Selfish Gene Revisited Richard Dawkins

Randi on Vaccinations | Miracle Tableau | UFO ‘Disclosure’ | FTC Tackles Homeopathy

the Magazine for Science and Reason Vol. 41 No. 2 | March/April 2017 THE SELFISH GENE REVISITED RICHARD DAWKINS

WHY SKEPTICISM? Ronald A. Lindsay

WHY WE BELIEVE —LONG AFTER WE SHOULDN’T Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

GOD’S OWN MEDICINE Paul A. Offit

SHOULDN’T SKEPTICS KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT? Massimo Pigliucci

CSICON 2016 LAS VEGAS: A SPECIAL SECTION

INTRODUCTORY PRICE U.S. and Canada $5.99

Published by the Center for Inquiry in association with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry a program of the Robyn E. Blumner, President and CEO Massimo Polidoro, Research Fellow Barry Karr, Executive Director Benjamin Radford, Research Fellow Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow Richard Wiseman, Research Fellow www.csicop.org

Fellows James E. Alcock*, psychologist, York Univ., Toronto Murray Gell-Mann, professor of physics, Santa Fe Institute; Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA Marcia Angell, MD, former editor-in-chief, Nobel laureate Loren Pankratz, psychologist, Oregon Health New England Journal of Medicine Thomas Gilovich, psychologist, Cornell Univ. Sciences Univ. Kimball Atwood IV, MD, physician; author; Newton, MA David H. Gorski, cancer surgeon and researcher at Barbara Robert L. Park, professor of physics, Univ. of Maryland Stephen Barrett, MD, psychiatrist; author; consumer advocate, Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute and chief of breast surgery Jay M. Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of Allentown, PA section, Wayne State University School of Medicine. Astronomy and director of the Hopkins Willem Betz, MD, professor of medicine, Univ. of Brussels Wendy M. Grossman, writer; founder and first editor, Observatory, Williams College Irving Biederman, psychol ogist, Univ. of Southern CA The Skeptic magazine (UK) John Paulos, mathematician, Temple Univ. Susan Blackmore, visit ing lecturer, Univ. of the West of Susan Haack, Cooper Senior Scholar in Arts and Clifford A. Pickover, scientist, author, editor, IBM T.J. Watson England, Bristol Sciences, professor of philosophy and professor Research Center. Sandra Blakeslee, science writer; author; New York Times of Law, Univ. of Miami Massimo Pigliucci, professor of philosophy, science correspondent Harriet Hall*, MD, physician; investigator, Puyallup, WA City Univ. of New York–Lehman College Mark Boslough, physicist, Sandia National Laboratories, David J. Helfand, professor of astronomy, Steven Pinker, cognitive scientist, Harvard Univ. Albuquerque, NM Columbia Univ. Massimo Polidoro, science writer; author; executive Henri Broch, physicist, Univ. of Nice, France Terence M. Hines, prof. of psychology, Pace Univ., director of CICAP, Italy Pleasantville, NY Jan Harold Brunvand, folklorist; professor emeritus James L. Powell, geochemist, author, professor; executive direc- of English, Univ. of Utah Douglas R. Hofstadter, professor of human tor, National Physical Science Consortium; retired college and understanding and cognitive science, Indiana Univ. Mario Bunge, philos o pher, McGill Univ., Montreal museum president, Buellton, CA Gerald Holton, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and professor Anthony R. Pratkanis, professor of psychology, Univ. of CA, Robert T. Carroll, emeritus professor of philosophy, of histo ry of science, Harvard Univ. Sacramento City College; writer Santa Cruz Sean B. Carroll, molecular geneticist; vice president for science Ray Hyman*, psychologist, Univ. of Oregon Donald R. Prothero, paleontologist/geologist, Natural History education, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Madison, WI Stuart D. Jordan, NASA astrophysicist emeritus; Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA Thomas R. Casten, energy expert; founder o, Recycled Energy science advisor to Center for Inquiry Office of Public Benjamin Radford, investigator; research fellow, Committee Development, Westmont, IL Policy, Washington, DC for Skeptical Inquiry John R. Cole, anthropologist; editor, National Barry Karr, executive director, Committee for James “The Amazing” Randi, magician; CSICOP founding Center for Science Education Skeptical Inquiry, Amherst, NY member; founder, James Randi Educational Foundation K.C. Cole, science writer; author; professor, Univ. of Southern Lawrence M. Krauss, foundation professor, School Milton Rosenberg, psychologist, Univ. of Chicago California’s Annenberg School of Journalism of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics Dept.; Amardeo Sarma*, chairman, GWUP, Germany John Cook, climate communication research fellow for director, Origins Initiative, Arizona State Univ. Richard Saunders, president, Australian Skeptics; educator; the Global Change Institute at the Univ. of Queensland, Edwin C. Krupp, astronomer; director, investigator; podcaster; Sydney, Australia Australia. Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles, CA Joe Schwarcz, director, McGill Office for Science and Society Frederick Crews, literary and cultural critic; professor emeritus Lawrence Kusche, science writer Eugenie C. Scott*, physical anthropologist; chair, advisory of English, Univ. of CA, Berkeley Leon Lederman, emeritus director, Fermilab; council , National Center for Science Education Richard Dawkins, zoologist, Oxford Univ. Nobel laureate in physics Robert Sheaffer, science writer Geoffrey Dean, technical editor, Perth, Australia Stephan Lewandowsky, psychologist, School of Experimental Seth Shostak, senior astronomer, SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA Cornelis de Jager, profes sor of astro phys ics, Univ. of Utrecht, Psychology and Cabot Institute, Univ. of Bristol, UK the Netherlands Scott O. Lilienfeld*, psychol ogist, Emory Univ., Atlanta, GA Simon Singh, science writer; broadcaster; UK Daniel C. Dennett, Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy Lin Zixin, former editor, Science and Technology Daily (China) Dick Smith, entrepreneur, publisher, aviator, adventurer, Terrey Hills, N.S.W., Australia and director of Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts Univ. Jere Lipps, Museum of Paleontology, Univ. of CA, Berkeley Keith E. Stanovich, cognitive psychologist; professor of Ann Druyan, writer and producer; CEO, Cosmos Studios, Elizabeth Loftus*, profes sor of psychol ogy, Univ. of CA, Irvine human development and applied psychology, Univ . of Ithaca, NY Daniel Loxton, author, editor of Junior Skeptic at Skeptic maga- Toronto Sanal Edamaruku, president, Indian Rationalist zine (US), artist, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Karen Stollznow*, linguist; skeptical investigator; writer; Association and Rationalist International David Marks, psychologist, City Univ., London podcaster Edzard Ernst, professor, Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Mario Mendez-Acosta, journal ist and science writer, Mexico City Jill Cornell Tarter, astronomer, SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Carol Tavris, psycholo gist and author, Los Angeles, CA Exeter, UK Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology, Brown Univ. David Morrison, space scientist, NASA Ames Research Center David E. Thomas*, physicist and mathematician, Socorro, NM Kenneth Feder, professor of anthropology, Central Connecticut State Univ. Richard A. Muller, profes sor of physics, Univ. of CA, Berkeley Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and director, Hayden Planetarium, New York City Krista Federspiel, science journalist, expert on complementary Joe Nickell, senior research fellow, CSI and alternative medicine, Vienna, Austria. Jan Willem Nienhuys, mathematician, Waalre, Indre Viskontas, cognitive neuroscientist, TV and podcast host, Barbara Forrest, professor of philosophy, SE Louisiana Univ. The Netherlands and opera singer, San Francisco, CA Andrew Fraknoi, astronomer, Foothill College, Los Altos Hills, CA Lee Nisbet, philosopher, Medaille College Stuart Vyse, psychologist, former Joanne Toor Cummings ’50 professor of psychology, Connecticut College; author Kendrick Frazier*, science writer; editor, Skeptical Inquirer Steven Novella*, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Yale Univ. School of Medicine of Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition Christopher C. French, professor, Department Bill Nye, science educator and television host, Nye Labs Marilyn vos Savant, Parade magazine contributing editor of Psychology, and head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, Goldsmiths College, Univ. of London James E. Oberg, science writer Steven Weinberg, profes sor of physics and astronomy, Univ. of Julia Galef, host of the Rationally Speaking podcast; Irmgard Oepen, professor of medicine (retired), Texas at Austin; Nobel laureate cofounder, Center for Applied Rationality, Berkeley, CA Marburg, Germany E.O. Wilson, Univ. profes sor emeritus, organismic and evolu- Luigi Garlaschelli, chemist, Università di Pavia (Italy); Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics, director of the Vaccine Educa- tionary biology, Harvard Univ. research fellow of CICAP, the Italian skeptics group tion Center, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Richard Wiseman, psychologist, Univ. of Hertfordshire, England Maryanne Garry, professor, School of Psychology, Victoria Naomi Oreskes, geologist and professor, departments of the Benjamin Wolozin, professor, Department of Pharmacology, Univ. of Wellington, New Zealand History of Science and Earth and Planetary Sciences, Boston Univ. School of Medicine

* Member, CSI Executive Council (Affiliations given for identification only.)

Thei Skept cal Inquirer (ISSN 0194-6730) is published Director, CSI, P.O. Box 703, Amherst, NY 14226-0703. Tel.: authors. Their publication does not necessarily constitute an bimonthly by the Center for Inquiry in association with 716-636-1425. Fax: 716-636-1733. Email: bkarr@center- endorsement by CSI or its members unless so stated. the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, P.O. Box 703, Am- forinquiry.net. Copyright ©2017 by the Center for Inquiry and the herst, NY 14226. Printed in U.S.A. Periodicals post Manuscripts, letters, books for review, and editorial in Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. All rights reserved. age paid at Buffalo, NY, and at additional mailing of quiries should be sent to Kendrick Frazier, Editor, Skeptical Subscriptions and changes of address should be ad fices. Subscription prices: one year (six issues), $35; Inquirer, EMAIL: [email protected]. Mail: 944 dressed to: Skeptical Inquirer, P.O. Box 703, Amherst, NY two years, $60; three years, $84; single issue, $5.99. Deer Drive NE, Albuquerque, NM 87122. Before submitting 14226-0703. Or call toll-free 1-800-634-1610 (outside Cana dian and foreign orders: Payment in U.S. funds drawn any manuscript, please consult our Guide for Authors for the U.S. call 716-636-1425). Old address as well as new on a U.S. bank must accompany orders; please add US$10 style and reference requirements and submittal instruc- are necessary for change of subscriber’s address, with six per year for shipping. Cana dian and foreign customers are tions. It is on our website at www.csicop.org/publications/ weeks advance notice. Skeptical Inquirer subscribers may encouraged to use Visa or MasterCard. guide. not speak on behalf of CSI or the Skeptical Inquirer. Inquiries from the media and the public about the work Articles, reports, reviews, and letters published in the Postmaster: Send changes of address to Skeptical of the Committee should be made to Barry Karr, Executive Skeptical Inquirer represent the views and work of individual Inquirer, P.O. Box 703, Amherst, NY 14226-0703. Skepti cal Inquirer March/April 2017 | Vol. 41, No. 2

FEATURES COLUMNS 38 FROM THE EDITOR CSICon in Limelight, The Selfish Gene The Selfish Gene Revisited Revisited...... 4 RICHARD DAWKINS NEWS AND COMMENT Center for Inquiry and Richard Dawkins 44 Foundation Now Formally Merged / FTC God’s Own Medicine Will Regulate Marketing of Homeopathic Drugs / Elizabeth Loftus Wins 2016 PAUL A. OFFIT John Maddox Prize for Standing Up for Science...... 5 46 Why Skepticism? INVESTIGATIVE FILES Miracle Tableau: RONALD A. LINDSAY Knock, Ireland, 1879 JOE NICKELL...... 26 51

Why We Believe A MAGICIAN IN THE LAB —Long After We Shouldn’t The Dangerous Delusion about Vaccines and Autism CAROL TAVRIS AND ELLIOT ARONSON JAMES RANDI...... 29 54 PSYCHIC VIBRATIONS The Virtuous Skeptic ‘UFO Disclosure’ Fizzles Again in 2016 MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI ROBERT SHEAFFER...... 32

CONFERENCE REPORT SCIENCE WATCH 8 The Delectable Myths of Healthy and Healthier Obesity CSICon 2016: KENNETH W. KRAUSE...... 33 Las Vegas

INTERVIEW SKEPTICAL INQUIREE Mystery of the Paulding Light 16 BENJAMIN RADFORD...... 36 Still ‘Amazing’: NEW AND NOTABLE...... 60 A Conversation with James Randi LETTERS TO THE EDITOR...... 64 KENDRICK FRAZIER THE LAST LAUGH...... 66

SPECIAL REPORT REVIEWS The Scientist and the Philosopher

20 JAMES E. ALCOCK...... 58 The John Maddox Prize Between Two Worlds: Memoirs of a Nomination for Philosopher-Scientist Elizabeth Loftus by Mario Bunge CHRIS FRENCH What Ghosts Mean BENJAMIN RADFORD...... 62 FORUM Ghostly Encounters: The Hauntings 24 of Everyday Life Let Your Questioning by Dennis and Michele Waskul Start with Wikipedia SUSAN GERBIC Committee for Skeptical Inquiry ™ “... promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use Skep ti cal In quir er of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.” THE MAG A ZINE FOR SCI ENCE AND REA SON EDI TOR Kend rick Fra zi er DEPUTY EDI TOR Ben ja min Rad ford MANA GING EDI TOR Julia Lavarnway [ FROM THE EDITOR ASSISTANT EDITOR Nicole Scott ART DIRECT OR Chri sto pher Fix PRODUC TION Paul E. Loynes CSICon in Limelight, The Self ish Gene Revisited WEBMASTER Matthew Licata PUBLISH ER’S REPRE SENT A TIVE Bar ry Karr n this space last time I promised coverage in this issue of our CSICon 2016 EDI TO RI AL BOARD James E. Al cock, Harriet Hall, Las Vegas conference. And here it is. We have an extended conference section. Ray Hy man, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Elizabeth Loftus, In addition, the feature articles by Ron Lindsay (“Why Skepticism?”), Carol Joe Nickell, Steven Novella, Am ar deo Sar ma, I Eugenie C. Scott, David E. Thomas, Leonard Tramiel

Tavris (“Why We Believe—Long After We Shouldn’t”), and Paul A. Offit CONSULT ING EDI TORS Sus an J. Black more, (“God’s Own Medicine”) are derived from their talks at CSICon. And so is my Ken neth L. Fed er, Barry Karr, E.C. Krupp, conversation with our beloved colleague James Randi. Because this conference Jay M. Pasachoff, Rich ard Wis e man CONTRIB UT ING EDI TORS D.J. Grothe, Harriet Hall, proved so successful, CSI has announced we’ll have a CSICon 2017, again in Kenneth W. Krause, David Morrison, James E. Oberg, Las Vegas, October 26–29. Massimo Pigliucci, Rob ert Sheaf fer, David E. Thomas In our cover article, our colleague the famed evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins revisits the book that launched him into international promi- Published in association with nence, The Selfish Gene. The Selfish Gene was first published in 1976, coinciden- tally the same year our organization CSICOP (now the Committee for Skeptical CHAIR Edward Tabash Inquiry) was established. The book supplied, for the first time to wide popular PRESIDENT AND CEO Robyn E. Blumner audiences, a clear view of evolution from the vantage point of the gene itself. It CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Barry Karr CORPO RATE COUNSEL Nicholas J. Little, has sold millions of copies, including a second edition in 1989 and a thirtieth Brenton N. VerPloeg anniversary edition in 2006. BUSINESS MANA GER Pa tri cia Beau champ Now there is a fortieth anniversary edition, two in fact. Oxford University FISCAL OFFI CER Paul Pau lin Press has published a trade paperback Fortieth Anniversary Edition of The Selfish SUBSCRIPTION DATA MANAGER Jacalyn Mohr Gene plus a hardcover titled The Extended Selfish Gene , which includes all the ma- COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR Paul Fidalgo terial in the former. It also includes two chapters from his second book, The Ex- DIRECT OR OF LIBRAR IES Tim o thy S. Binga tended Phenotype , that responded to two main criticisms of The Selfish Gene—“the VICE PRESIDENT FOR PHILANTHROPY Martina Fern DIRECTOR, COUNCIL FOR SECULAR HUMANISM Great Genetic Determinism Fallacy,” which Dawkins describes as the “mistaken Tom Flynn view that our behavior is entirely determined by our genes,” without regard to the DIRECTOR, DIGITAL PRODUCT AND STRATEGIES environment and other factors; and second, the “adaptationist misunderstanding” Matt Licata that all features and behaviors should be understood as adaptations. DIRECTOR, CAMPUS AND COMMUNITY PROGRAMS Debbie Goddard For these 2016 editions, Dawkins has written a new epilogue, and that is what DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT we present in this issue. Some criticisms came from misunderstanding the book’s Stephanie Guttormson title. In his article, Dawkins writes that equally appropriate titles would have been BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Edward Tabash (chair), , David Cowan, Richard Dawkns, Brian Engler, The Cooperative Gene or The Immortal Gene and he explains why. Kendrick Frazier, Barry A. Kosmin, Y. Sherry Sheng, “The gene’s eye view of life, the central theme of this book, illuminates not just Andy Thomson, Leonard Tramiel. Honorary: Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, the evolution of altruism and selfishness,” Dawkins writes. “It also illuminates the Susan Jacoby, Lawrence Krauss. deep past, in ways of which I had no inkling when I first wrote The Selfish Gene .”

Dawkins has been a fellow of CSICOP/CSI since 1994. He, Carl Sagan, Randi on Vaccinations | Miracle Tableau | UFO ‘Disclosure’ | FTC Tackles Homeopathy Francis Crick, and Glenn T. Seaborg wrote the four lead articles in our first

magazine-sized, bimonthly format issue ( January/February 1995). the Magazine for Science and Reason Vol. 41 No. 2 | March/April 2017 Now he is even more closely associated with us. In early 2016, we announced THE SELFISH that his Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science was merging with GENE our overall organization, the Center for Inquiry. That merger is now complete REVISITED and announced in this issue. CFI now includes as discrete entities our Commit- RICHARD DAWKINS WHY SKEPTICISM? tee for Skeptical Inquiry (and Skeptical Inquirer), the Council for Secular Ronald A. Lindsay WHY WE BELIEVE —LONG AFTER WE SHOULDN’T Humanism (and Free Inquiry), and the Richard Dawkins Foundation and its Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson GOD’S OWN MEDICINE evolution-education activities. The merger adds breadth, strength, and resiliency Paul A. Offit SHOULDN’T SKEPTICS KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT? to the organization. Massimo Pigliucci CSICON 2016 LAS VEGAS: CSI and Skeptical Inquirer—and our crucial mission of promoting scientific A SPECIAL SECTION thinking, critical inquiry, and the use of science and reason in examining con- Published by the Center for Inquiry in association with the troversial or extraordinary claims—remain unchanged and treasured. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry —KenDrick FraZier [ NEWS AND COMMENT

Center for Inquiry and Richard Dawkins Foundation Now Formally Merged

The following announcement was issued by the Center for Inquiry on December 31, 2016:

At the beginning of 2016, the Center the Teachers Institute for Evolutionary bash, Chair of the CFI Board of Direc- for Inquiry (CFI) and the Richard Science (TIES). tors. “We must continue the struggle for Dawkins Foundation for Reason & CFI brings its foundational pro- the full equality of atheists and other re- Science (RDFRS) began a partnership grams, the Committee for Skeptical ligious dissenters. We must continue to combining the people, programs, and Inquiry and the Council for Secular fight to preserve the scientific/empirical resources of these two extraordinary Humanism, along with the Office of method in the crafting of public policy. organizations to better advance our Public Policy, CFI On Campus, Afri- No one should ever lose their legally shared mission for reason, science, and can Americans for Humanism, and its available freedoms because of nothing secularism. Throughout the year, CFI vast network of local branches. more than the religious beliefs of some- and RDFRS have worked with pas- “This is a wonderful way to end one else.” sion and purpose to combat religion’s an eventful and tumultuous year,” said Of course, a new organization needs incursions into government, to expose Robyn Blumner, who took on the role a new logo! Designed by Pink Jacket pseudoscientific boondoggles, to sup- of CEO of CFI in January 2016 and Studio, the new Center for Inquiry logo port global freedom of expression, and will now also become president of the (above) both honors and modernizes to foster strong communities for secu- organization. “In 2017, there will be the established lowercase “cfi” icon, now larists, skeptics, humanists, and other determined assaults on the secular with the Dawkins Foundation’s DNA nonbelievers. character of our government, and the double helix powering the flame that is All this while, behind the scenes the foundational role of science and facts in our “candle in the dark.” We hope you final pieces were being set into place to public policy will be challenged in new like it as much as we do. Throughout formalize this partnership, a compli- and dangerous ways. But now there’s 2017, expect to see further changes in cated process that took significant time a stronger Center for Inquiry ready to and effort. meet those challenges head on.” the new CFI’s branding and improve- Today we are proud to tell you that Former CEO Ronald A. Lindsay, ments to our digital presence. on December 31, the Center for Inquiry who until now retained the title of pres- We’ve been building up to this great and the Richard Dawkins Foundation ident during this transition, will to our moment for a year, and we’re incredi- for Reason & Science will officially— delight remain a senior research fellow bly excited to bring our work to new and legally—become one single insti- with CFI. Richard Dawkins will join heights as a bigger, more impactful, tution. CFI’s Board of Directors, along with unified organization for reason, science, As we announced back in January RDFRS board members David Cowan and secularism. And it’s the support 2016, the Richard Dawkins Founda- and Andy Thomson. of people like you that have made this tion for Reason & Science will now “I am deeply gratified that the Cen- moment possible and will continue to become a division of the new Center ter for Inquiry has now formally merged make possible in the years ahead. If you for Inquiry, as active as ever, bringing in with the Richard Dawkins Foundation haven’t already, become a member of the such programs as Openly Secular and for Reason & Science,” said Eddie Ta- new Center for Inquiry today.

