovery of disease-causing pathogens, based on the false beliefs that “like cures like” and that the more an ingredient is diluted the more potent it is, due to water’s “memory” of the diluted ingre- for not distinguishing between effec- tive remedies and pseudoscience Homeopathy is a centuries-old dient. As CFI stated in its comments, from the 1700s if both products “By its own definition, homeopathy share the same store shelves, and pseudoscience, developed cannot work.” Yet for historical reasons there is no labeling on homeopathic relating to the passage of the original drugs to indicate they are given a before the discovery of Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1938 pass by the FDA. Clear labeling on disease-causing pathogens. (which had a homeopathic practitioner homeopathic products, that catches consumers’ attention and informs as a key sponsor), homeopathic prod- them that the FDA does not evalu- can result in people becoming sicker or ucts can be marketed even though they ate these products for safety or effec- even dying for lack of real, scientifically are not subject to the rigorous testing tiveness, is an easy way to ensure that for safety and effectiveness that conven- people looking to treat their illnesses proven treatments.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads/Why-Is-There-A-Skeptical-Movement.Pdf, 66
    URI GELLER AND THE RECEPTION OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY IN THE 1970S by JACOB OLDER GREEN B.A. The University of Chicago, 2009 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (History) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) July, 2018 © Jacob Older Green, 2018 The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: URI GELLER AND THE RECEPTION OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY IN THE 1970S submitted by Jacob Older Green in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History Examining Committee: Joy Dixon, History Supervisor Robert Brain, History Supervisory Committee Member Alexei Kojevnikov Additional Examiner ii Abstract This paper investigates the controversy following the publication of work by scientists working at the Stanford Research Institute that claimed to show that the extraordinary mental powers of 1970s super psychic Uri Geller were real. The thesis argues that the controversy around Geller represented a shift in how skeptical scientists treated parapsychology. Instead of engaging with parapsychology and treating it as an incipient, if unpromising scientific discipline, which had been the norm since the pioneering work of J.B. Rhine in the 1930s, parapsychology's critics portrayed the discipline as a pseudoscience, little more than an attempt by credulous scientists to confirm their superstitious belief in occult psychic powers. The controversy around Geller also led to the creation of The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), one of the first skeptical organizations specializing in investigating supposed instances of paranormal phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bell Witch Mystery
    SI Jan Feb 2012 NEW_SI new design masters 11/14/11 3:32 PM Page 32 [SKEPTICAL INQUIREE BE N J A MIN R A DF OR D Benjamin Radford is a research fellow at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and author or coauthor of six books, including Tracking the Chupacabra: The Vampire Beast in Fact, Fiction, and Folklore. The Bell Witch Mystery What’s the truth behind the “Bell Witch” story? Q: —J. Rodgers : The Bell Witch case is circulated in Mississippi, the witch was one of the oldest Amer - not a woman named Kate but instead A ican ghost stories. It is the spirit of a male slave whom John also widely said to be one of the most Bell had killed for having been Betsy’s credible and best-documented polter- illicit lover [Hudson and McCarter geist cases in history. Not only were the 1934]). The witch ends up killing John ghostly goings-on seen by dozens of Bell and then finally leaves the family in credible eyewitnesses (including a fu- peace. ture president of the United States), but As with many ghost stories, the Bell the case was even “validated by the Witch story has been retold countless State of Tennessee as the only case in times. The legend has appeared in several U.S. history where a spirit has caused books, including The Bell Witch: An the death of a human being” (Schager American Haunting (Monahan 2000), 2006). and has been adapted into several horror According to James McCormick and films, including An American Haunting.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Titanic Myths | Psychoanalysis | Gender & Personality | Pseudoscience in Universities | ‘Patience Worth’
    SI MJ Cover_SI JF 10 V1 3/29/12 9:41 AM Page 1 Ten Titanic Myths | Psychoanalysis | Gender & Personality | Pseudoscience in Universities | ‘Patience Worth’ the Magazine for Science and Reason Vol. 36 No. 3 | May/June 2012 INTRODUCTORY PRICE U.S. and Canada $4.95 Published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry May June pages BOX_SI new design masters 3/29/12 9:00 AM Page 2 AT THE CEN TERFOR IN QUIRY –TRANSNATIONAL Paul Kurtz, Founder Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow Richard Schroeder, Chairman Massimo Polidoro, Research Fellow Ronald A. Lindsay, President and CEO Benjamin Radford, Research Fellow www.csicop.org Bar ry Karr, Ex ec u tive Di rect or Richard Wiseman, Research Fellow James E. Al cock*, psy chol o gist, York Univ., Tor on to Thom as Gi lov ich, psy chol o gist, Cor nell Univ. Jay M. Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of Mar cia An gell, MD, former ed i tor-in-chief, Wendy M. Grossman, writer; founder and first editor, Astronomy and director of the Hopkins New Eng land Jour nal of Med i cine The Skeptic magazine (UK) Observatory, Williams College Kimball Atwood IV, MD, physician; author; Sus an Haack, Coop er Sen ior Schol ar in Arts and John Pau los, math e ma ti cian, Tem ple Univ. Newton, MA Sci en ces, professor of phi los o phy and professor Massimo Pigliucci, professor of philosophy, of Law, Univ. of Mi ami Steph en Bar rett, MD, psy chi a trist; au thor; con sum er City Univ. of New York–Lehman College ad vo cate, Al len town, PA Harriet Hall, MD, family physician; investigator, Stev en Pink er, cog ni tive sci en tist, Harvard Univ.
    [Show full text]