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 5 FTC Will Regulate Marketing of Homeopathic Drugs Ronald A. Lindsay

An agency of the federal government chemistry and physics. used for self-limiting conditions, such is finally taking systematic action to Not surprisingly, homeopathic drugs as colds or the flu. Almost all patients regulate marketing claims made for are not effective (apart from a placebo eventually recover whether or not they homeopathic products. effect in some cases). The most compre- take anything. Second, the homeopathic On November 15, 2016, the Federal hensive study on homeopathic remedies industry has employed very effective, Trade Commission (FTC) issued an was conducted recently by the Austra- slick marketing techniques that appeal enforcement policy statement provid- lian National Health and Medical Re- to modern sensitivities. Their packaging ing that over-the-counter homeopathic and advertising emphasize that their products must substantiate any claims products are “safe, gentle, and natural” of effectiveness with competent and with “no side effects.” This last claim is reliable scientific evidence. If no such This is a significant undoubtedly true for most homeopathic evidence exists—and it does not exist— products—because they produce no and claims are still made for the prod- victory for evidence-based effects whatsoever. Moreover, homeo- uct, then the product must clearly state medicine and for pathic marketers also claim their prod- on its packaging and advertising that: ucts are “regulated by the FDA,” the 1) there is no scientific evidence that consumers, especially federal Food and Drug Administration. the product works; and 2) the product’s bearing in mind the This last claim, although literally true, claims are based on theories of home- decades-long, vigorous is misleading. opathy from the 1700s that are not ac- When most consumers see that a cepted by most modern medical experts. opposition to meaningful product is “regulated by the FDA,” they This is a significant victory for ev- regulation from the assume this means that the product has idence-based medicine and for con- been tested for its safety and effective- sumers, especially bearing in mind the homeopathic industry. ness and that the FDA has concluded decades-long, vigorous opposition to these tests are scientifically sound. With meaningful regulation from the homeo- respect to homeopathic products, this pathic industry. assumption would be incorrect. Background on Homeopathy The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic search Council (NHMRC), which is- and the Prior Lack of Regulation Act (FDCA) explicitly recognized ho- sued its report in 2015. After assessing meopathic products as drugs, provided As readers of Skeptical Inquirer are more than 1,800 studies on homeopa- they were formulated in accordance aware, homeopathy is a prescientific thy, the NHMRC reached this unam- with the recognized homeopathic phar- theory of medicine that was developed biguous conclusion: macopeia. There were multiple reasons before the advent of modern chemistry There is no reliable evidence that for this official recognition of homeo- and decades before researchers such as homeopathy is effective for treating pathic products, including the fact that Robert Koch first discovered the con- health conditions [and] people who a key sponsor of the FDCA was Royal nection between microorganisms and choose homeopathy may put their Copeland, a homeopathic physician. disease. It is based on two speculative health at risk if they reject or delay Since the passage of the FDCA, the treatments for which there is good principles. First, there is the “law of evidence for safety and effectiveness. FDA has essentially taken a hands-off similars,” which claims that medica- approach to homeopathic products, not tions should produce symptoms similar Yet despite the lack of evidence (or requiring that they prove their effec- to the diseases they are intended to even a plausible theory) to support the tiveness. The FDA has intervened only cure (“like cures like”). Second, there is claims made for homeopathic products, on occasions where the agency believes the law of infinitesimal doses, pursuant the demand for homeopathic products that the product or products in question to which the more dilute the drug, the has increased significantly in the past few pose a direct threat to health and safety, more powerful the effect. The first decades. In the United States alone, $3 such as the recent incident involving principle is, at best, a highly inaccurate billion to $4 billion is spent each year on Hyland’s homeopathic teething tablets. statement of the mechanisms of our homeopathic products. A couple of rea- In addition to the special status immune system. The second is flatly sons may explain this increased demand. given homeopathic products under the contrary to fundamental principles of First, most homeopathic products are FDCA, the FDA’s lack of effective reg-

6 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer [ NEWS AND COMMENT

ulatory oversight can be explained by effective. The petitions also referenced by both agencies to blunt, let alone re- the FDA’s limited resources and the the booming market for homeopathic verse, the growth of the homeopathic agency’s awareness that in most cases, products as a reason for the agency to industry. Unfortunately, pseudoscience although homeopathic products are rethink its permissive approach. sells. Too many Americans don’t un- worthless, they do not cause any seri- Last year, the FDA issued a public derstand basic science. It’s appropriate ous harm—except to the consumer’s notice indicating that the agency was for the agencies with the requisite ex- wallet. Moreover, until the past couple reconsidering its regulation of homeo- pertise to insist that the homeopaths be of decades, the market for homeopathic pathic products. CSI/CFI submitted restricted in their efforts to exploit this products was relatively small. comments to the agency, and Michael ignorance. In the twenty-first century, The FTC, which has jurisdiction De Dora, CFI’s director of public pol- magic potions should not be able to dis- over marketing while the FDA has icy, testified at the FDA hearing on guise themselves as effective medicine. jurisdiction over product safety and this issue. The FTC followed suit soon labeling, followed the FDA’s lead and thereafter, issuing its own notice of a For Further Reading generally allowed homeopathic manu- possible change to its regulatory over- Federal Trade Commission, Enforcement Policy Statement on Marketing Claims for facturers and retailers to make unsub- sight. CFI, in conjunction with the OTC Homeopathic Drugs, https://www.ftc. stantiated claims for their products. Richard Dawkins Foundation for Rea- gov/system/files/documents/public_state ments/996984/p114505_otc_homeo CSI/CFI Petitions and Change son & Science, submitted comments to the FTC. pathic_drug_enforcement_policy_statement.pdf in Regulatory Approach (November 15, 2016). The FTC’s recently issued policy Australian National Health and Medical Research In 2011, the Committee for Skeptical statement confirms that that agency has Council, Evidence on the Effectiveness of Inquiry and the Center for Inquiry decided it is time to require the homeo- Homeopathy for Treating Health Conditions, https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/pub- filed petitions with the FDA, sup- pathic industry to change its deceptive lications/attachments/cam02a_information_ ported by citations to scientific studies, marketing practices. Whether or not paper.pdf (March 2015). requesting the agency to either require the FDA will make a similar decision homeopathic products to be tested for remains to be seen. Although the FTC Ronald A. Lindsay is the former pres- effectiveness or to state on their label- ruling is a major step in the right direc- ident and CEO of the Center for In- ing that they had not been proven tion, it will take a coordinated approach quiry.

Elizabeth Loftus Wins 2016 John Maddox Prize for Standing Up for Science

Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, an expert on the malleability of Now in its fifth year, the John Maddox Prize is a joint initiative memory, has been awarded the 2016 John Maddox Prize for of the international scientific journal Nature, of which Maddox standing up for science. was editor for twenty-two years; the Kohn Foundation, whose Loftus, a CSI fellow and member of CSI’s Executive Council, founder, Sir Ralph Kohn, was a personal friend of Maddox’s; is Distinguished Professor of psychology and social behavior and the charity Sense about Science, where Maddox served as and criminology, law and society at the University of California, a trustee until his death in 2009. Irvine. “Standing up for psychological science in general and re- Best known for her groundbreaking work on the “misinforma- search on memory in particular has brought a good deal of tion effect”—in which the memories of eyewitnesses are altered antagonism my way,” Loftus said. “Receiving this award helps by exposure to incorrect information about events—she was also to erase the pain of insults, death threats, and lawsuits. And I honored for her pioneering research on the creation and nature of false memories. Loftus had to withstand legal attacks and love the idea that my CV will forever contain the name of the sustained personal abuse from therapists, patients, and others late Sir John Maddox, respected by all for his tireless defense who didn’t like her findings. of science.” “I could hardly contain my excitement when I first learned Maddox was also a CSI fellow, as was last year’s winner of that I would receive the prize, especially since it recognizes the the award, Edzard Ernst (SI, March/April 2016). work of people who promote sound, credible science that bears Fuller details about Loftus and the attacks she withstood on a matter of public interest and who have faced tough chal- appear in fellow psychologist Christopher French’s nominating lenges in the process,” Loftus said. letter to the award committee (page 20).

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 7 Photos courtesy of Brain Engler

SICOP invented the skeptics’ conference. Over the past October 27–31 at the Excalibur Hotel in Las Vegas, brought to- four decades, beginning in 1976, it sponsored dozens of gether close to five hundred scientists, scholars, and skeptical Cmemorable conferences, many in association with major investigators from the United States and around the world in a universities and some of them in other countries with interna- lively exchange of ideas. This special conference section of the tional cosponsors. Skeptical Inquirer offers some flavor of the presentations, a few After a seven-year pause, the conferences resumed in 2011 vivid examples of what those who were there in person experi- under the rubric CSICon. The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry enced. Elsewhere in this issue, several feature articles and my (CSICOP’s new name as of 2006), now a program of the Center conversation with James Randi are based on conference talks and for Inquiry, is the sponsor. Previous CSICons took place in New events, with more to come. Orleans, Nashville, and Tacoma. The latest, CSICon 2016, held —KenDrick FraZier, Editor

CSICon 2016 Lights Up Las Vegas

an one be simultaneously dazzled showed how con artists use storytelling to siasm; at the Saturday evening Halloween Cand disabused? Indulging in flights ply their trade; Kevin Folta and Kavin Sena- party, folks bravely tried their hand at Weird of fancy and still grounded in reality? pathy fought antiscience fear-mongering in Al’s craft with parody “skeptioke” perfor- Nostalgic yet future-focused? food and agriculture; Ron Lindsay reminded mances, and Zombie Donald Trump threat- The evidence suggests the answer to us why it remains so necessary to challenge ened to invalidate the entire party. all of these is yes. CSICon 2016, the latest Bigfoot and UFO beliefs; and Joe Nickell One could go on. And CSICon is about conference of the Committee for Skeptical exemplified the conscience of investigative more than the events themselves, more than the sum of its parts. It was hundreds Inquiry, held in Las Vegas October 27–30, skepticism. And much, much more. contained multitudes. There was a multitude of deep thoughts of smart, friendly, curious, kind people get- There was a multitude of amazing and key insights. On two separate nights, ting together in a truly fantastical location, speakers covering a multitude of enlight- two giants of skepticism, Richard Dawkins and connecting. CSICon was a great suc- ening and thought-provoking subjects. Just and James Randi, sat for what proved to cess, not just because of the conference for a sampling, SETI’s Jill Tarter talked about be fascinating and intimate conversations itself, but because everyone left wiser, hap- the very real possibilities for life beyond about journeys of the past, challenges of pier, and more enlightened than when they n Earth; Paul Offit took on the scourge of opi- the present, and hopes for the future. arrived. —Paul Fidalgo oid addiction; Bertha Vazquez and Eugenie There was a multitude of laughs, as Scott pushed back against the resistance George Hrab fully mastered all ceremonies Paul Fidalgo is communications director for to evolution education; Maria Konnikova with wit, music, and an infectious enthu- the Center for Inquiry.

George Hrab emceed CSICon 2016.

8 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer CONFERENCE REPORT CSICON LAS VEGAS

The Enlightenment Wrapped Up in an Organizational Package Excerpts from Center for Inquiry CEO Robyn Blumner's welcoming remarks at CSICon 2016 Las Vegas.

ello, I’m Robyn Blumner, and I’d like to cans reject human evolution. middle school science teachers how to teach formally welcome you to CSIcon 2016, Richard Dawkins and I were at the Grand evolution. Middle school teachers often come Han oasis for people who think evidence Canyon just before CSICon, and the park staff to teaching with degrees in elementary edu- matters. there is under siege by creationists. The front- cation and don’t have the knowledge, tools, or Just as quick background, I am the rela- line rangers are routinely challenged by peo- confidence to teach evolution. We give them tively new CEO for the Center for Inquiry. I also ple who believe the Grand Canyon was carved all three. We’ve held dozens of professional head up the Richard Dawkins Foundation for by Noah’s flood 4,000 years ago. The obvious development workshops across the country Reason & Science, which is in the process scientific facts that it took many millions of in places such as Texas, Florida’s panhandle, of merging with CFI. The consolidation makes years for the Colorado River to carve the can- Arkansas, and North Carolina. Teaching teach- a great deal of sense because our missions yon are irrelevant. The park staff is directed to ers will impact generations of students. And are virtually identical—to promote reason, be non-confrontational; it’s politics. Park ad- maybe there will be fewer people like Mike science, freedom of inquiry, secularism, and ministrators are afraid their funding will be cut Pence as a result. humanist values. if they challenge even the most outrageous CFI is also taking the lead in combating Or as I like to put it, we’re the Enlightenment religious claims. other forms of science denial, challenging ho- wrapped up in an organizational package. We’re not partisan here. We are completely meopathy before the Food and Drug Admin- So why am I hopeful about the future? nonpartisan. But we don’t have to ignore scien- istration, speaking the truth about “cupping” Despite the power of the religious right, tific denial among politicians. So let’s talk for a and other absurd and potentially harmful despite the rise of Islamic extremism, and de- moment about Mike Pence. When Mike Pence medical fads, and fighting to keep America’s spite the intransigence of science denial, I am was a member of Congress in 2002, he took to kids safe by making sure they get vaccinated. optimistic. Because the evidence-based world the floor of the House to bring some vital news Our magazine Skeptical Inquirer is the is winning. If you look at the trend lines in this to the public. What was so important that he country and beyond, there are some healthy had to share it with the American people and preeminent magazine for scientific skepticism. signs for skeptics. Advances in science and get it into the Congressional Record? Many of you are writers and contributors to technology are making our lives better in ways Human evolution is a hoax. Pence said he it and I’m sure many of you are subscribers. that are hard to deny. believed that “someday scientists will come to It has just celebrated its fortieth anniversary I firmly believe the future belongs to us: see that only the theory of intelligent design and, even in this challenging environment for people who embrace critical thinking and who provides even a remotely rational explanation print publications, is going strong. reject appeals to emotionality, tribalism, and for the known universe.” Pence believes in the We are living in an era when fake news is dogma. Now all we have to do is survive the biblical account and thinks that should be accepted as real, science is condemned as present. taught alongside evolution. Yes, that’s scary. ideology, and ad hominem attacks are sub- But first, the challenge: There are some To combat the American scourge of scien- stituted for reasoned argument. This is why dismal facts out there. For instance, over 40 tific illiteracy, one of the programs the Richard CFI’s work to promote reason, science, critical percent of Americans say human beings ar- Dawkins Foundation is bringing to the Center thinking, freedom of inquiry, and empathy— rived on this earth fully formed within the past for Inquiry is called “The Teacher Institute for the values of the Enlightenment—is more im- 10,000 years. That means four in ten Ameri- Evolutionary Science,” or TIES. TIES teaches portant than ever. n

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 9 Imagine a future where science and reason serve as the foundation for our lives.

A future where free expression is guaranteed everywhere around the world.

A future where old sectarian divisions have been overcome by the common bond of secular ideals.

This is the future CFI is working toward. Together, we can achieve it. It’s never too early to consider a planned gift—a legacy of reason.

Call today to reserve your copy of our new gift-planning brochure—a helpful guide through the many options available to you.

Then speak to your trusted ﬁ nancial advisor or attorney. It’s as simple as that. IT’S EASY Call Martina Fern today at1-800-818-7071 x426 for your copy of this valuable information, or e-mail her at [email protected]. There’s no obligation. CONFERENCE REPORT CSICON LAS VEGAS

Maria Konnikova on Stories as a Force for Evil

used to make my living as a stage actor, and to be. If we default to skepticism, if we show II was lucky enough to do almost nothing but skepticism, when someone seems to be in Shakespeare for about five years. To explain need, we’re violating the story. what I thought was so important about Shake- Of course this negative power of storytell- speare and theater, I often cite a scene in Al ing is not just applicable to con artists but to Pacino’s documentary Looking for Richard , in almost all areas of our lives. which a panhandler on the street tells Pacino, “Shakespeare teaches us how to feel .” So the stories I helped to tell as an actor could teach The core of Konnikova’s people how to feel. I loved that. message is that humans New Yorker writer Maria Konnikova reminded us at CSICon Las Vegas that as are not the creatures of valuable as storytelling is, as intrinsic to the fact we think we are. human experience it is, and as much as it does to give us new insights and deeper empathy, “in the wrong hands, stories can be a force for evil.” Her topic was con artists. “Con Konnikova cited examples such as the law, artists are actors; they are storytellers.” where cases are won by the best story told. You can imagine that this was quite an Politicians tell stories of varying degrees of affecting line of thought for me. The core of truthfulness, and then another layer is added Konnikova’s message is that humans are not when journalists tell stories about the stories the creatures of fact we think we are. Con art- they’re being told. ists are actors of the criminal element, and What she wants us to take away is that the they succeed by weaving a story in which the more you want to believe a story, the more you victim of the con is the good guy, and to not have to rely on the trust-but-verify dictum. follow through with what the con artist, posing Or, as she says, she sometimes feels com- as a victim, needs, is to betray the idea of pelled to shout, “Humanity sucks; trust no one!” n the kind of people we think we are and want I kind of glommed on to that one. —P.F. Maria Konnikova

Fake News: Tamar Wilner Is the Hero We Need

n the plane ride to Las Vegas, I took the Wilner is a great journalist. Seriously. I’ve to be in order to effectively process bad in- Oopportunity to finally watch Batman v. Su- been admiring her work since it came to my formation. perman . Now, I don’t understand all the hate attention a couple of years ago, when she Briefly, the lasso strands ask us to: for this movie; I really, really liked it a lot, and covered the enraging case of cancer-quack • Ask if the claim even makes sense—if the I don’t care what that makes you think about Stanislaw Burzynski in Texas. She’s written for text justifies the headline or sounds too me. And I loved Wonder Woman in the movie. CSI’s website, and she did an interview on our good to be true. She was great; Gal Gadot was excellent, and own Point of Inquiry podcast earlier this year. I was all ginned up for the standalone movie. Not unlike David Helfand (who was on • Check if the story is from a satirical/fake- Well done, Warner Bros. You hooked me. stage just before her), Wilner wants to convey news source (of which there are many, and You know who else is interested in Won- the severity of the misinformation problem on few of which are actually funny). der Woman? Tamar Wilner, who came to CSI- the web, thus her desire to arm us all with • Reference the many fact-checking websites Con 2016 to discuss how we can gather up Lassos of Truth. The strands are fundamental; that make debunking their business. “strands” for our own virtual Lassos of Truth, none of it should be surprising, but they are • Ask questions about photos and videos, just like Wonder Woman has. so rarely fully weaved together as they need such as where they were taken and when,

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 11 Jill Tarter: E.T. Whisperer, Possible Martian Descendant

t used to be that we meager humans had no idea how many planets might be out Ithere beyond our own adorable little solar system. Today, we know there are more planets than stars in our galaxy. That’s hundreds and hundreds of billions of planets. Jill Tarter of SETI is really excited about this. I am too. There are two big discoveries of modern science that have raised her hopes for the existence and discovery of life beyond Earth: the existence of extremophiles on our planet—organisms that can survive and thrive in the most hostile conditions our planet can muster—and of course the discovery of all these exoplanets. These two factors combined suggest that “the universe might be bio-friendly.” Might! If we do find life on another planet or moon, either in our own solar system (with one big exception) or from an exoplanet, “that will mean life is ubiquitous everywhere.” Tamar Wilner

It’s entirely plausible that Mars is where Wilner wants to convey our own life began, the severity of the with Mars seeding misinformation problem Earth with the on the web, thus her beginnings of our life. desire to arm us all “So, indeed, we could with Lassos of Truth. be Martians,” Tarter notes

Jill Tarter Why? Because a “genesis moment” somewhere more or less quarantined from Earth would mean that life has the potential to emerge throughout the universe. The whether there are technical issues or in- exception I mentioned is Mars, which shares too much of a history of “exchanging consistencies, or whether they have been rocks” with Earth and Venus to make it definitive as to which planet life began on. altered. That’s also a big deal! It’s entirely plausible that Mars is where our own life began, • Investigate social media sources such with Mars seeding Earth with the beginnings of our life. “So, indeed, we could be as follower counts and how recently an Martians,” Tarter notes. account was created, and indeed inves- Intelligent life is entirely different from “mere” life, of course. But while it may be tigate the actual humans making claims. too hard to detect a biosignature from an exoplanet (which Tarter admits we don’t And finally, when you want to spread the even have for Earth life), we could detect evidence of a civilization’s technology: “That good news of the truth you’ve unearthed, could be more distinct and distinguishable.” she emphasizes that you not become part Okay, so why does this matter, beyond being cool? of the problem by repeating the deceptive “One of the best things about SETI is the fact that you have to adopt a much more or incorrect claims, giving them more fuel. cosmic perspective,” said Tarter. “It’s like holding up a mirror to the entire planet and “Headlining with the myth is really the worse saying, See? See you guys? You’re all the same, when comparing yourself to something you can do.” thing else that co-evolved on a different planet.” Do you feel like a superhero now—or at SETI, she says, “trivializes the differences between us” so we can “grow up” and least comparably armed? I do! Tamar Wilner develop some kind of global scheme for cooperating. But for that, we have to work is clearly the hero that CSICon needs and together—and not just within our own species. All life forms on Earth have to be in- n deserves. —P.F. n cluded in our thinking and in our coming interstellar moral circle. —P.F.

12 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer CONFERENCE REPORT CSICON LAS VEGAS

Mass Misinformation Author David Helfand Warns of ‘Google-Fed Zombies’

e human beings, thanks to the Internet, are producing 2.5 quintillion bytes Wof information every day. We must be really smart, right? Nope! David Helfand is here to make the case that the information democ- ratization brought by the advent of the Internet is drowning us in misinformation. Those 2.5 quintillion bytes? Helfand says not all of it is carefully edited. Helfand, professor and former chair of astronomy at Columbia University, is author of the book A Survival Guide to the Misinformation Age, and he’s concerned that as a society we have collectively decided that “the upper right hand corner of your browser is the equivalent of thinking.” It is perhaps symbolic that at Google’s own employee daycare center, only 50 David Helfand percent of kids have been vaccinated. The people of Google itself were falling for the bad information that they get by relying too heavily on Google searches.

The vaccine denial movement is a useful case in point, where misinformation results in tangible harm. It is perhaps symbolic that at Google’s own employee daycare center, only 50 percent of kids have been vaccinated. The people of Google itself were falling for the bad information that they get by relying too heavily on Google searches. Careful not to be taken as some anti-technology crank, Helfand differentiates the information revolutions of printing and broadcast from the Internet. Reading a book or watching a movie, he says, is “an individual act”—passive, with no way to give feedback, and with no way to control the source of information. Richard Dawkins Contrast that with the Internet, where we do control the course, curating our own news flow and excluding any information that doesn’t conform with our existing worldviews. This creates what he calls “armies of the uninformed.” If the Internet’s 2.5 quintillion bytes mostly just reinforces group identity, what do we do? Helfand isn’t sure, but he suggests you might start by buying his book. How you’d give him feedback on that book, I’m not sure, especially since he says he doesn’t carry a smartphone. “I live in this wonderful bubble of tranquility.” Sounds lovely. —P.F. n

Stuart Vyse

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 13 The Amazing Cosmos of Gravitational Waves

hysicist, cosmologist, and CSI Fellow September 15, 2015, just one hour later the to refute the BICEP claims. Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State unmistakable signal of a gravitational wave “The two groups hated each other,” Krauss PUniversity took the CSICon Sunday was seen, first at the detector in Livingston, said. So what did they do? They began a col- morning audience on a fascinating tour of Louisiana, then identically seven milliseconds laboration with scientists from both teams re- an epic new discovery about the universe— later at the detector in Hanford, Washington. analyzing the data. That is, Krauss noted, how the direct detection of gravitational waves, In this case, the gravitational waves were good science works. The collaboration still ripples in the fabric of space-time, pre- created by the collision of two black holes sees a signal in the data, with a likelihood

“The two groups hated each other,” Krauss said. So what did they do? They began a collaboration with scientists from both teams reanalyzing the data. That is, Krauss noted, how good science works.

Lawrence Krauss

dicted by Einstein and sought unsuccessfully 1.3 billion light-years away, one of which was of 92 percent that it is due to gravitational ever since. Krauss then compounded the thirty-six times the mass of the sun, the other waves. But, Krauss added with evident pride, excitement by noting that gravitational wave of which was twenty-nine times the mass of 92 percent likelihood in physics is not good astronomy may be the astronomy of the the sun. In two-tenths of a second, the colli- enough; physicists demand something closer twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-third sion released gravitational energy equivalent to 99.99 percent certainty before acceptance. centuries. Not too shabby! to three times the mass of the sun, or more So, for now, that “earlier” possible discovery The technical requirements that enabled than the light from all the stars in the uni- of gravitational waves remains unconfirmed, the LIGO gravitational wave detectors to make verse, during that two-tenths of a second. It is while the LIGO discovery has scientists awe- their discovery “are amazing” in themselves. “an amazing discovery,” Krauss says. (“LIGO” stands for Laser Interferometer Grav- A side note to it all is that the scientists with struck. In December, the detection of gravita- itational-Wave Observatory; the project is op- another project, called BICEP, using liquid-he- tional waves was Science magazine’s 2016 erated by CalTech and MIT and supported by lium-cooled detectors at the South Pole, had Breakthrough of the Year and Science News's the National Science Foundation.) A gravita- published on February 14, 2014, a result that, and Discover’s top science story of the year. tional wave from some extraordinary event in if true, would be the detection of gravitational Because gravitational waves, difficult the universe would change the length of the waves from the beginning of time, essentially as they are to detect, can pass through the tunnels at each site by just 0.001 the width the big bang. But scientists with Europe’s stuff of the earliest moments of the universe, of a proton. Detection of that precision wasn’t Planck satellite were also looking for the same whereas electromagnetic waves (light, radio even possible the year before the discovery. signals, and they asserted that the BICEP sig- waves) cannot, gravitational astronomy opens But the scientists upgraded the technology, nals could be due to intervening dust in the “a new window on the universe.” Who knows n and when the two detectors were turned on galaxy, not gravitational waves. That seemed what discoveries await? —Kendrick Frazier

14 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer CONFERENCE REPORT CSICON LAS VEGAS

Science Education, Communication on Display at CSICon Stuart Vyse

ne of my favorite moments of CSI- Vazquez developed the Teacher Institute for mothers are featured. The film is specifically Con came during Richard Dawkins’s Evolutionary Science (TIES), a program of the designed to combat false information about Oonstage conversation with Jamy Ian Richard Dawkins Foundation. TIES has pro- vaccines and GMOs, as well as other pseu- Swiss. An audience member asked Dawkins duced professional development workshops doscientific claims affecting children and to consider the three most important aspects for school teachers to train them in the best families. The trailer was met with vigorous ap- of his career—evolutionary biologist, defender practices for teaching evolutionary science. plause from the CSICon audience. of atheism, and science educator—and iden- TIES also facilitates partnerships between bi- Another science journalist, Tamar Wilner, tify which one made him most proud. Dawkins ologists and teachers to enrich the teaching gave an entertaining and practical talk titled, said science educator. A man whose book The of evolution and maintains a clearing house of “Make Your Own Lasso of Truth,” a reference Selfish Gene has just come out in a fortieth lab curricula and teaching materials. For her to the comic book character Wonder Woman anniversary edition (see book excerpt in this issue) and whose The God Delusion was a huge bestseller considered science education his most important activity. Science education is a central concern of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and science educators and communicators were prominently featured in the CSICon sched- ule. Eugenie Scott, former executive director of the National Center for Science Education and a CSI fellow, spoke about the current state of evolutionary science in schools in the United States. Although she pointed to some positive trends, the overall picture is one of poor quality teaching of evolution and large pockets of resistance. Many teachers take what Scott called the cautious approach to evolution by “teaching the controversy”—as if there were a controversy. She reported that efforts as a science teacher and as director of who could compel bad guys to tell the truth by science teachers face numerous obstacles TIES, Vazquez has earned numerous state and capturing them in her golden lasso. Directing as they approach this topic, including lack of national teaching awards. her talk primarily toward the extensive misin- knowledge of the subject, lack of time in the The importance of accurate communica- formation that exists on the Internet, Wilner curriculum, and negative pressure from stu- tion of scientific topics was also highlighted gave suggestions for identifying fake news dents and parents. at CSICon. Forbes magazine author Kavin sites, checking facts, and detecting doctored Scott stressed the importance of evolution Senapathy described her campaign against images. Wilner is a regular contributor to to science education in general by quoting Vani Hari, “The Food Babe,” who has spread the Columbia Journalism Review and to the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhan- fear of genetically modified (GM) foods and fact-checking project at the American Press sky: “Nothing in biology makes sense except waged unfounded attacks on the Subway Institute. in the light of evolution.” Evolution answers the sandwich chain, ultimately moving Subway The promotion of effective science educa- question of why things are as they are instead to alter the recipe for their bread. Senapathy tion and fact-based journalism is central to of some other way, and without that insight, called Hari “one of the biggest misinformation the mission of CSI, and it was wonderful to biology is just a collection of labels and spe- vectors of our time” and outlined how she has see these efforts given such prominence at cies names. challenged Hari in her Forbes articles and a CSICon and to have them so warmly received n If Eugenie Scott’s presentation was full of coauthored book, The Fear Babe: Shattering by an enthusiastic audience. challenges, the presentation by Florida mid- Vani Hari’s Glass House. dle school science teacher Bertha Vazquez Senapathy also showed the trailer for the Stuart Vyse is a psychologist and CSI fellow revealed a powerful response to those forthcoming Science Moms, a short film in and the “Behavior & Belief” columnist for challenges. Working with Richard Dawkins, which Senapathy and other science-oriented Skeptical Inquirer and csicop.org.

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 15 [INTERVIEW

Still ‘Amazing’: A Conversation with James Randi

Part 1 The famous conjuror, investigator, and author—and founding fellow of CSICOP—sat down with Skeptical Inquirer Editor Kendrick Frazier at CSICon 2016 Las Vegas for a live, ninety-minute onstage conversation. Here are excerpts.

Kendrick Frazier: It’s such a power of some kind. delight for me to be here with He said, “I have no evidence you. Our pasts have happily whatsoever to support my intersected a number of times “I might as well get this off my belief in a god. None.” He said, over these four decades. “You have all the evidence to Before CSICOP was chest, at the very beginning. the contrary. I’ve read it, I’ve founded, you and Martin I think that the belief in a read what you’ve said, I’ve Gardner and Ray Hyman were heard what you’ve said, I’ve trying to come up with some deity is such an, first of all, read books and books and organized enterprise to deal books on it. They have all the with paranormal nonsense unprovable claim.” reason on their side, the peo- and flim-flam in society. ple who say there is no god.” I interrupted, I said, “Martin, I’ve James Randi: Yes, the folks you never claimed there’s no god mentioned were very instru- because I can’t prove that.” He mental in promoting the idea said, “No, I know that’s your of getting a foundation ready to to me by telephone when I other end of the line when stance,” and it always has been handle the so-called paranor- lived in New Jersey, and he he said, “Randi, I have to tell my stance. I don’t say there is mal. I’d known Martin Gardner lived in Croton on the Hudson. you something.” I said, “Yes?” no god because I can’t prove for many decades of course. Even later when I moved off to and I thought, “What can this there is no god. I barely say, “I I miss him more than most Florida, I’d get calls from him be?” He told me, “I’m a deist.” don’t see enough evidence in people who have passed on, every now and then. A deist is someone who has nature to believe in a deity.” I can tell you. Martin was an He called me one day, a basic belief in a god of any He said, “I’ll tell you again, astonishing man. we were chatting away, and shape or form, someone who you have the whole case in the Martin Gardner often spoke there was a pause on the has an interest in a superior bag. I have no evidence to sup-

16 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer port my view at all.” That’s the a founding fellow, and Ray has some standing at a decent He was actually the first kind of guy that Martin Gardner Hyman was and Carl Sagan desk. Let’s put it that way. co-chairman of CSICOP, with was. He would state the whole and Isaac Asimov, and Jim Paul Kurtz, and the first ed- case. I said, “Martin, if that Alcock came along very soon Paul Kurtz was a different itor of The Zetetic, which a makes you comfortable,” and and many others. What did kind of person, but the com- year later when I became ed- he said, “Yes, it does.” He said, the founding of that organiza- bination of all these perspec- itor (1977), we renamed the “That’s why I have that belief; tion in 1976 mean? tives and backgrounds helped Skeptical Inquirer. He was a bring some solidity to the it makes me a little more com- Yes, that’s very true. We had sociologist of science at East- organization, CSICOP, would fortable about my life.” to get an organization going. ern Michigan University. you say? I said, “That’s all I need. During one of the first meetings Yes, Marcello was a strange guy You’re a good friend. You’re they said, “Of course, you’ll be Paul was very good. First of in many ways. We had to take an excellent friend, long time the head of it, the main figure.” all an excellent academic in him off the job simply because friend. All I need to do is hear I said, “No, I’m in show biz. I’m so many ways. He proved that he insisted that we should have you say that, and I accept that a magician, ho, ho, ho. I’m a many, many times with all his an equal number of pages from that is your conviction and I theatrical character. I work on books, beautiful books that he the pro-paranormal people won’t argue with you about it.” TV and in theaters and I go out wrote. Very concise and very and an equal of the anti-para- He just said, “Thank you.” That’s and entertain kids and adults. factual and very convincing. normal people. You can’t do how Martin was. If it gave him An entertainer should not be Don’t ever hesitate to open up a magazine like that. That’s comfort, I was all for it. the head of an organization like a Paul Kurtz book and read a ridiculous. You’ll have two com- that.” chapter out of it; it’s always pletely different philosophies in In later years, I heard some I said, “However, I do know inspiring. the same book and opposing criticism of him from fellow of this gentleman. . . ” It was The fact that he was an one another. No, that was not skeptics about that, but I Paul Kurtz of whom I was academic, at a university, and doable. think the skeptic community speaking. I said, “He has made he had the time, he had the in- can certainly deal with a a lot of good statements about terest. That was very important. I want to ask you about one deist in the house, can we the problem of believing in the Paul Kurtz worked out very, very other key figure in the skep- not? paranormal and the supernat- well I must say. tical movement, less well Kendrick, I might as well get ural.” I said, “We should ap- known and appreciated today There was another important this off my chest, at the very proach him.” We did approach but very much in the public figure at the time who turned beginning. I think that the be- him, and Paul graciously eye back then: Isaac Asimov. out later to be a bit of a burr lief in a deity is such an, first agreed to accept the position. He wrote the foreword to your under our saddle. That was of all, unprovable claim and That’s the way it turned out. You book Flim-Flam! Marcello Truzzi. such a rather ridiculous claim. have to have an academic. You Yes, he wrote the foreword to a I really look at it as ridiculous. have to have somebody who You just said a dirty word. couple of my books as a mat- I think it’s an easy way out to explain things to which we have no answer. There are many things, folks, to which we have no answers, no question of that. I just think that a belief in a god is one of the most damaging things that infests humanity at this particular moment in history. It may improve. I see signs that it may be improving. I’ll leave it at that.

I was delighted when in 1976 I heard from Paul Kurtz that they were founding an organization that turned out to become CSICOP. You were

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 17 ter of fact. Isaac Asimov, that’s me. He’d just simply ask, “What that’s my real first name—is not ple of his records. a name to conjure with, there’s should I mention? What do you necessarily welcome here at St. I must add very quickly that no question about it. Isaac want me to plug? What do you Cuthbert’s because he asked when I broke the records that Asimov. want me to emphasize? What too many questions and he Houdini had established, such do I say if I’m asked so and interrupts the teachers. as being sealed in a coffin How would you describe CSI- so?” He wanted to be aware of underwater with no additional COP in those early years? how he could help me. He liked You were a skeptic of religion oxygen, etc., I broke it by a We had a lot of exchanges of me and he liked what I did. We before being a skeptic of the very slight margin purposely, information with the press and got to be very close. paranormal? because I didn’t want to outdo with the media in general. This The night that we exposed Yes, but with the same flavor. it, because I was a good twenty is before television was really Peter Popoff—we got him and years younger than he was the big thing that it is now of we got him good. What role did Houdini play when he did it. He did some of course. I think we had a very as a role model in your life of these records shortly before he substantial influence on the What made you a skeptic? magician, escape artist, illu- died. He didn’t die as a result printed media, particularly the Since I was a kid I’d been very sionist, becoming an educator of any of the experiments or printed media, in those days. skeptical. I got my introduction to the public about paranor- stunts. I thought that was not There was so much nonsense to religion. . . I went off to Sun- mal claims, and a debunker? fair to say that I had broken his and there’s even more today. day school. Then they started to When I first found out about record, because I was simply That’s what we were con- read to me from the Bible and Houdini, of course I read sev- younger at the time. cerned with. We had to get I interrupted and said, “Excuse eral books on him and some of into the media. I know that I me, how do you know that’s his autobiographical material Let’s jump ahead to one of exchanged a great number of true? It sounds strange.” “It’s in as well. I saw that he was the investigations that you personal letters with individual the Bible. It’s in the holy book against all paranormal beliefs. and I and Paul Kurtz, Phil columnists. I found that was of God.” Okay. I’d look around, “Fooling With the Spirits” was Klass, Jim Alcock, and Barry the way to go. I made contact they were all staring at me as if, a program he did on vaudeville Karr went on. Our trip to with Johnny Carson, and I “What kind of a critter is this?” with his wife Beatrice where Beijing, China, in 1988 to found out immediately that he At the end of the class, they they did a fake mind reading investigate a whole variety of was on our side, very much on questioned me before I left act that exposed the whole paranormal claims. We were our side. He wasn’t only a co- and they said, “Why are you thing. That went on for some invited by the editor of a sci- median, ladies and gentlemen. asking all these questions?” time on the Orpheum Circuit. ence daily newspaper to bring He was a great thinker. I said, “It’s a classroom and I He died two years before particularly Randi’s expertise Before the taping of my thought I could ask questions. my birthday, as a matter of fact. to examine these claims that appearances on his Tonight How do you know that’s true?” I thought that would be a good were getting publicity all over Show, John would knock on Never mind. They gave me a example. I took up being Harry the world. my dressing room door. He just note to take to my parents and Houdini, though I never claimed I want to set the scene wanted to come around; he it simply said something to the to be him. As a matter of fact, for what it was like in China was so thoughtful and kind to effect that your boy Randi— during my career I broke a cou- with Randi there in 1988. This was not the modern commercial China we have today. They were just coming out of the Maoist period. A lot of people on the streets were still dressed in very gray drab clothes. There were tens of thousands of bicycles, very few cars. Here we were with the great Randi, the Amazing Randi, with his cape and beard and black hat on the streets of Beijing. It was quite a sight. Yes, it was indeed, and it was a great adventure.

18 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer It was indeed. At this confer- allowed to go into the school Canada; I must say I learned I’m going to ask you a few per- ence, we’ve seen a film clip yard and play around with the much more physics and chem- tinent questions about whether that Phil Klass took during boxes and maybe even peek istry than the average American it does work or not. If you think our China investigations of into them, as you could imag- child. At that time, we learned. it does work we’ll build it and this woman writhing on a ine. What we got out of high school we’ll see whether it works.” That table while the Qigong master We suspected them of that, in Canada, we were one year was the kind of teacher he was. is in the other room doing his but of course Chinese children ahead of New York schools in This was off the books. This was thing, and she is supposedly wouldn’t do a thing like that, the learning spectrum. We were way off the books. responding to it. But you set would they? And they were much better informed. We were up the controlled conditions always right—until we taped pretty well ready to go into first This goes to show you what a where she didn’t know when up the boxes. They didn’t un- year of college. really great science teacher he was doing his thing and can be. vice versa. I was the record Yes, any teacher of any kind, keeper. It was a fairly aston- but particularly of science. He ishing thing for us to see. was a great teacher in that Describe what you remember “If you want to take a look at it, way. Good teachers. Mr. Chrys- about that. I think my mind is pretty open. ler, my English teacher, and Mr. I remember that the Qigong Henderson, my mathematics master wasn’t very happy You can see right here. I show my teacher, who I bothered for about that when we suggested head really freely, and you could endless days I’m sure, after the protocol for it. The woman hours, asking him to tell me on the table, she must have almost read right through it.” what integral calculus was all been very embarrassed be- about because we didn’t take cause he would be going calculus at that time. Today I through his things like this can do a dy over a dx rather and we put up the screen, the swiftly I think. I actually got to I was going to ask you how whole business, and she would derstand why we would tape use calculus. I was interested, you became so knowledge- suddenly start kicking like up the boxes. Maybe because and I did this at home. able about science and the crazy, as you see in the film. you’re peeking, I don’t know. processes of science to im- Obviously you could have be- Then she would open her The experiment rather failed at press the worldwide scientific come a PhD if you cared to go eyes and look around as if to that point. community. That’s where it that route. get a hint as to whether she This Mr. Ding, you’ve heard was, in high school? should have done that. She he went to prison. The govern- A real FUD? I didn’t want to was rather disconcerted to say ment actually caught on to I must say, I owed a lot of it to go that way. It came about at the least. I was embarrassed this and they decided this was Mr. Tovell, our physics teacher. the Casino Theater. It’s now because it caught them out a disgrace to the Republic of He was a brilliant man. I only only a pile of dust someplace that it just didn’t work, because China. found out, about three years on Queen Street, but I saw the she didn’t move when he sig- ago, he was much more quali- great Harry Blackstone. If any Back then sometimes people naled her to move. fied than for just a high school of you are amateur magicians, would say, about you, “You’re The parapsychologist who teacher. I don’t know why he you will know right away who just a magician. What do you ran these tests with [“psychic”] took that position, but he was Harry Blackstone was. Not know about scientific inves- kids was named Mr. Ding. The brilliant. Mr. Tovell would do Harry Blackstone Junior— tigation?”… In other words kids got such lax conditions, it wonderful things. who I also knew and met of that you’re biased or closed was just ridiculous. They were When he heard the course—but the senior Harry minded. How do you respond supposed to tell how many two-minute bell to mark the Blackstone. He levitated a liv- to that? matches were in a box with a change of class he would go to ing woman on stage. That’s not certain color on them or what If you want to take a look at it, the blackboard and he would easy to do. I thought it wasn’t the colors were. Mr. Ding ran I think my mind is pretty open. uncover something he’d written easy to do. It’s actually pretty the tests. You can see right here. I show on the blackboard the previous easy to do. n They were always right, my head really freely, and you day or night, and it would often except one of the little flaws could almost read right through be something like a perpetual Part 2 will appear in our next in his experimental protocol in it. I don’t have scientific train- motion machine. He would say, issue. my mind was that they were ing. I learned in high school in “This doesn’t work. Tomorrow

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 19 [SPECIAL REPORT

The John Maddox Prize Nomination for Elizabeth Loftus

Here are extended excerpts from Goldsmiths College (University of London) psychology professor Chris French’s letter nominating Elizabeth Loftus for the 2016 John Maddox Prize (see News and Comment, p. 7).

CHRIS FRENCH

would like to nominate Professor Elizabeth Loftus for the John Maddox Prize. greatest pleasure in helping to acquit She is an outstanding candidate with respect to all of the listed criteria: those whom she believed had been I falsely accused of brutal crimes on the • How clearly the individual communicated good science, despite adversity. basis of faulty eyewitness testimony. • The level of responsibility they took for public debate, and going above and Having been at the forefront of one beyond their job requirements. major wave of memory research, that • How effectively they placed the evidence in the wider debate and engaged of the unreliability of eyewitness testi- others. mony, Loftus went on to lead a second major wave of memory research: that Biography questionnaire administered after the of research into false memories. A false Elizabeth Loftus (usually referred to event might include a question asking, memory is an apparent memory for an as “Beth”) spent almost three decades “What was the color of the car next event that either never happened at all at the University of Washington, to the stop sign?” In fact, the sign was or else happened in a completely dif- Seattle. She was determined to carry not a stop sign, but when memory is ferent way to the way in which it is re- out research with direct relevance to tested some time later the misinformed membered. The issue of false memories real-world issues and thus became the witnesses are more likely to report that took on great significance back in the world’s leading researcher in the area they did indeed see one. Such effects 1980s and 1990s when numerous cases of the unreliability of eyewitness testi- are amongst the most robust and were reported in the United States and mony. Her innovative studies showed widely replicated within the discipline elsewhere of patients in therapy appar- convincingly how leading questions and are routinely described in virtually ently recovering memories of being the could influence witness reports. For every introductory psychology text- victims of childhood sexual abuse, typ- example, if participants are shown a book. Her book, Eyewitness Testimony, ically at the hands of their own parents, video clip of two cars colliding, par- won a National Media Award for a despite having had no such memories ticipants will give different estimates Distinguished Contribution from the prior to going into therapy (often for of speed depending upon whether the American Psychological Foundation. common psychological problems such cars are described as “making contact The implications of such work for the as anxiety, depression, etc.). Such cases with,” “colliding with,” or “smashing criminal justice system are obvious and, were seen by some psychotherapists as into” each other. Her research also as a result, Elizabeth Loftus has been proof of the psychoanalytic concept of demonstrated what has become known called as an expert witness in hundreds repression. The idea is that if a person as the misinformation effect. This occurs of criminal cases, including high profile experiences a severely traumatic event when, after viewing an event, a witness cases such as Ted Bundy, the Hillside (such as being the victim of childhood is subtly presented with misinforma- Strangler, and Oklahoma City bomber sexual abuse), this automatic defense tion about that event. For example, a Timothy McVeigh. Loftus took the mechanism kicks in and pushes the

20 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer memory for the event into the subcon- scious mind. It can then no longer be accessed by the conscious mind, but it can still exert a toxic influence leading to the development of various psychological problems in adulthood. The problem is that there is very little evi dence to support the existence of repression—after all, no one ever forgot being in a concentration camp. Most experimental psychologists who study memory are extremely skeptical regarding the concept of repression, pointing out that the available evidence suggests that traumatic events are in fact much more likely to be recalled than non-traumatic events. Loftus’s interest in this issue was sparked by a legal case in which a man was on trial for murdering a child many years previously. The charge had been brought when his daughter allegedly Credit: Brad Swonetz/Redux/Eyevine “recovered” the memory of his criminal Elizabeth Loftus act, having repressed it for many years. Loftus suspected that the daughter’s memory may have been a false memory based upon reading the many accounts of the case that had appeared in the The problem is that there is very little evidence media. to support the existence of repression—after To study this phenomenon, Loftus and her collaborators developed several all, no one ever forgot being in a concentration different techniques aimed at implanting camp. Most experimental psychologists who so-called “rich false memories” in volun- study memory are extremely skeptical teer participants. Rich false memories are detailed false memories for entire regarding the concept of repression. events that never actually happened. One technique for doing so involves repeatedly interviewing participants and asking them to recall in as much detail been used by Loftus and many other re- under which certain forms of therapy as possible various events from their searchers to implant false memories for childhood, details of these events hav- took place provided the perfect con- ing been obtained in advance of the ex- a wide range of other events (despite still text for the development of such false periment from the participant’s parents. commonly being referred to as the “lost- memories. Some of the memories so However, along with the true events, in-a-shopping-mall” technique). Other produced were of extreme forms of rit- participants are asked to recall an event techniques used by Loftus to implant ual satanic abuse involving human and that never actually took place. In Lof- false memories involve the use of false animal sacrifices, cannibalism, sexual tus’s first study of this type, participants feedback, (bogus) dream interpretation, perversion, and so on. No forensic ev- were asked about the time when, as a and guided imagery. idence has ever been found to support child, they got lost in a shopping mall This line of research by Loftus and such claims, providing further proof and were eventually reunited with their others established beyond all doubt that that they are almost certainly based parents. The technique was successful human beings are susceptible to false upon false memories. in implanting detailed false memories memories. Furthermore, a very strong It was particularly her research into in several participants and has since case could be made that the conditions false memories that led to Loftus being

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 21 attacked by those who continued to be- very aware of the profound ethical issues Loftus, however, was not convinced lieve that recovered memories reflected raised by such research and has carried and decided to investigate further. events that really had taken place. Inev- out research surveying people’s attitudes Using public records and newspaper re- itably, emotions run high with respect to towards the potential for mind control ports, she managed to identify the Doe this issue. Patients had gone into ther- that further advances in technology family. She suspected that Jane’s initial apy because they were psychologically could produce. stories of abuse may have been coached vulnerable and, as a result of the ther- in order to win the custody battle. Hav- apy, ended up believing that they had Adversity ing interviewed both Jane’s mother and her former stepmother, she became even been the victims of the most horrendous Like all good scientists, Loftus has more convinced that Jane’s memories of abuse. Families were torn apart and the always enjoyed respectfully arguing accused sometimes found themselves with colleagues for her favored theo- abuse were probably false. facing criminal charges. When Loftus retical position based upon empirical Before Loftus had published any of appeared as an expert witness casting evidence and sound reasoning. Such the results of her investigation, Jane Doe doubt on the veracity of such memories, debates can get quite intense at times emailed the University of Washington it was inevitable that she would upset but should never become personally complaining that Loftus’s investigation constituted an invasion of her privacy many people, not least the therapists hostile. However, Loftus’s appearances (this was despite the fact that she had and patients in question. Her testimony as an expert witness in various high already spoken openly about her claims and allowed her face to be seen). Loftus was given fifteen minutes’ notice before someone arrived at her office and seized her files. She was exonerated following Like all good scientists, Loftus has always a stressful twenty-one-month miscon- enjoyed respectfully arguing with colleagues duct investigation. Understandably, she felt badly let down by the University of for her favored theoretical position based Washington, having worked there for a upon empirical evidence and sound reasoning. quarter of a century. More than that, she felt utterly betrayed. Almost the first thing that Loftus did following her exoneration was to publish an account of her findings in Skeptical Inquirer magazine (Loftus has, however, undoubtedly helped to profile cases of alleged historic sexual and Guyer 2002a; 2002b). In an accom- acquit several people falsely accused of abuse triggered extreme hostility in panying article in Skeptical Inquirer, Carol Tavris (2002, p. 43) provided an abusing children. Further details of the those who did not agree with her con- account of this painful episode and adversity that Loftus has had to face are clusions. urged readers to appreciate “the cour- presented below. In 1997, Loftus read about a case age, persistence, and integrity of those For now, it should be noted that her that, it was claimed, proved that repres- skeptical inquirers who are still willing work in this area played a major role in sion really did occur. Psychiatrist David Corwin had recorded his interviews to ‘offend’ in the pursuit of truth and her decision to accept a distinguished with a six-year-old girl referred to as justice.” professorship at the University of Cal- Jane Doe. Jane’s estranged parents were Loftus could not forgive the lack ifornia, Irvine, in 2002. Here, new lines involved in a vicious battle for custody of support that she had experienced of research opened up, particularly in- of Jane, and it was alleged that Jane had from the University of Washington, vestigating the consequences of im- been abused by her mother. The mother and she never received from the uni- planting false memories. For example, lost. Eleven years later, Corwin again versity a proper apology for what they she has shown that implanting a false videoed Jane being interviewed and re- had put her through. One year later, she memory of having gotten sick as a child corded her first appearing to be unable to accepted a position as a distinguished as a result of eating particular foods remember the abuse and then apparently professor at the University of California, will lead to an aversion for that food in recovering the memory. On the surface, Irvine, despite a generous counteroffer adults. Conversely, if you are led to be- the evidence appeared to prove that both from Washington. She was sad to leave lieve that you really liked some healthy repression and recovered memory were, her friends and colleagues of many years food item as a child, it will increase your in fact, valid concepts. That was the con- at Washington but soon made great new desire to eat more of that food. Loftus is clusion proclaimed by many therapists. friends and colleagues at UC–Irvine.

22 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer However, it turned out that the total came to almost $250,000. Taus de- the John Maddox Prize, and I hope that n Jane Doe nightmare was not yet over. clared bankruptcy soon after. the panel agrees with my assessment. In 2003, Jane Doe sued Loftus using It is fitting to sum up this sorry ep- For further details (including full CV), see: her real name—Nicole Taus—despite isode with Loftus’s own words from a https://socialecology.uci.edu/faculty/eloftus the fact that Loftus had not revealed forthcoming autobiographical chapter her true identity in any publication. for the Annual Review of Psychology: References Taus also sued Mel Guyer, a lawyer During this protracted and miser- American Psychological Foundation. 2013. and psychologist from the University able legal process, I learned a great Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement of Michigan who had assisted Loftus in the Science of Psychology. American deal about the vulnerability of aca- Psychologist 68: 331–333. Available online in her investigations, and Carol Tavris, demics to lawsuits. Scholars are not at https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/APF_ who had written about the case. Taus always afforded the full protection of GoldMedalAwardAPALoftus2013.pdf. asked for $1.3 million for invasion of constitutional guarantees, and this Loftus, E.F. 2007. Elizabeth F. Loftus is especially true when the schol- [Autobiography]. In G. Lindzey and privacy, defamation, and other claims. ars work on problems that matter W.M. Runyan (Eds.). History of Psychology After several years of litigation, three in people’s lives—and are therefore in Autobiography (Vol. 9, pp. 198–227). California courts rejected all but one of likely to be sources of controversy Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Available online at https:// the twenty-one allegations. Against her or conflict. But these are precisely socialecology.uci.edu/faculty/eloftus. wishes, Loftus’s insurance company de- the kinds of scholarly inquiries in Loftus, E.F., and M.J. Guyer. 2002a. Who cided to accept Taus’s offer to withdraw which there is a profound need for abused Jane Doe? The hazards of the single our institutions to provide vigilant case history. Part I. Skeptical Inquirer the one remaining allegation in return protection of free speech. 26(3): 24–32. Available online at http://www. for $7,500. This is known as a “nuisance csicop.org/si/show/who_abused_jane_doe_ settlement” and simply reflects the fact Despite the adversity she has faced, the_hazards_of_the_single_case_history_ Loftus has never wavered in her ded- part_1. that it would have cost the insurance ———. 2002b. Who abused Jane Doe? Part II. company more than $7,500 to fight the ication to carrying out research of the Skeptical Inquirer 26(4): 37–40. Available case in court. The California Supreme highest quality with real-world impact online at http://www.csicop.org/si/show/ Court judge ordered that the trial judge and to communicating her findings to who_abused_jane_doe_the_hazards_of_the_ single_case_history_part_2. determine how much Taus would have the widest possible audience. I cannot Tavris, C. 2002. The high cost of skepticism. to pay to cover the defendants’ costs; the conceive of a more worthy recipient of Skeptical Inquirer 26(4): 41–44.

Subscribe to the digital edition of the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER and read SI on your iPad, iPhone, or Android device! Download your FREE sample issue today!

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 23 [FORUM

Let Your Questioning

Start with Wikipedia

SUSAN GERBIC

o you remember January 18, 2012? unusual—such as the Bermuda Triangle, ten, and have plenty of citations they can That was the day many websites Bigfoot, or the subject that scared me the follow for more information. Dprotested the Stop Online Piracy most, spontaneous human combustion As an example of how influential Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), (SHC)—our resources were limited. Wikipedia can be, I recount this story. which were proposed laws in the U.S. Being a part of the Greatest Genera- Not long ago I was listening to an inter- Congress. Wikipedia for a whole day tion, my parents bought the Encyclopedia view with Jeremy Runnells and was struck blacked out their site, instead displaying Britannica and all its Books of the Year. by his deconversion story. Runnells had the message “Imagine a World Without I still have them all, many volumes of been in the Mormon Church all his life. Free Knowledge” and asking people to various sets of encyclopedias. And so I He spoke about the terrific experiences “make your voice heard.” Social media recently looked. My parents’ volumes are he had during his time as a Mormon. lit up with discussions about what it from 1957, and nothing is mentioned He loved the people he worked with, and would be like not to have a resource like about Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Bermuda Tri- he was considered a bit of a Mormon Wikipedia. Even though I was more angle, or SHC. I searched through the scholar. One day he was listening to an than aware of the Wikipedia blackout, 1988 set I have and there is an entry for interview about Brigham Young, and I tried three times to access the site to the Bermuda Triangle, but it’s only a few the words polygamy and polyamory were get more information about something. sentences long. The entry tells vaguely mentioned. What? Then they mentioned Each time I got the blackout screen, where the Triangle is located and then that Brigham Young had been married to I said to myself, “Susan, what are you takes a skeptical attitude, going so far women whose husbands were still living. doing?” It was just a reflex, like when as to call the stories “fanciful.” There What? Curious, Runnells went to the In- you lose your phone and your first reac- was no entry for Bigfoot or Sasquatch, ternet to find out more. Very quickly, he tion is to call people and tell them you and but there was a single paragraph ended up on the Brigham Young Wiki- can’t find your phone. for “spontaneous combustion” (with no pedia page, and there it was: polygamy Wikipedia seems to have been around mention of humans being involved). and many, many wives. The next thing for decades. It permeates our online ex- I wonder why more people of my gen- he knew he had clicked on the link for perience. In fact, Wikipedia has existed eration aren’t more credulous considering Young’s wives and found a genealogy only since January 15, 2001. That means we didn’t have access to good information chart. One wife was only fourteen years that we are starting to see people grad- about the paranormal. If we were to find a old, and several had been still married to uate from high school and college who book in the library, it would have probably their non-Mormon husbands. don’t remember a time when Wikipedia been pro-paranormal. Runnells was very surprised and did didn’t exist. When starting to question long-stand- not trust what he was reading. So he kept This world of instant information is ing beliefs, people tend to do some “re- reading and following links and verify- much different from the world I grew up search.” That is, they go to a computer, ing what he was learning. He eventually in. When I graduated from high school use their favorite search engine, and start wrote a seventy-page “open letter” to his in 1980, we had three channels on the reading or watching videos. We know church leaders asking questions about TV, one hour of news coverage, public that usually the first link they get will be what he had learned. The only sources libraries, and the Encyclopedia Britannica to a Wikipedia page, though what they he used in this essay were Mormon ones. for our information. If we wanted to find there is anyone’s guess. Hopefully The “CES Letter” (directed to the direc- know something about a topic that was what they read will be accurate, well writ- tor of the Church Educational System

24 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer and available at http://cesletter.com/) happen to their faith in all the other backed up by citations. It does not mat- is now infamous and is credited with statements they learned in church and ter if the searcher is looking for informa- many Mormons losing their faith in the from their parents? I hope that, as with tion on homeopathy or Bigfoot; all that church. They learned what Runnells did: Runnells, they will wonder, “If this is a is needed is for them to start down that that a lot of Mormon history isn’t taught. lie, then what else is a lie?” and they will road of “Why wasn’t I told this? What When Runnells first read the Wiki- fall into the rabbit hole of following links else is being hidden from me?” pedia page, his thought was “If this and reading more. To so many hundreds Fast forward to 2016, and the GSoW is true, then what else have they been of thousands of people, Wikipedia is the project is struggling to work our way withholding from us?” In April 2016, starting point to send you down that through all the Wikipedia pages con- Runnells held a press conference and ex- rabbit hole so many of us have found cerning scientific skepticism. We are communicated the LDS church before ourselves in. vetting the pages and making sure the they had a chance to kick him out. “The In the preface to the book Abominable best citations exist for curious readers to only power the church has,” he said, “is Science! by Loxton and Prothero, Loxton follow. No other project existing today the power you give them. Tonight I took explains how he had a lifelong love of is educating on this level and in multi- back my own power.” cryptids. He spent long hours in the ple languages. We are always looking for The interview he happened to hear public library reading and planning his more people to join who we can train. set him off to the Internet, and his first “future monster-hunting expeditions.” It Think about how often you turn to searches gave him the Wikipedia page. was only when he was in his late teens Wikipedia as your go-to source for in- If you do the same, you will probably see he attended a conference and met CSI formation, as the place you begin your the same genealogy charts and informa- Fellow Barry Beyerstein that Loxton research. Think about the millions of tion Runnells did. learned that there was a world of “paral- other people who are also visiting Wiki- In a Skeptical Inquirer online lel literature I had never heard of.” When pedia. Remember that there are real peo- interview with Donald Prothero and he went to university, he discovered a ple volunteering their time to make this Daniel Loxton, Kylie Sturgess asks “large cache of Skeptical Inquirer online encyclopedia a better source for them if cryptozoology is a “potentially magazines” and that was that. Loxton everyone. We don’t know, but we might dangerous field for people.” Prothero explains that growing up, unless it was be inspiring the next Daniel Loxton explains that creationists are the new something you found in the library or it or Ben Radford—or the child of the cryptozoologists. “It’s a big part of what was mentioned on the news, there was creationist who is wondering what the they think is their ministry, because they really no access to anything critical of the story behind Nessie really is. Or possi- have this bizarre notion that somehow paranormal. (See http://meettheskeptics. bly someone like Runnells who has just if they find a Mokele-Mbembe [extant libsyn.com/mts-meet-daniel-loxton.) heard a criticism challenging his belief dinosaur] all of evolution will come Thankfully Skeptical Inquirer ex- system and is looking to understand the crumbling down, as if one late-sur- ists. Wikipedia editors have cited these argument so he can refute it, only to find viving species somehow changes any- articles over many of the cryptozoology that the criticism was true. thing.” (See http://www.csicop.org/ and paranormal pages. We must have Wikipedia, if ignored, can be the specialarticles/show/mythbusting_ noteworthy citations to use on Wikipe- bane of stupidity, or it can be the answer monsters_abominable_science_with_ dia, and without the handful of skeptic to a call of rationality and great science daniel_loxton_and_donald_proth.) books and articles, the Wikipedia pages education. Considering it is freely edit- The Herald Scotland reports that in would lack criticism. Readers would only able by anyone, you might be the solu- Louisiana children are taught in their read pro-paranormal content. In order to tion we need. schoolbooks to believe that the Loch educate, the skeptical community must For more information about the Ness monster is real, and thus it suppos- work together with Wikipedia editors GSoW project, visit our YouTube chan- edly challenges the notion that Earth is to get the best quality information in a nel and consider joining the Secret Cabal millions of years old. (See http://www. place where people are accessing it. And hidden away on Facebook. Write to us heraldscotland.com/news/13062835. people are accessing these pages. for further information at GSoWteam@ n How_American_fundamentalist_ Only existing since 2001—and in the gmail.com. schools_are_using_Nessie_to_disprove_ beginning it was pretty rough—Wikipe- evolution/.) dia has become the go-to place for most What is going to happen when these of our knowledge. People such as me and Susan Gerbic is creator of schoolchildren start to wonder about my Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia the Guerilla Skepticism Nessie and the Mokele-mbembe? They (GSoW) team of Wikipedia editors on Wikipedia project and will eventually find the Wikipedia page strongly believe that we have a responsi- a Scientific and Tech- and learn that these are cryptozoological bility to make sure that when someone is nical Consultant to the creatures and no more real than King starting to wonder, whatever they find is Committee for Skeptical Kong or the Easter Bunny. What will full of neutral and factual information all Inquiry. Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 25 [ INVESTIGATIVE FILES JOE NICKELL

Joe Nickell, PhD, is CSI’s senior research fellow. He is author of many investigative books, including The Science of Miracles (2013).

Miracle Tableau: Knock, Ireland, 1879

n January 2015, I acquired for my collection a rare Currier and Ives Iprint—an original hand-colored lithograph (Figure 1)—depicting a supposedly miraculous occurrence at Knock, Ireland, in 1879. I had written about this event previously (Nickell 1993, 175–176), but I now decided to see if the apparitional experience could be explained in more detail.

The Event The caption of the Currier and Ives print (dating from 1879–18861) reads as follows: OUR LADY OF KNOCK. On the evening of August 21st 1879 on the outer gable wall of the Sacristy of the Catholic Church in the Village of Knock, County Mayo, Ireland, was seen an extraordinary light in the midst of which appeared the Blessed Virgin, St. Joseph and St. John the Evangelist. Behind them an Altar on which stood a Lamb and above it the Crucifix with the figure of our Lord upon it. The people soon gathered at the spot gazing raptur- ously on the Heavenly Vision. And crowds now visit the scene of the wonderful apparition bringing many lame and blind who by touching the structure have been miraculously cured and restored to sight. Unlike the usual apparitions reported by lone “visionaries” (typically persons with fantasy-prone personalities [Nick- ell 2013, 281–282]), in which the inner vision is described to others who did not Figure 1. “Our Lady of Knock,” a hand-colored lithograph by Courier and Ives depicting a scene that “miraculously” appeared on a church wall at Knock, Ireland, in 1879. (Author’s collection) see it, the occurrence at Knock was quite

26 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer ‘Explanations’ different, having multiple viewers. It did, remained unmoving and unspeaking however, begin with a single witness, a (except, apparently for the one early Many have tried to explain the phe- young woman named Margaret Beirne sudden movement reported by two of nomenon at Knock—first, of course, who was making her daily visit to lock the earliest witnesses [Rogo 1982, 218]). as supernatural. But like other such the doors of the village church. About Indeed, Mary McLaughlin first thought claims, it is based on a logical fallacy 7 pm, she noticed a strange brightness the three figures were actual churchyard called an argument from ignorance: that illuminated the top of the church. statues (perhaps, she thought mistak- “No one can explain it, therefore, it She gave it little thought, but half an enly, replacements for those destroyed must have been a miracle,” they say. hour later another woman, Mary Mc- recently in a storm) (Mullen 1998, 99). In fact, one cannot draw a conclusion Laughlin, had a profound experience. One skeptic huffed that the experi- from a lack of knowledge. Substitute Passing by, she saw within the glow— encers “saw an apparition of statues!” “X-force” for “miracle,” and we see seeming to emanate from the church’s (“Knock” 2015). what a non-explanation it is. southern gable—the “tableau” of holy Skeptics have not done so well ei- figures already described; however, the Apparition vs. Illusion ther. One proposal is that it was pure suggestion: Mary Beirne, who saw a figures were standing on the left, not as The ability to see pictures in random strange light, was the first to “iden- depicted in the lithograph. forms—as in clouds, tea leaves, and tify” the figure of the Virgin Mary and There are serious discrepancies in inkblots—is known as pareidolia; the quickly adopted a leadership position; what the fifteen or so witnesses did ac- images themselves are called simulacra. she then influenced the others. In part, tually see. Some mentioned a cross or Some publicized examples I have made PQ this no doubt happened, but it is un- crucifix while others specifically insisted pilgrimages to to examine include the likely as a complete explanation. Others they had not seen this. Likewise, at least face of Jesus in the skillet burns of a have suggested a hoax, that, for instance, one witness did not see a lamb, and two tortilla; the figure of Mary in the iri- luminous-painted canvas cutouts were boys alone saw flying angels. One fig- descent stain on a window (caused by secretly hung on the wall; however, this ure—although described by some as a water deposits from a sprinkler); the can hardly be taken seriously. Another bishop wearing a miter—was seen, or Madonna cradling the infant Jesus, suggestion has been the use of a magic later interpreted, as St. John the Evan- in another window stain; and Jesus lantern, say hidden in a nearby school; gelist. Nevertheless, there was general emerging from his tomb in a church’s or perhaps an altar-shaped box was agreement as to the scene, but it was es- patterned marble. (See my “Rorschach temporarily attached to the wall itself, sentially the same as depicted in various Icons,” Nickell 2007, 18–26.) which “concealed the magic lantern and holy pictures and a stained glass win- At Knock, the various elements—the mirrors required to make the image” dow in the nearby village of Ballyhaunis. multiple viewers, the unusual light, the (“Knock” 2015). But could there be a Such images may well have influenced immobility of the scene, the mismatched simpler, natural explanation? the perceptions of witnesses as well as size of the figures, and the duration of We have already considered some their later memories. the phenomenon—all suggest some clues as to what might have happened. Reportedly, while an inquiry was type of optical illusion, probably involv- There are more. The gable wall was en- being conducted into the first occur- ing pareidolia. Such illusions are known. veloped in the “eerie light” during the rence, “another apparition took place In August 1986, for example, a Catholic entire event, while rain continued to fall. on January 6, 1880, followed by two woman reported seeing an illuminated Moreover, “The whole tableau seemed more on February 10th and 12th of the image of Jesus, with his hand on the to stand out from the gable wall and to same year.” Again, there were multiple shoulder of a young boy, on a Fostoria, float about a foot and a half above the witnesses and “The visions remained Ohio, soybean oil tank. Other believ- ground.” Yet the apparitions, contin- identical” each time (Aradi 1954, 101). ers saw the image, while nonbelievers ues Rogo, “were obviously ephemeral” A different view comes from another tended to see nothing. As spokesman (1982, 219). One old woman said she source (“Knock” 2015): “Apparitions for the tank’s owner, the Archer Daniel went up “to kiss, as I thought the feet of lights on the gable and even of the Midland Company, explained the image of the Blessed Virgin; but I felt noth- Virgin herself were seen after the vision as “a combination of lighting, rust spots, ing in the embrace but the wall, and I but the church dismissed those stories.” fog, and people’s imaginations” (qtd. in wondered why I could not feel with my There is no official record of the later Nickell 1993, 36). hands the figures I had so plainly and phenomena (“Knock Shrine” 2015). Another illusion occurred at Santa so distinctly seen” (quoted in “Knock In any event, in the original mys- Fe Springs, California, in 1981. A cou- Shrine” 2015). terious tableau according to Margaret ple saw on their garage door in the eve- Beirne’s sister Mary, the Virgin was nings the head of Christ crowned with “life-size, the others apparently not so thorns surmounting a cross. As it turned The Mysterious Light big or not so tall” (qtd. in Mullen 1998, out, the effect was caused by the com- The light was first noticed illuminating 99). For some two hours the faithful bined shadows of a real estate sign and the top of the church, and then seen to watched the “apparition” in the falling a nearby bush, which were cast by a pair emanate from the south gable (Rogo rain, while the figures in the tableau of street lamps (Nickell 1993, 28). 1982, 218). It was not uniform, since

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 27 even a monochromatic (one-color) an angle of reflection, in relation to the persuaded by the predictions of self-pro- picture must have tonal values (lights azimuth of the sun.” claimed mystic Joe Coleman from Dublin and darks) to form shapes. (Think of Although rain clouds overhead that there would be a Miracle of the Sun an ordinary black-and-white or sepia- would have darkened the sky, the setting like that reported in Fatima, Portugal, in tone photograph.) Mary Beirne first sun could—and rather obviously did— 1917. In 2009, many people reported ob- said the Virgin’s cloak was “of white serve as the light source. And everyone serving such phenomena at Knock, but color” and the crown rather yellow has seen strange lighting effects caused unfortunately there was a correlation with (Mullen 1989, 99; “Knock” 2015). by the sun—sometimes shining while a spike in cases of retinal damage. As an Whether the light “flickered” (Aradi rain is falling. Rainy mist in front of the ophthalmologist explained, the “danc- 1954, 101) or portions “glimmered” church wall probably played a significant ing” sun and other effects were merely (Rogo 1982, 218) or they did not role in the tableau illusion. The reflected visual disturbances due to staring at the (“Knock Shrine” 2015) is contradicto- images could have been projected in part sun, which can cause reduced sight and rily stated. Whether there might have onto such diaphanous mist, helping cre- a condition called “metamorphopsia,” or been shadow effects is also unknown. ate the illusion that—as reported—the distorted vision (“Knock Shrine” 2015; Mary Beirne saw stars that were “gold” “figures” stood away from the wall, seem- Taber’s 2001, 1286; Nickell 1993, 176– (i.e., a deeper yellow) around the Lamb. ing “always just beyond reach” (Mullen 181). It may be wondered, then, whether n “She admitted that the stars seemed to 1998, 100), yet proving entirely without any miracle has ever occurred at Knock. be caused by reflection” (“Knock” 2015; substance when one tried to grasp them. emphasis added). The mystery light lasted—like the Acknowledgments But what was the source of the light? sun’s light—from before the time the Thanks to James McGaha for his expert I consulted my colleague James Mc- first witnesses noticed it until after ev- analysis of the conditions at Knock. Thanks Gaha, director of the Grasslands Obser- eryone had left. They went to see about also to Melissa Braun and CFI Libraries vatory in Arizona. He made a computer an old woman who, having been left Director Tim Binga. recreation of the sky at the place, date, alone, got out of her sickbed to try to Notes and time2 of the “miracle,” and discov- see the vision and collapsed. After a few returned to the site some ten or fifteen 1. From 1876–1886, Currier and Ives were ered that the evening sun, coming from located at the address—115 Nassau St.—given due west (270˚) was above the horizon minutes later, the lighted vision had van- on the print (Kovel and Kovel 1973, 242). for the duration of the miracle. More- ished (“Knock” 2015). So, of course, had 2. The times given in the account were local the sun. time, here assumed to be one hour after that of over, not far from the church had been Greenwich mean solar time. a school (shown in an 1879 survey of 3. We infer the likely presence of windows the area [“Knock” 2015]); it stood to the The Healings in the long sides of the school building. If they were not present, we would still postulate the sun southeast, its eastern wall angled toward An enterprising archdeacon worked the obliquely hitting the church wall directly, with the church’s south gable. following morning to bottle rainwater other scenarios for the random, diffuse forms. What is suggested is a natural version that had flowed down the gable and References of a magic-lantern effect. Indeed, with use it to create holy water with sup- the sun as a light source, an illusion was posedly curative powers (“Knock” 2015). Aradi, Zsolt. 1954. Shrines to Our Lady Around the World. New York: Farrar, Straus and created with “smoke and mirrors”—or People came to be healed, and “Knock Young. rather, rainy mist and reflective win- soon became celebrated as one of the Knock. 2015. Available online at www.miracle- 3 dows. Such effects are documented. For great Marian shrines” (Aradi 1954, 102). skeptic.com/Knock.html; accessed January 15. example, diffuse reflections from win- Unfortunately, the zealous were so intent Knock Shrine. 2015. Available online at www. dows, projected onto the wall of a nearby on breaking pieces of cement from the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock_Shrine; building, have been photographed. (See church wall—for their supposedly cura- accessed January 15. Kovel, Ralph, and Terry Kovel. 1993. Know Your Minna ert 1993, 17.) These odd shapes tive power—that the wall became in Antiques. New York: Crown Publishers. could produce the requisite pareidolia danger of collapsing (“Knock” 2015). Minnaert, Marcell. 1974. Light and Color in the (pictures-in-randomness) effects in sus- As to the “miracle” cures at Knock, Outdoors. Reprinted New York: Springer- ceptible individuals, especially those who Verlay, 1993. these are typically based, again, on the Mullen, Peter. 1998. Shrines of Our Lady. New were motivated to see something “mi- illogic of arguing from ignorance. More- York: St. Martin’s Press. raculous” and were familiar with similar over, healings may be attributed—like Nickell, Joe. 1993. Looking for a Miracle: Weeping holy pictures. Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing such claims elsewhere—to misdiagnosis, Cures. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. McGaha stresses that while other psychosomatic conditions, spontaneous ———. 2007. Adventures in Paranormal scenarios are conceivable, the conditions remission, prior medical treatment, the Investigation. Lexington: University Press that were apparently operative at Knock of Kentucky. body’s own healing power, and other ef- ———. 2013. The Science of Miracles. Amherst, were ideal for producing such an opti- fects, including exaggeration and even NY: Prometheus Books. cal illusion. His calculations show that outright hoaxing. Rogo, D. Scott. 1982. Miracles: A Parascientific “The angular relationship between the With tragic irony, some people have Inquiry into Wondrous Phenomena. New York: The Dial Press. school wall and the chapel wall per- been harmed rather than healed at Knock. Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary. 2001. fectly matches an angle of incidence to Certain of the faithful were apparently Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co.

28 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer [ A MAGICIAN IN THE LAB JAMES RANDI James Randi began his career as a stage magician and escape artist but achieved fame as a professional skeptic, disproving the claims of self-described psychics, mind readers, and faith healers. He is a founder of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP). This is the first of a new regular column.

The Dangerous Delusion about Vaccines and Autism

ello again! I begin my joy- That, however, did little to assuage the ful return to the pages of the fears of some parents who were by then H“Magazine for Science and very convinced that the MMR vaccine Reason” at the age of eighty-eight. Yes, had caused their children to become I’ve slowed down in some ways but crippled by autism. Part of that parental have embraced medical science enthu- reluctance to accept the findings may siastically, as it permits me to continue well have been that several investigators well past the average life span attained postulated that autism might really be by the average male. Our esteemed the result of hereditary factors, a possi- editor Ken Frazier has set limits on bility that those parents understandably how much I write in this new column preferred not to face. for the Skeptical Inquirer, but not The symptoms of this still-myste- upon what subjects I may choose to rious condition are highly variable and pontificate. Joy! Here goes. . . . appear in different degrees in different What follows here is about one very individuals. My own personal and ex- important subject of my next book—my tended experience with autistic chil- eleventh—A Magician in the Labora- dren occurred when, following a direct Andrew Wakefield tory, already written and seeking pub- request from the University of Syracuse, lication. If there is one major concern I looked into the farce known as “Fa- mumps, and rubella (German mea- that has taken my attention as a skeptic cilitated Communication” (FC). The sles)—and the onset of autism in chil- and served to inspire this book, it is the resulting experience was most unpleas- persistent and currently very popular dren. This is simply not true. MMR has ant, with little cooperation being offered delusion that tries to connect the pro- been found to be a very effective pro- me by those administering this blatant cess of childhood vaccination with the phylactic measure, and since the 1970s, quackery. dreaded condition known as autism. I’ve well over 500 million doses have been FC consists of the “facilitator”— personally known two families plagued successfully administered worldwide in most often a young woman—holding with autism. some sixty countries. the hand of an autistic child with the The most erroneous and damaging Wakefield received $780,000 for his child’s index finger extended, hovering misunderstanding about this condi- consulting services on that project. . . . over a computer keyboard, and guiding tion started in 1998, when a British Then, in 2010, that Lancet paper by that finger while pressing it against se- researcher, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, pub- Wakefield was officially retracted upon lected keys so as to spell out messages lished in the prominent medical jour- the discovery of serious overlooked that are said to originate from the child. nal The Lancet a paper claiming that basic flaws in his protocol and the un- Wrong. That child seldom even looks there was a connection between the ethically close connection between the toward the keyboard, is often wriggling, use of MMR—a multi-purpose immu- author of the paper and the industrial kicking, and looking away, or even doz- nization vaccine used against measles, agencies that had financed his work. ing off, though the facilitator’s attention

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 29 is seen to be very concentrated, often cine was linked to the condition. They Populations acquire what’s known as looking ahead to the next letter of the found that the families of eight out “herd immunity” from diseases such as word being spelled out! Consult the of twelve children attending a routine measles—as well as from mumps and subject under Facilitated Communica- clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR rubella—when more than 95 percent tion on the Internet, and you will see for their autism and said that problems of the local population has been vacci- this farce as I’ve just described it. The came on within a few days of the injec- nated because the percentage of carriers staff at Syracuse had actually come to tion. However, as confirmed by evidence of such infectious diseases is thereby believe that these children might be presented to the U.K. General Medical kept below a sustainable spread ratio. using telepathy, and had called me in Council (GMC), most of the twelve Early in 2010, official figures showed to find out if that might be the correct children’s ailments as described in The that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles solution! in England and Wales were reported that year compared with only fifty-six back in 1998. Two children died of the disease. Populations acquire Even before The Lancet’s withdrawal of the paper, ten of Wakefield’s coau- what’s known as thors had their names removed from “herd immunity” from authorship. The U.S. Centers for Disease Con- diseases such as trol and Prevention of course shares measles—as well as (along with parents and many others) great concern about the number of chil- from mumps and dren with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and is still trying to understand rubella—when more what causes autism, how it can be pre- Please understand: most autistic kids than 95 percent of the vented, and how it can be recognized have problems establishing eye-to-eye and treated as early as possible. Esti- contact and will display bizarre facial local population has mates are that one in 120 of eight-year- expressions and strange body postures. been vaccinated be- olds had ASD, then in 2012 that figure They seem unable or unwilling to share had jumped to about one in eighty- enjoyment or interests with others, cause the percentage eight, an estimate which is higher than and they do not relate to the discom- of carriers of such estimates from the early 1990s. This is fort of others. About half of them do a seriously frightening figure. not speak well, using wails or repetitive infectious diseases is A preservative, thimerosal, used in loud noises or words to express them- vaccines has induced much terror from selves. They have very poor skills at thereby kept below a the uninformed. It’s a compound that maintaining communication, and often sustainable spread ratio. contains the element mercury—you exhibit echolalia (seizing upon a verbal know, the liquid metal that you played phrase or expression that captures their with in chemistry class, those little silver attention and repeating it endlessly). beads. Yes, mercury can be poisonous, Some will choose a shiny object or but only when consumed or combined a bright light and fixate on it. Others into a compound. Consider: common will constantly rock their bodies and/or table salt is sodium chloride—chemical flap their hands. As for the degrees of formula NaCl—which we all consume these behavior patterns they exhibit, I Lancet differed substantially from their every day, but sodium all by itself is a soft found that it varied from extreme—wild hospital and medical records. Though silvery metal that converts into a very shouting and damaging bouts of flailing the research paper had claimed that highly caustic and poisonous compound with arms and legs—to gentle, distant, autistic symptoms were detected within when it comes into contact with water, and almost acceptable demeanors and days of the injection, thus implying a yet it’s 100 percent safe—as salt. Chem- attitudes. temporal connection, in only one case did ically, thimerosal is C9H9HgNaO2S, a The Lancet found that Dr. Wakefield records suggest that this was true, and in far more complicated compound. had changed and misreported results in many of the other cases, pertinent med- There are two very different types his research. Medical documents and ical concerns about MMR had been of mercury in compounds that you subsequent interviews with witnesses raised before the children had even been should know about. These are methyl have since established that he manip- vaccinated! After the publication, rates mercury (CH3Hg) and ethylmercury ulated patients’ data, thereby triggering of inoculation fell dangerously low, from (C2H5Hg), and they are quite distinct fears that use of the MMR triple vac- 92 percent to below 80 percent. from one another. Mercury itself is

30 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer found everywhere in the Earth’s crust, autism. In any case, use of thimerosal is no far-flung future; these terrible air, soil, and water. Certain types of bac- was discontinued in childhood vaccines consequences of antiscientific nonsense teria in the environment can change in 2001, yet recent reports of autism have are happening to us right now. For most natural mercury into the methylmer- gone up dramatically, which is quite the in the medical community, this issue is cury variety, which can be very toxic to opposite of what would be expected if now closed. humans, but thimerosal contains the thimerosal caused autism. Also, the But why do so many people continue very different form of mercury—ethyl MMR vaccine—specifically blamed to believe that there is a link, despite the mercury—which is broken down and for autism by the uninformed, remem- overwhelming evidence? The answer is excreted from the body rapidly after ber—does not, and never did, contain something that has more credibility being administered, so the type of mer- thimerosal, nor did vaccines for varicella than the best scientific study: personal cury found in the influenza vaccine is far (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), experience. Here we encounter a basic less likely to accumulate in the body and and pneumococcal conjugate (a menin- error in logic that folks often make. cause harm. A very, very tiny amount of gitis source), ever contain thimerosal. Many parents came to believe that thimerosal serves to preserve vaccines Anti-vaxxers—those who embrace vaccines caused their children’s autism to avoid the possible growth of bacteria the misguided notion that vaccines ad- because the symptoms of autism ap- and fungi in case they get into the vac- ministered to children are a major pub- peared shortly after the child received cine—which could occur when a syringe lic health threat and/or that this practice a vaccination. On a psychological level, needle enters a vial just as the vaccine is causes autism—are misguided people being prepared for administration. Con- who are generally well-intentioned but that assumption and connection seems tamination by certain germs in a vaccine still badly mistaken. They may mean to make sense, but on a logical level, it is could cause severe local reactions, seri- well, and in fact many have autistic chil- a clear and common fallacy: post hoc ergo ous illness, or even death. dren themselves, a fact that may have propter hoc—“[It happened] after this, Be assured, the vaccine preservative prompted them to become involved in therefore because of this.” thimerosal has a proven track record of the controversy. But if they are success- I trust that my reader can understand being very safe. The most common side ful in preaching their fears, many, many my concern over this MMR farce, and effects can be very minor reactions such children will die of totally preventable I offer encouragement to concerned as redness and swelling at the injection diseases. As I mentioned earlier, we’re parents. Louis Pasteur’s vaccines have site. Research does not show any link be- already seeing a comeback of measles saved countless lives all over the world n tween (a) thimerosal in vaccines and (b) due to drops in vaccination rates. This and hopefully will continue to do so.

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 31 [ PSYCHIC VIBRATIONS ROBERT SHEAFFER Robert Sheaffer has been writing the “Psychic Vibrations” column in Skeptical Inquirer for forty years. He has decided it is time to retire this column. He still blogs at www.BadUFOs.com.

‘UFO Disclosure’ Fizzles Again in 2016

e recently reported (“‘UFO remain silent and allow the truth an alleged Roswell UFO crash, and “not Disclosure’ Happening Again embargo to continue on into the one” of them turned out to be telling WThis Year,” September/ next administration. (http://tinyurl. the truth. Thus Redfern’s bizarre spec- com/3oktofa) October 2016) about the excitement ulation seems to be an implausible the- being generated by rumors of immi- The PRG’s website says that, as of ory in search of something to explain. nent “UFO Disclosure.” John Podesta, this writing, “There are 54 days left for Other speakers and former speakers at Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Secretary Clinton and John Podesta to the festival tell of supposed MILABS, is widely known to be a believer in engage the media on the extraterrestrial or “military abductions”—citizens being UFOs and aliens. With the expectation issue forcing an agreement between the stealthily “abducted” by the U.S. military of Clinton’s victory, lobbyist Steven White House and the Pentagon for in the manner of supposed UFO aliens, Bassett of Paradigm Research Group Disclosure under President Obama.” for unknown purposes. This is not ex- (PRG) proclaimed that UFO disclo- By the time you read this, that time will actly a “skeptical” view of the Roswell sure “will be a reality this year and be up. controversy. across the front pages of newspapers But this year there will be a rival * * * across the world.” event. The town’s newspaper, the Ros- But Clinton was not elected, and ac- Folks in Roswell, New Mexico, are well Daily Record, is sponsoring an event tivists scrambled to recover some scraps preparing for a “hot time” this com- named “The Roswell Incident,” running of hope that their longed-for revelations ing summer. For a number of years, from Friday, June 30 to Sunday, July 2. might still occur. Bassett wrote on No- each July the Roswell UFO Museum This is a special event to commemo- vember 17: has sponsored a UFO Festival with rate the seventieth anniversary. (Randle Two days after the election defeat of speakers, vendors, alien costumes, etc., notes that there were two parallel con- Secretary Hillary Clinton Paradigm and this year will be no different. ferences in Roswell during the fiftieth Research Group received a message The theme of this year’s festival is “70 anniversary celebration in 1997, but from a source within the military/ intelligence community known to Years Later: Modern Challenges to back then there were two UFO muse- PRG. The message paraphrased the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis,” which ums.) Among this year’s speakers will is this: persons who are directly at first sounds surprisingly skepti- be Nick Pope, Lee Speigel, Alejandro involved in the management of the cal. Except that in this case non-ET Rojas, and Race Hobbs. Will there be extraterrestrial issues want Disclosure explanations apparently involve claims enough eager conference-goers to suc- to take place under President Obama and are ready to work with the that are perhaps equally dubious. One cessfully fund both events? Will these SecDef if approached. . . . The speaker is Nick Redfern, who claims two groups be able to coexist without Clintons now have a choice to make that reported sightings of little bodies feuding? (I’m told that relations be- of historic proportions. Should they in the desert actually involved captured tween them are quite cordial, even co- immediately take interviews with Japanese pilots who were flown in on top journalists and discuss in greater operative, at least so far.) And more im- detail what they know about the ET some bizarre kind of craft. portantly, will anybody at either of these issue and what transpired during the However, longtime Roswell re- conferences come up with any credible Rockefeller Initiative (1993–1996), searcher Kevin Randle wrote in his new information about the Roswell in- the resulting media storm will force new book Roswell in the 21st Century cident that has any significance? Or will the Pentagon and the White House to reach the necessary understanding that over the years he had personally it be just more of the same old, same allowing Barack Obama to be the interviewed all eight of the people who old: extraordinary claims with little or Disclosure president. Or should they claimed to have seen small bodies from no proof? 32 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer I was a guest on Kevin Randle’s posium July 21–23, at the beautiful JW Vibrations” column for just under forty radio show broadcast December 17, Marriott in Las Vegas, NV. Our Theme years (since the Fall/Winter 1977 issue 2016 (http://goo.gl/le3vpk). I asked him will be ‘The Case for a Secret Space of what was then called The Zetetic), it is whether it was true that in his newest Program.’” A “secret space program” time for me to retire the column. It has book he had “recanted,” as had been re- means that we have spaceships zipping been a very good run. We have covered ported, his earlier strong support for the all around the solar system and accord- many entertaining subjects, striving to Roswell incident as an extraterrestrial ing to some even farther afield—all in be both entertaining and educational, event. He replied that he was no longer complete secrecy! The announcement but it is now time for me to move on. If sure what actually happened, and that is accompanied by a graphic of a huge you want to read more of these columns, he feels the case for ET involvement space fortress, apparently in low Earth there is a book of Psychic Vibrations—see is no longer robust. After meticulously orbit. Such a thing, if it existed, would my blog. My newest book, Bad UFOs, investigating Roswell claims and sto- often be as bright as Venus seen from contains up-to-date information about ries over four decades, Randle realized the ground. Amateur astronomers have many well-known UFO incidents and that there are too many weak spots in photographed the International Space claims. I am still blogging at www. the fabric to make a credible case for an Station clearly enough to reveal its BadUFOs.com, covering ongoing devel- ET crash, and he was brave enough to shape, so where is the photographic ev- opments in UFOlogy and encouraging admit it. idence for “secret space stations”? informed discussion of the controversy Meanwhile, MUFON recently is- from any perspective. I hope some of you * * * sued a statement that “We are pleased will check it out. n to announce the 2017 MUFON Sym- Finally, after writing this “Psychic Stay skeptical!

[ SCIENCE WATCH KENNETH W. KRAUSE Kenneth W. Krause is a contributing editor and “Science Watch” columnist for the Skeptical Inquirer. He may be contacted at [email protected].

The Delectable Myths of Healthy and Healthier Obesity

Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many popular but clearly flawed “Healthy at same ailments” (Lavie 2014). In addi- as six impossible things before breakfast. Every Size (HAES)” movement profess tion to his own research, Lavie’s con- —The Queen to Alice in the nonexistence of excess adiposity and clusions are based on a revolutionary Through the Looking Glass suggest that even the most obese people (and, in some circles, much-celebrated) ouldn’t it be splendid to have can lead perfectly healthy lives (“Every Journal of the American Medical Associa- our cakes and eat them too? size”—really?). On the other end, and tion study led by Katherine Flegal at the WArguably, both ideology and somewhat more credibly, others allege U.S. Centers for Disease Control and popular culture allow their followers to the existence of an “obesity paradox” and Prevention, who reviewed ninety-seven do just that. Until they don’t, of course. a “metabolically healthy obesity.” Such studies of more than 2.88 million indi- At that point, when facts and logic can are the tantalizing subjects of this col- viduals to calculate all-cause mortality no longer be denied, the rudely awak- umn. hazard ratios for standard body mass ened find themselves confronted with Cardiologist and obesity researcher index (BMI) classifications (Flegal et difficult choices. Carl J. Lavie has described the paradox al. 2013). The concept of healthy obesity, for as follows: “Overweight and moderately Flegal’s team concluded that relative example, has gained much traction obese patients with certain chronic dis- to normal weight, all combined grades during the past fifteen years. At one eases . . . often live longer and fare better of obesity were associated with an 18 end of the continuum, members of the than normal-weight patients with the percent higher incidence of all-cause

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 33 mortality. In cases of more extreme obe- growing) who have been told for de- conducting crude analyses with inad- sity, the association rose to 29 percent. cades that obesity per se will significantly equate control of reverse causality, but By itself, however, the mildest grade of increase one’s susceptibility to heart dis- not when [he] conducted appropriately obesity was not correlated with a signifi- ease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and arthri- strict analyses.” In the end, then, the cantly elevated risk, and the overweight tis, for example. Preferences and popu- Collaboration found that, worldwide, but not obese category was actually lar reports aside, however, it appears we participants with a normal BMI in the associated with a 6 percent lower inci- may yet be forced to choose between 22.5 to 25 range enjoyed the lowest risk dence of all-cause mortality. Predictably, possessing our cakes and consuming of mortality and that such risk increased the popular media quickly seized on the them, because an impressive body of significantly throughout the overweight overweight population’s presumed ap- new and well-conceived research has and obese ranges. In fact, every five units petite for these tempting results. called both the paradox and healthy of BMI in excess of 25 was associated Metabolically healthy, or “benign,” obesity into serious question. generally with a 31 percent greater risk obesity, on the other hand—which Consider, for example, a truly enor- of premature death—specifically, 49 Lavie dubs the “ultimate paradox”— mous international meta-analysis pub- percent for cardiovascular-related, 38 appears to have no standard definition lished last July in The Lancet by the percent for respiratory-related, and 19 or list of qualifying criteria but is often Global BMI Mortality Collaboration percent for cancer-related mortality. Ac- characterized generally as “obesity with- (2016). Led by Harvard professor of cording to Hu, his team had succeeded in out the presence of metabolic diseases nutrition and epidemiology Frank Hu, “challeng[ing] previous suggestions that such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, this study pored over data from more overweight and grade 1 obesity are not as- or hypertension” (Munoz-Garach et al. than 10.6 million participants who were sociated with higher mortality, bypassing 2016). The hallmark trait of this sub- followed for up to fourteen years. In- speculations about hypothetical protective population, however, is retained insulin cluded were 239 large studies conducted metabolic effects of increased body fat in sensitivity. Researchers have assigned in thirty-two countries. Importantly, apparently healthy individuals.” up to 32 percent of the obese popula- the Collaboration attempted to control Consider also a large prospective tion to this phenotype. It applies more for a “reverse causation bias,” in which cohort study published last October in prevalently to women than men but is low BMI was the result, rather than the BMJ in which about 115,000 par- thought to decrease with age among the cause, of an underlying or preclin- ticipants—free of cardiovascular disease both sexes. Researchers have yet to de- ical illness by excluding current or for- and cancer at baseline—were followed termine whether these obese are genet- mer smokers, those who suffered from for up to thirty-two years (Veronese et ically predisposed to decreased risks of chronic disease at the study’s inception, al. 2016). Evaluating the combined as- disease or mortality. But their existence, and those who died during the initial sociations of diet, exercise, alcohol con- along with that of the metabolically five years of follow-up. In other words, sumption, and smoking with BMI on unhealthy normal-weight population, Hu’s team addressed the potential for the risk of all-cause and cause-specific suggests that factors other than excess potent confounders that Flegal’s team, mortality, this study was also designed adiposity are at play. for lack of data, was forced to ignore. to address Flegal’s peculiar 2013 results. All of which might sound at least The Collaboration’s results were A lead author here as well, Frank Hu somewhat comforting to the now 600 startling. Interestingly, Hu “was able first noted, once again, that previous ex- million obese worldwide (and still to reproduce [Flegal’s results] when aminations suggesting an obesity paradox, including Flegal’s, had allowed for potentially confounding bias by failing to distinguish between healthy normal-weight individuals and a “substantial proportion of the US population” in which “leanness is driven by other factors that can increase risk of mortality,” including existing or preclinical chronic diseases and smoking. Contrary to the alleged paradox, Hu discovered that when lifestyle factors were taken into serious consideration, the lowest risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was enjoyed by participants in the normal 18.5 to 22.4 BMI range—that is, when those subjects also displayed at least three out of four healthy lifestyle factors, including healthy eating, adequate exercise, mod- erate alcohol intake, and no smoking.

34 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer In the end, according to Hu’s team, “the responses to insulin stimulation be- can render obesity a benign condition. U-shaped relation between BMI and tween never-obese, unhealthy obese, First, as much of the research presented mortality observed in many epidemio- and, again, supposedly healthy obese here demonstrates, the chronic diseases logical studies is driven by an over-rep- subjects (Ryden et al. 2016). Led by strongly associated with obesity are, by resentation in our societies of individ- Mikael Ryden at the Karolinska In- definition, progressive and apt to cause uals who are lean because of chronic stitutet, this group revealed, first, clear damage down the road. Second, for metabolic and pathological conditions distinctions between the never-obese practical reasons in the real world, ex- caused by exposure to smoking, a sed- and both groups of obese participants, cess adiposity always makes meaningful entary lifestyle, and/or unhealthy diets.” and, second, nearly identical and abnor- exercise a far more difficult (and thus far The optimal human condition, in other mal patterns of gene expression among less likely) endeavor. words, is not overweight of any kind or both insulin-resistant and insulin-sensi- Obese or not, our health contin- to any degree but rather “leanness in- tive obese subjects, independent of other ues to be undermined by the popular, duced by healthy lifestyles.” emotion-manipulating media, the mis- So much for the obesity paradox, at guided and oppressive forces of political least for now. But what of its somewhat correctness forbidding full candor, and, less voracious cousin, the notion of met- Obese or not, our most crucially, our own subjective prej- abolically healthy obesity? health continues to udices and appetites. But as their num- Recognizing prior support for so- bers continue to swell, the overweight called “benign obesity,” a trio of Cana- be undermined by the and obese grow increasingly vulnerable dian diabetes researchers led by Car- to seductive messages inviting self-de- oline Kramer conducted a systematic popular, emotion- ception and failure. As in all other con- review and meta-analysis of eight stud- manipulating media, texts, their liberation from these influ- ies evaluating over 61,000 subjects— ences derives only from an unflinching many of whom were classified as met- the misguided and appreciation for the methods of sci- abolically healthy obese—for all-cause ence—that is, empiricism, rationality, mortality and cardiovascular events oppressive forces of candor, and the assumption of respon- (Kramer et al. 2013). When all studies political correctness sibility for individual experimentation. were considered, regardless of follow-up n duration, the healthy obese subjects dis- forbidding full candor, In a word, skepticism. played risks similar to those of healthy and, most crucially, References normal-weight participants. However, Flegal, K.M., B.K. Kit, H. Orpana, et al. 2013. when considering only those studies our own subjective Association of all-cause mortality with over- that followed-up for at least ten years, prejudices and weight and obesity using standard body Kramer and colleagues discovered that mass index categories. Journal of the American Medical Association 309(1): 71–82. the purportedly healthy obese were sig- appetites. Global BMI Mortality Collaboration. 2016. nificantly more likely than their normal Body-mass index and all-cause mortality: counterparts to perish or suffer serious Individual-participant-data meta-analysis of 239 prospective studies in four continents. cardiovascular trouble. The Lancet 388: 776–786. Should we infer, then, that the Kramer, C.K., B. Zinman, and R. Retnakaran. healthy obese are, in fact, healthy until 2013. Are metabolically healthy overweight circumstances render them otherwise a cardiovascular or metabolic risk factors. and obesity benign conditions? Annals of Said Ryden during a post-publica- Internal Medicine 159(11): 758–769. decade later? Not according to Kramer. Lavie, Carl J. 2014. The Obesity Paradox: When Regardless of metabolic status, she tion interview: “Insulin-sensitive obese Thinner Means Sicker and Heavier Means warned, even in the short term, obesity individuals may not be as metabolically Healthier. NY: Plume. healthy as previously believed” (Sci- Munoz-Garach, A., I. Cornejo-Pareja, and F.J. is associated with subclinical vascular Tinahones. 2016. Does metabolically healthy disease, left-ventricular abnormalities, enceDaily 2016). His team’s findings, obesity exist? Nutrients 8: 320. chronic inflammation, and increased he continued, “suggest that vigorous Ryden, M., O. Hrydziuszko, E. Mileti, et al. carotid artery intima-media thickness, interventions may be necessary for all 2016. The adipose transcriptional response to insulin is determined by obesity, not insulin and coronary calcification. In the end, obese individuals, even those previously sensitivity. Cell Reports 16: 2317–2326. the Canadians found no support for considered . . . healthy.” ScienceDaily. 2016. More evidence that “healthy the “benign obesity” phenotype and de- To Lavie’s credit, he generally ac- obesity” may be a myth (August 18). Available online at https://www.sciencedaily. clared with no uncertainty that “there is knowledges obesity’s proven hazards. com/releases/2016/08/160818131127.htm. no ‘healthy’ pattern of obesity.” He also recognizes serious and con- Veronese, N., L. Yanping, J.E. Manson, et al. Most recently, however, a diverse and sistent exercise as the most reliable 2016. Combined associations of body weight impressively creative group of Swedish strategy for attaining and maintaining and lifestyle factors with all cause and cause specific mortality in men and women: pro- scientists used transcriptomic profil- good health. Far less defensible, how- spective cohort study. BMJ. DOI:10.1136/ ing in white adipose tissue to contrast ever, is Lavie’s insistence that exercise bmj.i5855.

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 35 [ SKEPTICAL INQUIREE BENJAMIN RADFORD Benjamin Radford is a research fellow at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and author or coauthor of ten books, including Bad Clowns.

Mystery of the Paulding Light

What do you know about the mysterious “Paulding Light” reported in Michigan? Any idea what it is? Q: —A. Onion

Mystery buffs in Mich- Paulding Light, John Carlisle of The Other places with similar reports igan’s Upper Peninsula Detroit Free Press explains: include the Brown Mountain Lights of : often seek out a lonely Legend says the light comes from the North Carolina (see Joe Nickell’s col- road at a remote spot swaying lantern held by the ghost of umn on the topic [Nickell 2016]), Mis- in the woods near the a railroad brakeman who died when souri’s Ozark Spooklight, and the Marfa A he was crushed as he tried to stop an Wisconsin border hop- lights near Marfa, Texas. There are many oncoming train from hitting railcars ing to see a mystery known as the stalled on the tracks. This was log- natural explanations for curious lights “Paulding Light.” Some come prepared ging country more than a century seen in the skies, and a single blanket with bug spray and beer, while oth- ago, and local residents say there explanation cannot account for them all. ers arrive empty-handed. All, however, were a number of railroads that ran Instead, it depends on the specific cir- harbor hopes of seeing the mystery for through the forest and are now bur- ied in the underbrush. Some believe cumstances of each location: some areas themselves. Lights such as those seen in it’s the light of the train, which itself may contain groups of bioluminescent the Upper Peninsula are often referred is now a ghost. Some claim it’s the animals, including fireflies (which are in to as ghost lights or spook lights. distraught spirit of a grandparent fact beetles); other locations may have looking for a lost grandchild with a Some traditions link floating lights types of fungus that emit light. Other with death—accounts from centuries lantern that needs constant relight- ing, the reason the light seems to explanations include aircraft lights, re- ago suggest that if a person saw three come and go. (Carlisle 2016) flections from stars or planets distorted distinct unknown lights in the sky, it was an omen that three deaths should be expected soon. Though such superstitions are rarer today, the association between mysterious lights and ghosts or the supernatural lives on in folklore. These lights are not merely encountered as factual, visible anomalies but instead often appear in the context of ghost stories. Local folklore provides a legendary “explanation” for the lights— part of a long tradition of creating nar- ratives to explain natural celestial processes. Fans explore and post videos of their experience, speculating endlessly about the light’s origin. In the case of the

36 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer through layers of different temperatures, recorded the results. Every time the from US-45” (Goodrich 2011). and will-o-the-wisp—glowing swamp light appeared, one look through the It’s very difficult to conclusively rule gas seen over marshes and wetland telescope showed what sure looked like the headlights of oncoming cars, out all the possible known sources of caused by the oxidation of decomposing which could be seen clearly through light that could be mistaken for spook organic matter. The lights are seen only the lens, sometimes with the distinct lights—automobile headlights, camp- under certain conditions and circum- outline of the car coming down the fires, aircraft, cloud reflections of dis- road, which is about 8 miles away. stances; many visitors wait in vain for tant city or vehicle lights, insects, and hours and see nothing. Eyewitnesses to The group even shot a video through the telescope so others could see, so on—and inevitably some reports will the same phenomena sometimes offer and posted it online. The flickering, remain unexplained. At the end of the different descriptions of what they saw: they said, was caused when cars went day, of course, it’s more fun to imagine some are said to briefly flicker in place; over a hill. others are said to dance or shoot across the distant glimmer is a ghostly railroad Some believers dismiss such explana- the sky like a UFO. brakeman’s phantom lantern than the tions as far-fetched, acknowledging that n The distant lights’ fickle nature headlights of a 2005 Honda Civic. while known light sources do exist in makes them difficult to fully investigate. the direction of the lights and may ac- References Members of the SyFy television show count for a few reports, others would be Carlisle, John. 2016. Mysterious light draws thrill Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files—for too faint to be mistaken for the spook seekers to a U.P. forest. Detroit Free Press whom mundane curiosities and obvious lights. Ordinarily that may be true, but (September 5). Available online at http:// camera artifacts are often characterized www.freep.com/story/news/columnists- under certain circumstances low clouds as eternally insoluble mysteries—tack- john-carlisle/2016/09/04/mysterious- led the Paulding Light case but, pre- cannot only reflect but amplify ambient paulding-light-upper-peninsula-michigan/ 89275134/. dictably, failed to solve the mystery and light from roadways and nearby towns. Goodrich, Marcia. 2011. Just in time for proclaimed it unexplainable. Indeed, Bos analyzed local atmospheric patterns and found that “Heat rising off Halloween: Michigan Tech students solve However, Carlisle notes that in 2010 the mystery of the Paulding Light. Michigan a team from Michigan Tech led by elec- the pavement may sometimes contrib- Tech News ( January 24). Available onlline trical engineering student Jeremy Bos ute to the light’s distortion . . . [and] an at http://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2010/ inversion layer in the line of sight be- october/just-time-for-halloween-michigan- brought a spectrograph and a tele- tween the road and the Paulding Light tech-students-solve-mystery-paulding-light. scope to the dead-end road, sent html. each other driving down the new viewing spot may also create very stable Nickell, Joe. 2016. The Brown Mountain Lights: highway while blinking their lights air, which could account for the light’s Solved (again!). Skeptical Inquirer 40(1) in a prearranged pattern, and visibility about four and a half miles ( January/February).

There’s much more available on our website! Skepti cal Inq uirer

Here’s just a sample of what you’ll find: The Parable of the Power Pose and How to Reverse It Stuart Vyse examines the alleged benefits of the “Power Pose”: If you spend two minutes adopting an expansive, arms-akimbo, Wonder Woman–like pose—or any similarly expansive pose—your hormones will get a boost, and you will go on to show increased risk-taking behavior. Vyse is... skeptical. Mystery Coin of the Yukon Joe Nickell examines the reported discovery of an unusual coin in Canada’s Yukon Territory that “appeared to have been minted before the Ice Age.” Nickell is... also skeptical.

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 37 THE selfish REVISITED gene RICHARD DAWKINS

On the fortieth anniversary of the book that made him a scientific celebrity, biologist Richard Dawkins looks back at this “gene’s eye view” of evolution and finds it even more relevant today.

This article is the epilogue to The Extended Selfish Gene and the fortieth anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene, both published in 2016 by Oxford University Press. Copyright 2016. Reprinted by permission of Richard Dawkins and OUP.

cientists, unlike politicians, can take pleasure in being wrong. A Spolitician who changes his mind is accused of “flip-flopping.” Tony Blair boasted that he had “not got a reverse gear.” Scientists on the whole prefer to see their ideas vindicated, but an occasional reversal gains respect, especially when graciously acknowledged. I have never heard of a scientist being maligned as a flip-flopper.

38 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer THE SELFISH GENE REVISITED

In some ways I would quite like to find gene “vehicle.” The measure of its success is ways to recant the central message of The the frequency of its genes in future genera- Selfish Gene . So many exciting things are tions, and the quantity it strives to maximize fast happening in the world of genomics, it is what Hamilton defined as “inclusive fit- would seem almost inevitable—even tan- ness.” talizing—that a book with the word “gene” A gene achieves its numerical success in in the title would, forty years on, need dras- the population by virtue of its (phenotypic) tic revision if not outright discarding. This effects on individual bodies. A successful might indeed be so, were it not that “gene” gene is represented in many bodies over a in this book is used in a special sense, tai- long period of time. It helps those bodies to lored to evolution rather than embryology. survive long enough to reproduce in the en- My definition is the population geneticists’ vironment. But the environment means not definition adopted by George C. Williams, just the external environment of the body— one of the acknowledged heroes of the trees, water, predators, etc.—but also the in- book, now lost to us along with John ternal environment, and especially the other Maynard Smith and Bill Hamilton: genes with which the selfish gene shares a “A gene is defined as any portion of succession of bodies through the population chromosomal material that poten- and down the generations. It follows that tially lasts for enough genera- natural selection favours genes that flourish tions to serve as a unit of nat- in the company of other genes in the breed- ural selection.” I pushed it to a ing population. Genes are indeed “selfish” in

A gene achieves its numerical success in the population by virtue of its (phenotypic) effects on individual bodies. A successful gene is represented in many bodies over a long period of time.

somewhat facetious conclusion: the sense promoted in this book. They are “To be strict, this book should be also cooperative with other genes with which called . . . The slightly selfish big bit they share, not just the present particular of chromosome and the even more self- body, but bodies in general, generated by the ish little bit of chromosome .” As opposed species’ gene pool. A sexually reproducing to the embryologist’s concern with how population is a cartel of mutually compat- genes affect phenotypes, we have here the ible, cooperating genes: cooperating today neo-Darwinist’s concern with changes because they have flourished by cooperating in frequencies of entities in populations. through many generations of similar bodies Those entities are genes in the Williams in the ancestral past. The important point sense (Williams later called that sense to understand (it is much misunderstood) the “codex”). Genes can be counted and is that the cooperativeness is favoured, not their frequency is the measure of their because a group of genes is naturally selected success. One of the central messages of as a whole, but because individual genes are this book is that the individual organism separately selected against the background of doesn’t have this property. An organism the other genes likely to be met in a body, has a frequency of one, and therefore can- and this means the other genes in the spe- not “serve as a unit of natural selection” cies’ gene pool. The pool, that is, from which (not in the same sense of replicator any- every individual of a sexually reproducing way). If the organism is a unit of natural species draws its genes as a sample. The selection, it is in the quite different sense of genes of the species (but not other species) Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 39 are continually meeting each other—and cooperating simple way to express it, and the one that I favour, is with each other—in a succession of bodies. Hamilton’s Rule: a gene for altruism will spread if the We still don’t really understand what drove the cost to the altruist, C, is less than the value, B, to the origin of sexual reproduction. But a consequence of beneficiary, devalued by the coefficient of relatedness, sexual reproduction was the invention of the species as r, between them. r is a proportion between 0 and 1. It the habitat of cooperating cartels of mutually com- has the value 1 for identical twins; 0.5 for offspring patible genes. As explained in the chapter called “The and full siblings; 0.25 for grandchildren, half-siblings, Long Reach of the Gene,” the key to the cooperation and nieces; 0.125 for first cousins. But when is it zero? is that, in every generation, all the genes in a body What is the meaning of zero on this scale? This is share the same “bottlenecked” exit route to the fu- harder to say, but it is important and it was not fully ture: the sperms or eggs in which they aspire to sail spelled out in the first edition of The Selfish Gene. into the next generation. The Cooperative Gene would Zero does not mean that the two individuals share have been an equally appropriate title for this book, no genes in common. All humans share more than and the book itself would not have changed at all. I 99 percent of our genes, more than 90 percent with suspect that a whole lot of mistaken criticisms could a mouse, and three-quarters of our genes with a fish. have been avoided. These high percentages have confused many people into misunderstanding kin selection, including some distinguished scientists. But those figures are not what Zero does not mean that the is meant by r. Where r is 0.5 for my brother (say), it is zero for a random member of the background population two individuals share no genes in with whom I might be competing. For purposes of the- orizing about the evolution of altruism, r between first common. All humans share more cousins is 0.125 only when compared to the reference than 99 percent of our genes, background population (r = 0), which is the rest of the population to whom altruism potentially might more than 90 percent with a have been shown: competitors for food and space, fellow travellers through time in the environment of the mouse, and three-quarters species. The 0.5 (0.125, etc.) refers to the additional of our genes with a fish. relatedness over and above the background population, whose relatedness approaches zero. Genes in the Williams sense are things you can count as the generations go by, and it doesn’t matter Another good title would have been The Immor- what their molecular nature is; it doesn’t matter, for tal Gene. As well as being more poetic than “selfish,” instance, that they are split up into a series of “exons” “immortal” captures a key part of the book’s argument. (expressed) separated by mostly inert “introns” (ig- The high fidelity of DNA copying—mutations are nored by the translation machinery). Molecular ge- rare—is essential to evolution by natural selection. nomics is a fascinating subject but it doesn’t heavily High fidelity means that genes, in the form of exact impinge on the “gene’s eye view” of evolution, which informational copies, can survive for millions of years. is the central theme of the book. To put the point Successful ones, that is. Unsuccessful ones, by defi- another way, The Selfish Gene is quite likely a valid nition, don’t. The difference wouldn’t be significant account of life on other planets even if the genes on if the potential lifespan of a piece of genetic infor- those other planets have no connection with DNA. mation was short anyway. To look at it another way, Nevertheless, there are ways in which the details of every living individual has been built, during its em- modern molecular genetics, the detailed study of bryonic development, by genes which can trace their DNA, can be gathered into the gene’s eye fold and ancestry through a very large number of generations, it turns out that they vindicate my view of life rather in a very large number of individuals. Living animals than casting doubt on it. I’ll come on to this after have inherited the genes that helped huge numbers of what may seem like a radical change of subject, begin- ancestors to survive. That is why living animals have ning with a specific question, which obviously stands what it takes to survive—and reproduce. The details for any number of similar questions. of what it takes vary from species to species—preda- How closely related are you to Queen Elizabeth tor or prey, parasite or host, adapted to water or land, II? As it happens, I know I’m her fifteenth cousin underground or forest canopy—but the general rule twice removed. Our common ancestor is Richard remains. Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York (1412–1460). One A central point of the book is the one developed by of Richard’s sons was King Edward IV, from whom my friend the great Bill Hamilton, whose death I still Queen Elizabeth is descended. Another son was mourn. Animals are expected to look after not only George, Duke of Clarence, from whom I am de- their own children but other genetic relatives. The scended (allegedly drowned in a butt of Malmsey 40 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer THE SELFISH GENE REVISITED wine). You may not know it but you are very probably asking: What kind of cousin am I to my wife (the closer to the Queen than fifteenth cousin and so am postman, the Queen)? Instead, ask the question from I and so is the postman. There are so many differ- the point of view of a single gene, say my gene for ent ways of being somebody’s distant cousin, and we blue eyes: What relation is my blue eye gene to the are all related to each other in many of those ways. postman’s blue eye gene? Polymorphisms such as the I know that I am my wife’s twelfth cousin twice re- ABO blood groups go way back in history, and are moved (common ancestor George Hastings, 1st Earl shared by other apes and even monkeys. The A gene of Huntingdon, 1488–1544). But it is highly probable in a human sees the equivalent gene in a chimp as a that I am a closer cousin to her in various unknown closer cousin than the B gene in a human. As for the ways (various pathways through our respective ances- SRY gene on the Y chromosome, which determines tries), and it is absolutely certain I am also her more maleness, my SRY gene “looks upon” the SRY gene distant cousin in many more ways. We all are. You of a kangaroo as its kissing cousin. and the Queen might simultaneously be ninth cousins Or we can look at relatedness from a mitochon- six times removed, and twentieth cousins four times drion’s point of view. Mitochondria are tiny bodies removed, and thirtieth cousins eight times removed. teeming in all our cells, vital to our survival. They All of us, regardless of where in the world we live, reproduce asexually and retain the remnants of are not only cousins of each other. We are cousins in their own genomes (they are remotely descended hundreds of different ways. This is just another way from free-living bacteria). By the Williams defini- of saying we are all members of the background pop- tion, a mitochondrial genome can be thought of as ulation among whom r, the coefficient of relatedness, a single “gene.” We get our mitochondria from our approaches zero. I could calculate r between me and mothers only. So if we were now to ask how close is

the Queen using the one pathway for which records the cousinship of your mitochondria to the Queen’s exist, but it would, as the definition requires, be so mitochondria there is a single answer. We may not close to zero as to make no difference. know what that answer is, but we do know that her The reason for all that bewildering multiplicity of mitochondria and yours are cousins in only one way, cousinship is sex. We have two parents, four grand- not hundreds of ways as is the case from the point of parents, eight great-grandparents, and so on, up to view of the body as a whole. Trace your ancestry back astronomical numbers. If you go on multiplying by through the generations, but always only through the two back to the time of William the Conqueror, the maternal line and you follow a single narrow (mito- number of your ancestors (and mine, and the Queen’s chondrial) thread, as opposed to the ever branching and the postman’s) would be at least a billion, which is thread of “whole organism pedigrees.” Do the same more than the world population at the time. That cal- for the Queen, following her narrow maternal thread culation alone proves that, wherever you come from, back through the generations. Sooner or later the two we share many of our ancestors (ultimately all if you threads will meet and now, by simply counting gener- go sufficiently far back) and are cousins of each other ations along the two threads, you can easily calculate many times over. your mitochondrial cousinship to the Queen. All that complexity disappears if you look at cous- What you can do for mitochondria, you can in inship from the gene’s point of view (the point of view principle do for any particular gene, and this illus- advocated, in different ways, throughout this book) trates the difference between a gene’s point of view as opposed to the individual organism’s point of view and an organism’s point of view. From a whole or- (as has been conventional among biologists). Stop ganism point of view you have two parents, four Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 41 grandparents, eight great-grandparents, etc. But, like a single individual gives us enough information to re- a mitochondrion, each gene has only one parent, one construct demographic details about datable moments grandparent, one great-grandparent, etc. I have one in the prehistory of an entire species. gene for blue eyes and the Queen has two. In principle In our discussion of coalescence between pairs of we could trace the generations back and discover the genes, one from the father and one from the mother, cousinship between my blue eye gene and each of the the word gene means something a bit more fluid than Queen’s two. The common ancestor of our two genes the normal usage of molecular biologists. Indeed, is called the “coalescence point.” Coalescence analysis you could say that the coalescence geneticists have has become a flourishing branch of genetics and very reverted to something a bit like my “slightly selfish fascinating it is. Can you see how congenial it is to the big bit of chromosome and even more selfish little “gene’s eye view” that this whole book espouses? We bit of chromosome.” Coalescence analysis is study- are not talking about altruism any more. The gene’s ing chunks of DNA which might be larger or even eye view is flexing its muscles in other domains, in this smaller than a molecular biologist’s understanding of case looking back at ancestry. a single gene but which can still be seen as cousins of You can even investigate the coalescence point each other, having been “peeled off ” from a shared between two alleles in one individual body. Prince ancestor some definite number of generations ago. Charles has blue eyes and we can assume that he When a gene (in that sense) “peels off ” two copies has a pair of blue eye alleles opposite each other on of itself and gives one to each of two offspring, the Chromosome 15. How closely related to each other descendants of those two copies may, over time, ac- are Prince Charles’ two blue eye genes, one from his cumulate differences due to mutation. These may be father, one from his mother? In this case we know “under the radar” in the sense that they don’t show one possible answer, only because royal pedigrees are up as phenotypic differences. The mutated differences documented in ways that most of our pedigrees are between them are proportional to the time that has not. Queen Victoria had blue eyes and Prince Charles elapsed since the split, a fact that biologists make good is descended from Victoria in two ways: via King Ed- use of, over much greater time spans, in the so-called ward VII on his mother’s side; and via Princess Alice “molecular clock.” Moreover, the pairs of genes whose of Hesse on his father’s side. There’s a 50 percent cousinship we are calculating needn’t have the same probability that one of Victoria’s blue eye genes peeled phenotypic effects as each other. I have one blue eye off two copies of itself, one of which went to her son, gene from my father paired with one brown eye gene Edward VII, and the other to her daughter Princess from my mother. Although these genes are different, Alice. Further copies of these two sibling genes could even they must have a coalescence somewhere in the easily have passed down the generations to Queen past: the moment when a particular gene in a shared Elizabeth II on one side and Prince Philip on the ancestor of my two parents peeled off one copy for other, whence they were reunited in Prince Charles. one child and another copy to its sibling. That co- This would mean the “coalescence” point of Charles’s alescence (unlike the two copies of Victoria’s blue eye two genes was Victoria. We do not—cannot—know gene) was a long time ago, and the pair of genes has whether this actually is true for Charles’ blue eye genes. had a long time to accumulate differences, not least But statistically it has to be true that many of his pairs the difference in the eye colours that they mediate. of genes coalesce back in Victoria. And the same kind Now, I said that the coalescence pattern within one of reasoning applies to pairs of your genes, and pairs individual’s genome can be used to reconstruct details of my genes. Even though we may not have Prince of demographic prehistory. Any individual’s genome Charles’ well-documented pedigree to consult, any can do this. As it happens, I am one of the people pair of your genes could, in principle, look back at their in the world who has had his complete genome se- common ancestor, the coalescence point at which they quenced. This was for a television programme called were “peeled off ” from a single ancestral gene. Sex, Death and the Meaning of Life which I presented Now, here’s something interesting. Although I can’t on Channel Four in 2012. Yan Wong, my co-author of establish the exact coalescence point of any particular The Ancestor’s Tale, from whom I learned everything I allelic pair of my genes, geneticists can in principle know about coalescence theory and much else besides, take all the pairs of genes from any one individual and, seized upon this and did the necessary Li/ Durbin by considering all possible pathways back through the style calculations using my genome, and my genome past (actually not all possible pathways because there alone, to make inferences about human history. He are too many, but a statistical sample of them), derive found a large number of coalescences around 60,000 a pattern of coalescences across the whole genome. years ago. This suggests that the breeding population Heng Li and Richard Durbin of the Sanger Institute in which my ancestors were embedded was small in Cambridge realized a remarkable thing: the pattern 60,000 years ago. There were few people around, so of coalescences among pairs of genes in the genome of the chance of a pair of modern genes coalescing in the

42 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer THE SELFISH GENE REVISITED

same ancestor back at that time was high. There were in ways of which I had no inkling when I first wrote fewer coalescences 300,000 years ago, suggesting that The Selfish Gene and which are expounded more the effective population size was larger. These figures fully in relevant passages (largely written by Yan, my can be plotted as a graph of effective population size co-author) of the second edition (2016) of The An- against time. Here’s the pattern he found, and it is cestor’s Tale. So powerful is the gene’s eye view, the the same pattern as the originators of the technique genome of a single individual is sufficient to make would expect to find from any European genome. quantitatively detailed inferences about historical demography. What else might it be capable of? As foreshadowed by the Nigerian comparison, future analyses of individuals from different parts of the 60,000 Years Ago world could give a geographic dimension to these demographic signals from the past. 50,000 Might the gene’s eye view penetrate the remote past in yet other ways? Several of my books have de- 20,000 veloped an idea which I called “The Genetic Book of the Dead.” The gene pool of a species is a mutually supportive cartel of genes that have survived 10,000 in particular environments of the past, both distant and recent. This makes it a kind of negative imprint 5,000 of those environments. A sufficiently knowledgeable

Eﬀective Population Size Eﬀective Population geneticist should be able to read out, from the genome of an animal, the environments in which its ancestors 2,000 500 400 300 200 100 0 survived. In principle, the DNA in a mole Talpa eu- ropaea should be eloquent of an underground world, ousands of Years Ago a world of damp, subterranean darkness, smelling of From R. Dawkins and Y. Wong (2006) e Ancestor’s Tale, 2nd edition worms, leaf decay, and beetle larvae. The DNA of a Image courtesy of Y. Wong. dromedary, Camelus dromedarius, if we but knew how to read it, would spell out a coded description of ancient ancestral deserts, dust storms, dunes, and thirst. The black line shows the estimates of effective pop- The DNA of Tursiops truncatus, the common bottle- ulation size at various times in history based upon nose dolphin, spells, in a language that we may one my genome (coalescences between genes from my day decipher, “open sea, pursue fish fast, avoid killer father and my mother). It shows that the effective whales.” But the same dolphin DNA also contains population size among my ancestral population paragraphs about earlier worlds in which the genes plummeted around 60,000 years ago. The grey survived: on land when the ancestors escaped the at- line shows the equivalent pattern derived from the tentions of tyrannosaurs and allosaurs long enough genome of a Nigerian man. It also shows a drop in to breed. Then, before that, parts of the DNA surely population around the same time, but a less dramatic spell out descriptions of even older feats of survival, one. Perhaps whatever calamity caused the drop was back in the sea, when the ancestors were fish, pursued less severe in Africa than in Eurasia. by sharks and even eurypterids (giant sea scorpions). Incidentally Yan was my undergraduate pupil in Active research on “The Genetic Book of the Dead” New College, Oxford, before I started learning more lies in the future. Will it colour the epilogue of the n from him than he learns from me. He then became a fiftieth anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene? graduate student of Alan Grafen, whom I had also tu- tored as an undergraduate, who subsequently became Richard Dawkins is one of the most my graduate student and whom I have described as influential science writers and com- being now my intellectual mentor. So Yan is both my municators of our generation. After a student and my grandstudent—a neat memetic ana- long career as a professor of zoology logue to the point I was making earlier about how we at Oxford University, he served as the are related in multiple ways—although the direction first Charles Simonyi Chair of the Pub- of cultural inheritance is more complicated than this lic Understanding of Science at Oxford simple formulation implies. from 1995 until 2008, and is an Emer- To summarize, the gene’s eye view of life, the cen- itus Fellow of New College. The Selfish Gene catapulted tral theme of this book, illuminates not just the evo- him to fame and remains his most famous and widely lution of altruism and selfishness, as expounded in previous editions. It also illuminates the deep past, read book. He is a Committee for Skeptical Inquiry fellow.

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 43 God’s Own Medicine History’s unlearned lesson about opium-based pain relievers and addiction.

PAUL A. OFFIT

n 2008, overdoses from opium-based painkillers sur- ingredient. He called it “morphium” after the Greek God of Dreams: Morpheus. passed motor vehicle accidents as the most common Sertürner found that morphium was six Icause of accidental death in America. The reason: we’ve times more powerful than opium. He reasoned that with lesser quantities of failed to learn from history. the drug required to relieve pain, fewer people would become addicted. It didn’t About 6,000 years ago, around the was Hippocrates, who used it to treat work out that way. When he finished his time of Abraham, the Sumerians set- insomnia. But it was a relatively un- studies, he was addicted to morphine. tled between the Tigris and Euphra- known contemporary of Hippocrates Sertürner warned, “I consider it my duty tes Rivers. They invented cuneiform named Diagoras of Melos who was the to attract attention to the terrible effects writing. They invented farming. And first to notice that many of his fellow of this new substance I called morphium they discovered a plant called “hul gil,” Greeks had become addicted to the in order that calamity may be averted.” or “the plant of joy.” Carl Linneaus, an drug—hopelessly addicted. He warned Again, no one listened. Within thirty eighteenth-century botanist, called it against its use as opium users became years, the German pharmaceutical com- Papaver somniferum. William Osler, the opium addicts. pany Merck began mass-producing the founder of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Two thousand years passed. drug, calling it morphine. called it “God’s own medicine.” Today In 1803, Frederich Sertürner, a twen- Opium addicts became morphine we call it the opium poppy. ty-year-old German chemist, purified addicts. One of the first to embrace opium opium’s most abundant and most active In 1874, C.R. Alder Wright took the next step. He boiled morphine with the reactive form of acetic acid, producing a grey-white powder with the chemical name diacetylmorphine. Wright believed that he, too, had created a nonaddictive form of the drug. So he fed it to his dog, who became violently ill and frighteningly hyperactive. Wright threw the powder away—but not before publishing his findings in the Journal of the Chemical Society of London. Twenty years passed before anyone paid attention to Wright’s new compound. The first to pick up on Wright’s experiment was a young chemistry professor named Heinrich Dreser who worked for a pharmaceutical company in the Rhineland named Bayer Labora- tories. Dreser found, as had Wright before him, that diacetylmorphine was five

44 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer times more potent than morphine and contains codeine (methlymorphine), a In 2009, health insurers spent $72 crossed the blood-brain barrier much mild analgesic and cough suppressant; billion in direct healthcare costs related more efficiently; as a consequence, lesser alpha-narcotine and papaverine, two to the treatment of addiction to pain- quantities of the drug were necessary to muscle relaxants; and thebaine, which killers. relieve pain. Dreser believed that he, too, was named for Thebes, a town in Egypt In 2010, more people died from pre- had created a nonaddictive pain reliever. where the opium poppy was grown. scription painkillers than from heroin So he fed diacetylmorphine to rats, rab- Thebaine formed the basis of the next and cocaine combined. bits, a few workmen in his company, attempt to separate pain relief from ad- In 2012, 12 million Americans re- and a handful of local patients. Every- diction. ported the recreational use of prescrip- one seemed to love the drug, and no one The first synthetic version of the- tion painkillers. had become addicted after four weeks baine was produced in 1916 by two In 2014, retail pharmacies dispensed of observation. Dreser was certain that German chemists working at the Uni- 245 million prescriptions for painkillers. he had stumbled upon the Holy Grail versity of Frankfurt. They called it oxy- About 2.5 million adults were addicted of pain relief. codone, an opioid. (By definition, an to the drug. In September 1898, Heinrich Dreser opiate is a drug obtained directly from In 2015, 19,000 people died from presented his findings to the 70th Con- opium, such as morphine; an opioid is prescription painkillers. More young gress of German Naturalists and Physi- an opiate that has been synthetically people died from opioid overdose than cians. Even though he had no evidence modified, such as heroin or oxycodone.) from motor vehicle accidents. to support his claims, Dreser said that Oxycodone made its American Today, the United States, which diacetylmorphine could treat colds, sore debut in the early 1950s in combina- contains 5 percent of the world’s pop- throats, headaches, and severe respira- tion with aspirin (brand name Per- ulation, uses 80 percent of the world’s tory infections. Dreser also believed that codan), ibuprofen (Combunox), or ac- painkillers. he had created the perfect drug to treat etominophen (Percocet). But the most On January 16, 2016, Gina Ko- morphine addiction. Attendees at the addictive, most abused, and most deadly lata and Sarah Cohen, in an article for meeting gave him a standing ovation. form of the drug was pure oxycodone the New York Times, stated, “The ris- At first, Bayer couldn’t decide what offered in a time-released preparation ing death rates for young white adults to name its new blockbuster drug. Some called OxyContin, which was manufac- make them the first generation since executives wanted to call it wunderlich, tured by Purdue Pharmaceuticals. By the Vietnam War years of the mid- meaning miracle. Others wanted to call chewing the drug, users could bypass 1960s to experience higher death rates it heroisch, meaning heroic. The second the time-release mechanism and ingest in early adulthood than the generation group won out. In 1898, Bayer exec- as much as 160 milligrams of oxyco- that preceded it.” utives launched their new drug at the done—a lethal dose of the drug. (Iron- On March 15, 2016, the Centers for same time that they launched Bayer ically, on a weight-by-weight basis, oxy- Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Aspirin. They called it Bayer Heroin. codone is actually more powerful than issued guidelines to physicians in an at- Because clinicians feared that aspi- morphine.) tempt to control the raging epidemic of rin might cause gastritis, the drug was Heroin addicts became opioid ad- opioid abuse. The CDC recommended available by prescription only. Heroin, dicts. that doctors should prescribe opioids, which was believed to be safe, was In 2002, a survey taken at a high 1) only after nonprescription painkillers available over the counter. In 1900, Eli school in rural Michigan found that 98 and physical therapies have failed; 2) Lilly, working in collaboration with percent of students had heard of Oxy- in quantities not to exceed a three-day Bayer, began distributing heroin in the Contin and 9.5 percent had tried it. supply for short-term pain; and 3) only United States. Clinicians embraced the In 2003, Rush Limbaugh, who had when improvement was significant. drug. In 1906, the American Medical mocked drug abusers on his radio show In the end, the medical profession’s Association recommended heroin for for being morally bankrupt, admitted stubborn belief that it can separate pain the treatment of “bronchitis, pneumo- that he was addicted to OxyContin. relief from addiction has created a prob- n nia, consumption [tuberculosis], asthma, In 2004, three million people were lem that will take decades to undo. whooping cough, laryngitis, and certain using OxyContin, the most prevalent forms of hay fever.” prescription painkiller in the United Paul A. Offit, MD, is a Morphine addicts became heroin States. professor of pediatrics addicts. In 2007, 14,000 people in the United in the division of infec- It was back to the drawing board. States died from prescription painkill- tious diseases at the Certainly there must be some way to ers, a problem that cost the health care Children’s Hospital of separate pain relief from addiction. and criminal justice systems more than Philadelphia and the Again, scientists turned to opium. This $55 billion. author of Pandora’s Lab: time, however, they turned away from In 2008, 15,000 people died from Seven Stories of Science morphine. Although morphine is the prescription painkillers, the leading Gone Wrong (National Geographic Press, most powerful component in opium, it cause of accidental deaths in thirty April 2017). He is a fellow of the Committee isn’t the only component. Opium also states. for Skeptical Inquiry. Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 45 Why Skepticism? Sasquatch, Broken Windows, and Public Policy Why do we have skeptic organizations? Let’s look at the evidence.

RONALD A. LINDSAY

s a philosopher, I ask a lot of “why” questions, such a science journalist, delivered a blister- ing attack on the skeptic movement as the notorious one often associated with philoso- (Horgan 2016). In particular, Horgan Aphers: Why are we here? No, seriously. Why are we accused skeptics of spending their time here? Why are we here? Why do self-described skeptics get attacking so-called soft targets such as homeopathy and Bigfoot, while ignor- together and exchange ideas, listen to speakers, plan skep- ing harder targets, such as the use of tic-related activities, and so forth? In other words: Why drugs to treat mental illness—which he thinks are largely ineffective and possi- skepticism? bly harmful—and war, which he argues we should not regard as inevitable, and That question may be a little broad lish the magazine, which raises money to start, so for now, let me make it more for the organization to pay people to is certainly not deep rooted in human concrete: Why skeptic organizations? publish the magazine . . . and so on? nature. It’s one thing for people with similar That’s the cynic’s view, of course— What about this charge? Do skeptics interests to get together on occasion— and I’m no cynic. Skeptical Inquirer spend too much time investigating and that’s inevitable—but why do we have does not exist just to raise money to per- evaluating claims about homeopathy, formal skeptic organizations? What do petuate itself; it serves an important ed- Bigfoot, ghosts, UFOs, and so forth? they accomplish? There are a number ucational function. But before I discuss And, if so, are such issues really soft tar- of skeptic organizations throughout some of the important purposes served gets? Is the effort spent on examining the world. In the United States, there by skeptic organizations and the skeptic these topics essentially a waste of time? are several regional and local organiza- movement, let me pause to explain why To answer those questions, I think tions and a couple of national organi- I am asking these questions. Originally we first have to step back a bit and look zations such as the Center for Inquiry when I planned this piece, I was going at the evidence. Seems like a reasonable (CFI) and the Committee for Skeptical to focus almost exclusively on the public way for skeptics to proceed. Let’s have a Inquiry (CSI). What purpose do they policy initiatives of CSI and CFI—es- look at what unifies people who describe serve? Well, in the case of the CFI/CSI, pecially in the area of alternative medi- themselves as science-based skeptics, one thing they do is publish Skeptical cine. I’m still going to talk about those, what they see as important activities, Inquirer magazine. It’s a very good, because I think they are important and and what they consider the appropriate informative magazine, but of course a I think they illustrate one critical part way to carry out these activities. cynic might ask: Isn’t the magazine just of the mission of skeptic organizations. The mission statement of CSI pro- another example of skeptics talking to But I changed my focus somewhat vides a good place for us to start, doesn’t other skeptics? Is Skeptical Inquirer because of something that happened it? Certainly, CSI’s mission statement anything more than a forum for conver- a few months ago. At another skeptic indicates how some skeptics see them- sation among skeptics and a useful way conference, namely the NECSS con- selves. CSI states that it “promotes sci- to raise money for the organization so ference (the Northeast Conference on entific inquiry, critical investigation, and the organization can pay people to pub- Science and Skepticism), John Horgan, the use of reason in examining contro-

46 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer versial and extraordinary claims.” skeptic organizations in particular, is to When I say these issues are contro- Put another way, skeptics are inter- try to educate the public and, in doing versial, that does not necessarily mean ested in finding out the truth and are so, to instill some recognition of the they are controversial among scientists. very much: 1) disinclined to accept the importance of scientific reasoning and For most scientists, the ineffectiveness claim that X is true; 2) unless that claim critical thinking. In this regard, Skepti- of homeopathy and acupuncture, the has been properly evaluated; and 3) es- cal Inquirer is very fortunate to have fact of evolution, the safety of GMOs, pecially if the claim deals with some- Ken Frazier, a justly renowned science and the reality of climate change are thing extraordinary or controversial. journalist, as its editor. But other pub- not especially controversial. But they The first two parts of that descrip- lications and organizations educate the remain controversial among the general tion are fairly self-explanatory. With public about science as well. Scientific public. This is a crucial point because respect to method, skeptics use scien- American, for example, or NPR’s Sci- this highlights why what skeptics do is tific investigation where possible, test- ence Friday program, and so forth. And both important and unique. ing claims under controlled conditions. these publications and programs are not The distinction between what most Sometimes, of course, it is not possible usually considered to be skeptic publica- scientists think and what the general to do that, so then we look at the alleged tions or programs. public thinks is one reason Horgan is evidence for the claim and use reason, critical thinking, and our storehouse of accumulated scientifically validated knowledge to assess the claim. But what about the third part of that description—the focus on controversial Support for science and education about science is and extraordinary claims? What’s that mean exactly? The mis- one aspect of what we skeptics do, but that doesn’t sion statement itself doesn’t set forth really make our work distinctive. What does make any criteria for what constitutes an extraordinary or controversial claim. our work distinctive is attention to controversial So let me try to put some meat on the CSI mission statement by making and extraordinary claims. a little clearer what constitutes a controversial or extraordinary claim and explaining why such claims should be the focus of work by skeptics. I’ll begin by stating what CSI does not do, as this contrast will help clarify the scope of and rationale for CSI’s work. Let’s start with an obvious point. In other words, support for science mistaken when he says, for example, Although CSI sponsors limited investi- and education about science is one as- that homeopathy is a “soft target.” From gations on some discrete topics, neither pect of what we skeptics do, but that a scientific viewpoint, it’s easy to show CSI nor any skeptic organization does doesn’t really make our work distinctive. that homeopathic products are not ef- much work in the nature of basic scien- What does make our work distinctive is fective, apart from a placebo effect. tific research. Even if it wanted to, CSI attention to controversial and extraor- Moreover, the underlying theory that could not do much in the way of basic dinary claims—those aspects of science is supposed to support the usefulness scientific research. CSI doesn’t have the that may not receive that much atten- of homeopathic products is nonsensical resources for that. Universities do basic tion from other organizations—from and is undercut by a basic knowledge of research; some government agencies do the universities, from the government, chemistry. In that sense, homeopathy is basic research; to some extent commer- from commercial enterprises. a soft target. cial enterprises, such as drug manufac- So what are these controversial But that doesn’t prevent homeo- turers, do basic research; CSI does not claims? Perhaps the best way to describe pathic products from having a very sig- do that. Skeptic organizations don’t try them is just by listing some examples. nificant market in the United States and to duplicate the work of scientists. Here’s a partial list of some controver- worldwide, especially in Europe. In the Of course, we support scientific re- sial claims where skeptics have played United States alone, the homeopathic search and communicate the results both a constructive and a distinctive marketplace brings in roughly $3 billion of the latest scientific research to the role: homeopathy, acupuncture, and a to $4 billion a year in sales, and about public, and these are important activi- dozen other forms of alternative medi- five million adults use homeopathic ties. There’s a lamentable lack of under- cine; evolution; genetically modified or- products more than once each year. Why standing of science among the general ganisms (GMOs); vaccination; climate do people rely on something that scien- public, and one task of skeptics, and change. tifically cannot have any effect on their

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 47 conditions? Several reasons: First, many is not a soft target, and this is a reason as zinc. The FDA has issued warning consumers think it does work, and in that also underscores the importance of letters when these conditions have not some cases, because of a placebo effect, skeptic organizations. The homeopathic been met. Just recently, for example, the it may provide some perceived relief; industry has enjoyed the passive support FDA issued a warning letter advising second, they do not understand or are of the government, in particular the consumers to stop using homeopathic not aware of the underlying chemical Food and Drug Administration (FDA). teething tablets because there were re- principles; third—and I believe this is What do I mean by that? Well, homeo- ports of adverse reactions, possibly due both a critical and an often overlooked pathic drugs are within the purview of to the tablets containing trace amounts reason—homeopathic drugs are mar- the FDA. In fact, on many ads for ho- of belladonna. Similarly, a few years ago keted just like any other remedy. The meopathic products, or on their pack- during the avian flu scare, the FDA consumer sees them on the drugstore aging, you will see a proud reference issued a warning letter instructing ho- shelf alongside conventional products to the fact that the drug is “regulated” meopathic manufacturers to stop adver- that have been tested and actually have by the FDA. The ordinary consumer tising their products as a cure for the flu. active ingredients, and the consumer not thinks, of course, that this implies the But, for the most part, the FDA gives unreasonably thinks a drugstore would FDA has required this drug to be tested homeopathic manufacturers a pass— not be allowed to sell these products for safety and efficacy. Wrong. Wrong. which means that there are millions of unless they worked, right? Furthermore, The FDA does not require homeopathic people spending money on worthless for some people, homeopathic products drug manufacturers to provide evidence products. Moreover, in some cases they actually have a marketing advantage of their products’ safety and efficacy. almost certainly are foregoing conven- over conventional drugs because in their Essentially, in most cases, all the FDA tional medicine to rely on a drug that ads and on their packaging they can does is require that homeopathic drugs will do nothing to help them. In addition, with some exceptions, most scientists are not interested in doing anything about the lack of proper regulatory oversight by the FDA. Why Skeptics and skeptic organizations can advocate would they be? Why would you run a on issues of public significance where most study trying to see, for example, whether certain homeopathic drugs are really of the scientific community either does not have effective? There have been some stud- much interest or, for other reasons, does not want ies done, but the most comprehensive study was one sponsored by the Austra- to take on a prominent advocacy role. lian government. It concluded that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective. With respect to private researchers, there’s little incentive either to study homeopathy or to campaign boast of being “natural, safe, and gentle” be prepared consistent with the ho- against marketing homeopathic drugs. with “no side effects” because, of course, meopathic pharmacopeia and that the You’re not going to win a Nobel Prize they have no effects at all, neither direct labeling for the drug accurately reflects conducting a study that shows that effects nor side effects. that fact. sugar tablets are not an effective treat- In addition, because companies can The reasons for this hands-off ap- ment. make a significant amount of money proach are somewhat complicated but So this is where skeptics and skeptic selling homeopathic junk, the homeo- essentially it’s a blend of some of the organizations can step in: to advocate on pathic industry is fairly large and influ- messy history behind the passage of issues of public significance where most ential. No, Boiron and Hyland’s are not the original Food, Drug, and Cosmetic of the scientific community either does Pfizer or Merck, but they are not the Act (one of the key sponsors was a ho- not have much interest or, for other rea- mom-and-pop pharmacy down at the meopathic physician) and the FDA’s sons, does not want to take on a promi- corner either. These companies make own decisions about how best to use nent advocacy role. significant profits, and they vigorously its limited resources. The scientists at I’m proud to say that during my resist any tighter regulation of the mar- the FDA are under no illusions about tenure at CFI and CSI, we petitioned keting of homeopathic products. The the fact that homeopathic drugs cannot the FDA for tighter regulation of ho- science behind homeopathy may be a be effective. But they believe that these meopathic products, and in 2015 both soft target, but the industry certainly is drugs, for the most part, pose no signif- the FDA and the Federal Trade Com- not. icant danger provided they are used for mission (FTC), which has jurisdiction Speaking of regulation, this brings self-limiting conditions and do not con- over product advertising, held hearings me to another reason why homeopathy tain nondiluted active ingredients, such on the need for such regulation. We

48 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer submitted comments to both agencies extent in disputes over GMOs and evo- and neither CSI nor any skeptic orga- (you can find them on our website, “CFI lution. Genetically modified organisms nization has any authority over what and Dawkins Foundation Urge” 2015), have been studied to death. There is still skeptics investigate and evaluate. But and Michael DeDora, CFI’s director some basic research to be done perhaps why should skeptic organizations de- of government affairs, testified at the (and obviously each new product has vote resources to support investigations FDA hearing. Interestingly, other than to be separately tested), but the over- of these extraordinary claims? a professor from Georgetown Univer- whelming evidence is that genetically First, the extent to which skeptics sity, Michael was the only witness, as I modified crops are as safe to consume actually devote time to these various recall, who argued for tighter regulation. as any other crops. Nonetheless, there issues has been exaggerated. Just look Most of the witnesses at that hearing is continuing controversy in the United at the topics for speeches and panels at were representatives of the homeopathic States over GMOs at the federal, state, our CSICon conference. Relatively little industry. and local level (and don’t even talk to time has been devoted to these extraor- We are no longer waiting to hear me about Europe). And, of course, even dinary claims. You would reach the same from these agencies. After I first deliv- though the fact of evolution is well-es- conclusion if you looked at the contents ered a version of these remarks at CSI- Con Las Vegas in October, the FTC on November 15 issued an enforcement policy statement that requires homeo- As the marketing of homeopathic drugs pathic products to use labeling indicating there is no scientific evidence indicates, some issues do have a significant that they work. Homeopathic products must now indicate in their advertising impact on the public even though, for one reason and labeling that there is no scientific or another, the general scientific community evidence that the product works and the product’s claims are based on theories may not have a strong interest or may not from the 1700s that are not accepted want to engage in vigorous advocacy. by most modern medical experts. See News and Comment, this issue, and http://tinyurl.com/z8dmhgt. I had predicted that we might not hear until after the 2016 election because there could be political fallout if tablished, there’s still controversy over of Skeptical Inquirer, especially con- the agencies impose tighter regulation. the teaching of evolution in many areas tents over the last decade. That said, it’s You can imagine how some politicians of the United States. Skeptics and skep- undeniable that this is a set of topics would spin it, right? “Obama’s federal tic organizations have a significant role addressed by skeptics and to which CSI government is trying to take away your to play in these controversies by helping and Skeptical Inquirer devote some medicine.” However, I’m cautiously op- to ensure, through their advocacy, that of their resources. Why? Although you timistic, especially now that the FTC public policy, whether it’s government can never refute with absolute certainty has made its ruling. Even if the FDA regulation of food ingredients or school any claim about the existence of some doesn’t require homeopathic drugs to board policy on curricula, reflect science entity or power—because then you be tested for safety and efficacy, which and not ideology. would be talking about metaphysics, not would effectively mean the end of the I think I’ve shown that skeptic orga- science—most every skeptic recognizes homeopathic industry, I am hopeful nizations have a role to play on contro- that it is highly improbable that there that it too will require that homeopathic versial issues and that, contrary to what are ghosts, a creature such as Bigfoot, products stop making healthcare claims John Horgan asserted in his speech, we chupacabras, or that people have the that cannot be substantiated. skeptics don’t just talk to ourselves while power to do remote viewing or mind As the marketing of homeopathic poking fun at the gullible. reading. drugs indicates, some issues do have a Let me pivot now to talk about ex- It is true, of course, that to take just significant impact on the public even traordinary claims, claims that may not one example, if it were shown that there though, for one reason or another, the have that much relevance to public pol- were ghosts, that would have a very, general scientific community may not icy but on which a number of skeptics very significant impact on our under- have a strong interest or may not want focus their energy. These are claims standing of the world. It would imply, to engage in vigorous advocacy. This about bizarre entities, such as Bigfoot, among other things, that some people is especially true in the disputes over ghosts, and aliens, or extraordinary live on in some form after their death. A various forms of alternative medicine, powers, such as remote viewing, mind pretty significant finding. So one could whether it’s acupuncture, Reiki, cup- reading, and so on. People are, of course, justify some investigation and evaluation ping, and so on. It’s also true to some free to spend their time as they see fit, of these types of claims on the ground Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 49 that were they true, that would have an ders at these numbers and say, so what? habits of thought of too many people extraordinary impact on how we view Yes, these people are sadly mistaken, but lead them to indulge in intuitive, magi- the world and ourselves. But that’s a does it really make a difference? cal thinking, which makes them suscep- very thin justification. Let me try an- The thing is it does make a difference, tible to accepting claims that don’t have other one. not so much because of what they be- scientific support. Although believing Some of you may have heard of the lieve, but because of how they come to in Casper or Sasquatch in isolation may broken windows theory of policing. This believe. There are studies showing that seem harmless, if we leave these claims is the view that police should not ignore the type of intuitive, magical thinking unrebutted, and if we don’t teach people low-level offenses such as loitering or associated with belief in the paranormal about the proper way to analyze some minor vandalism—hence the term “bro- and extraordinary entities is also associ- of these claims, we are going to have a ken windows”—because to do so fosters ated with belief in conspiracies and with lot more people believing that 9/11 was an inside job, that climate change is a hoax, that our government is controlled We need to inculcate critical thinking with by aliens, and so forth—and those be- respect to all claims, including claims that in the liefs are far from harmless. So keep active, keep up the good abstract may not seem that important, so people work, and support organizations such acquire the habit of using critical thinking on the as CFI and CSI so we can continue to advocate for appropriate science-based really important issues. public policies, and we can continue to educate the general public about the methods of science and evidence-based n reasoning. an atmosphere of lawlessness leading to a difficulty in processing and in under- more serious crimes. Although there standing science-based reasoning (Lo- References is some empirical evidence to support bato et al. 2014). Furthermore, and this CFI and Dawkins Foundation Urge FTC to this theory, it’s very controversial in is a critical point, there is also some re- Stop Homeopathy’s False Advertising. 2015. November 23. Available online at http:// part because of the claim that broken search indicating that getting people to www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/cfi_ windows policing disproportionately think more analytically can reduce the dawkins_ftc/. This press release has links to affects minorities and the poor. Please type of intuitive thinking that leads to CFI’s comments to the FTC and its testimony before the FDA. note: I’m not here to defend broken belief in the paranormal and in conspir- Gervais, Will M. 2015. Overriding the contro- windows policing; I just want to suggest acies (Gervais 2015). In other words, if versy: Analytic thinking predicts endorse- that something analogous may provide we want people to be more receptive to ment of evolution. Cognition 142: 312–321. Horgan, John. 2016. Dear ‘skeptics,’ bash home- justification for critically examining the science on really important public pol- opathy and Bigfoot less, mammograms and types of extraordinary claims I’ve men- icy matters, such as regulating alterna- war more. Scientific American blogs (May 16). tioned—claims about Bigfoot, ghosts, tive medicine, GMOs, and so forth, we Available online at https://blogs.scientific american.com/cross-check/dear-skeptics- and so forth. can’t ignore the windows that Bigfoot is bash-homeopathy-and-bigfoot-less- I don’t have to tell this audience that breaking. We need to inculcate critical mammograms-and-war-more/. belief in these paranormal or extraordi- thinking with respect to all claims, in- Lobato, Emilio, et al. 2014. Examining the relationship between conspiracy theories, nary entities and powers is widespread. cluding claims that in the abstract may paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience accep- Depending on the survey one consults, not seem that important, so people ac- tance among a university population. Applied somewhere between 30 percent and 40 quire the habit of using critical thinking Cognitive Psychology 28: 617–625. percent of the American population on the really important issues. believes in ghosts; about 30 percent To sum up, skeptics and skeptic orga- Ronald A. Lindsay, JD, believes in astrology; and more than nizations are doing valuable work when PhD, is the former CEO 30 percent believes in telepathy. Poor they investigate and evaluate both con- of the Center for Inquiry. Bigfoot usually doesn’t attract quite as troversial and extraordinary claims. The His books are Future much support, typically around 15 per- issues we address are only “soft” targets Biothethics and The Ne- cent—but that’s still more than most in the sense that there may be little sci- cessity of Secularism. third-party candidates enjoy! entific support for some of these claims. This article is adapted Still, if gullibility were restricted to But these claims actually can be very and updated from his talk at CSICon Las believing in ghosts, Bigfoot, or astrol- resilient because of ideological support ogy, you might just shrug your shoul- or commercial interests or because the Vegas 2016.

50 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer Why We Believe —Long After We Shouldn’t Our brains are wired for self-justification and dissonance-reduction. We can override that impulse by learning how to admit our mistakes and separate them from our self-esteem.

CAROL TAVRIS AND ELLIOT ARONSON

t’s pretty clear nowadays that we are not the rational an- liant book The Nature of Prejudice, offered this exchange to illustrate the imals we’d like to believe we are; in fact, we are more weasely way a person with a prejudice or Iaccurately called the “rationalizing animal.” Skeptics are other entrenched belief argues with you. often puzzled when we calmly provide evidence that a pop- Mr. X: The trouble with Jews is that they only take care of their own ular belief is wrong, that some group is holding onto a way group.

of doing things that’s long past its sell-by date, and recip- Mr. Y: But the record of the ients of this valuable information don’t say, “Why, thank Community Chest campaign shows that they give more generously, in you! I had no idea!” Why would people prefer to justify proportion to their numbers, to the general charities of the community, mistaken beliefs, behavior, and practices rather than change than do non-Jews. them for better ones? Isn’t it good to know you didn’t cause Mr. X: That shows they are always your child’s autism with vaccinations? trying to buy favor and intrude into Christian affairs. They think of As skeptics we are faced constantly literacy and education are associated nothing but money; that is why there with what psychologists call “the moti- with reduced acceptance. That’s moti- are so many Jewish bankers. vated rejection of science.” Take global vated cognition; people are emotion- warming, for example. It’s easy to as- ally motivated to reject findings that Mr. Y: But a recent study shows that the percentage of Jews in the bank- sume that climate-change deniers are threaten their core beliefs or worldview. ing business is negligible, far smaller less educated or informed than wise sci- At present, the researchers found, public than the percentage of non-Jews. entists, but it’s not so simple. An article rejection of scientific findings is more in Psychological Science by Stephan Le- prevalent on the political right than Mr. X: That’s just it; they don’t go wandowsky and Klaus Oberauer found the left, yet, they added, “the cognitive in for respectable business; they are that attitudes about global warming are mechanisms driving rejection of science only in the movie business or run night clubs. unrelated to levels of scientific literacy, are found regardless of political orien- numeracy, or education. They are as- tation.” Meaning: It depends what sci- Notice that people like Mr. X— sociated with political partisanship; entific finding it is. Whether your worl- which is all of us on occasion—don’t that is, among liberals, higher levels dview comes from the left or right, you actually argue or respond to the point; of scientific literacy and education are will be tempted to sacrifice skepticism they slide off your evidence and raise an associated with increased acceptance of even when your side is promoting some irrelevant digression rather than face, let climate change, the importance of vacci- cockamamie belief without evidence. alone change, their fundamental belief. nation, and trust in science. But among Decades ago, the great social psy- “I believe it” becomes enough. conservatives, higher levels of scientific chologist Gordon Allport, in his bril- The key motivational mechanism

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 51 that underlies the reluctance to change blocks us from accepting information ing parents holding photos of their be- our minds, to admit mistakes, and to be that we have been not-so-kind, not-so- loved children. But dissonance theory unwilling to accept unwelcome scientific smart, not-so-ethical, and not-so nice. explains why people can hold crazy findings is cognitive dissonance—the (3) The confirmation bias, the fact ideas without necessarily being crazy. If discomfort we feel when two cognitions, that we notice and remember informa- we start from where the disbelievers are, or cognition and behavior, contradict tion that confirms what we believe and holding core beliefs in the importance each other. Leon Festinger, who devel- ignore, forget, or minimize information of owning guns, that guns are safe, and oped this theory sixty years ago, showed that disconfirms it. We might even call that gun-control people want to take that the key thing about dissonance is it the consonance bias, because it keeps their guns away, then information that that, like extreme hunger, it is uncom- our beliefs in harmony by eliminating guns were used for a rampage that left fortable, and, like hunger, we are moti- dissonant information before we are twenty little children (and six school vated to reduce it. For smokers, the dis- even aware of it. staff ) dead is powerfully dissonant. By sonant cognitions are “Smoking is bad Dissonance is painful enough when denying the evidence that this tragedy for me” versus “I’m a heavy smoker.” To you realize that you bought a lemon of occurred, they get to retain their gun reduce that dissonance, smokers either a car and paid too much for it. But it’s beliefs and their self-esteem: why, they have to quit or justify smoking. Before most painful when an important ele- were smart and right all along to oppose gun control of any kind. Indeed, dissonance theory would predict that their opposition would become even stronger—look at the effort those bastards put into creating the fiction of Sandy Hook. They must really want to take Understanding cognitive dissonance helps explain our guns away. the astonishing obstinacy that some people reveal The greatest danger of dissonance reduction occurs not when a belief or when they are shown to be wrong. action is a one-time thing like buying a car, but when it sets a person on a course of action. The metaphor that we use in our book is that of a pyramid. Imagine that two students are at the top of a pyramid, a millimeter apart in their attitudes toward cheating: it is not we make a decision (about a car, a can- ment of the self-concept is threatened; a good thing to do, but there are worse didate, or anything else), we are as open- your post-car-purchase dissonance will crimes in the world. Now they are both minded as we are likely to be; but after be greater if you see yourself as a car taking an important exam, when they we make a decision, we have to reduce expert and superb negotiator. We have draw a blank on a crucial question. Fail- dissonance. To do this, we will empha- two ways to reduce dissonance: either ure looms, at which point each one gets size everything good about the car we accept the evidence and change the an easy opportunity to cheat by read- bought or the candidate we are support- self-concept (“Yes, that was a foolish/in- ing another student’s answers. After a ing or the belief we accepted and notice competent/unethical thing to do; was I long moment of indecision, one spon- only the flaws in the alternatives. ever wrong to believe that”) or deny the taneously yields and the other resists. Dissonance theory comprises three evidence and preserve the self-concept Each gains something important, but at cognitive biases in particular: (“That study was fatally flawed”). Guess a cost: one gives up integrity for a good (1) The bias that we, personally, don’t which is the popular choice? grade; the other gives up a good grade have any biases—the belief that we per- Understanding cognitive dissonance to preserve his integrity. ceive objects and events clearly, as they helps explain the astonishing obstinacy As soon as they make a decision—to really are. Any opinion I hold must be that some people reveal when they cheat or not—they will justify the action reasonable; if it weren’t, I wouldn’t hold are shown to be wrong. Consider the they took in order to reduce dissonance, it. If my opponents—or kids or friends conspiracy theorists who vehemently that is, to keep their behavior consonant or partner—don’t agree with me, it is deny the horrifying evidence that with their attitudes. They can’t change because they are biased. Adam Lanza killed twenty children at the behavior, so they shift their attitude. (2) The bias that we are better, Sandy Hook Elementary School. They The one who cheated will justify that kinder, smarter, more moral, and nicer maintain it was all a conspiracy of the action by deciding that cheating is not than average. This bias is useful for gun-control lobby, and they persist in such a big deal: “Hey, everyone cheats. plumping up our self-esteem, but it also that delusion even when faced by griev- It’s no big deal. And I needed to do

52 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer this for my future career.” But the one This process blurs the distinction down that pyramid. Dissonance reduc- who resisted the temptation will justify that people like to draw between “us tion may be built into our mental wir- that action by deciding that cheating good guys” and “those bad guys,” or, ing, but how we think about our mis- is far more immoral than he originally occasionally in the skeptic world, “us taken actions and beliefs is not. thought: “In fact, cheating is disgraceful. smart, reasonable guys and those igno- Living with dissonance requires us People who cheat should be expelled.” rant, crazy guys.” Often, when standing to learn how to admit our mistakes and By the time they finish justifying their at the top of the pyramid we are faced separate them from our self-esteem. actions, they have slid to the bottom not with a clear go-or-no-go decision Our brains may be wired for self-jus- and now stand at opposite corners of but instead with ambiguous choices tification, but that is no justification for its base, far apart from one another. The whose consequences are unknown or not overriding the impulse—and we one who didn’t cheat considers the other unknowable. We make an impulsive de- can. That’s what the skeptical move- to be totally immoral, and the one who cision, and then we justify it to reduce ment is designed to help us do: show cheated thinks the other is hopelessly the ambiguity of the choice. And soon that people can remain committed to puritanical—and, come to think of it, we are trapped in a process of action, their country, political party, friends, and family, yet understand that it is not disloyal to disagree with actions or policies or candidates we find wrong or reprehensible. And when we are faced with evidence of our own mistaken be- Skeptics already have an immense challenge liefs, we can learn to say: “When I, a kind and smart person, make a mistake, in debunking pseudoscience, con artists, I remain a kind and smart person; the and conspiracy theories; to this burden we’d mistake remains a mistake. Now, how do I remedy what I did and make sure I add another: facing our own sources of don’t repeat it?” Skeptics already have an immense dissonance—ambiguity, complexity, challenge in debunking pseudoscience, and compromise. con artists, and conspiracy theories; to this burden we’d add another: facing our own sources of dissonance—ambiguity, complexity, and compromise. For some on the left, “compromise” means selling out; for some on the right, “compromise” means consorting with the enemy. why don’t I just buy the services of a justification, and further action that But no politician will do everything we professional cheater to take the whole increases our commitment to that first want; no feminist or civil rights activist course for me? I really need the credits, tentative decision. Taking the next step can achieve 100 percent ideological pu- and so what if I never learn what this down the pyramid in that direction is rity; no human being can be 100 percent class requires? I’ll learn on the job. Hey, almost inevitable, because otherwise we free of bias. That may be the most dis- n neurosurgery can’t be that hard. have to go back up and say, “I was wrong sonant message of all. As we go through life we will find to take that first little step.” How do you ourselves on the top of many such met- corrupt an innocent person? How does aphorical pyramids, whenever we are a company or a country get enmeshed Carol Tavris and Elliot called upon to make important deci- in illegal or unethical decisions? They Aronson are social psy- sions and moral choices: for example, only have to take a small step off the chologists. This article whether to accept growing evidence pyramid, and self-justification will do is based on their book that a decision we made is likely wrong; the rest. Mistakes Were Made decide whether or not a sensational rape Dissonance reduction has benefits, (But Not By ME): Why or murder case in the media is true; including letting us sleep at night—and We Justify Foolish Be- whether to blow the whistle at com- besides it’s good to hold an informed liefs, Bad Decisions, pany corruption or decide not to rock opinion and not change it with every and Hurtful Acts, re- the boat. As soon as we make a decision, fad or every new study that comes along. cently released in an we stop noticing or looking for discon- But it is also essential to be able to let updated revised edition firming evidence, and we are on that go of that opinion when the weight of (Mariner, 2015). path to the bottom, where certainty lies. the evidence dictates, even if we are far

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 53 The Virtuous Skeptic Shouldn’t Skeptics Know What They Are Talking about When They Are Talking about It? MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI

hat is skepticism? And how should a good skeptic ternationally as a powerful grassroots movement for the advocacy of science approach her commitment to the field? These are and critical thinking more generally. Wcrucial questions that most of us take for granted Broadly speaking, we can distinguish between those areas of inquiry that but that—I think—are worth pause to ponder and reevalu- fall under “classic” skepticism—which ate from time to time. Which is what I intend to do in this include astrology, UFOlogy, psychics, article, introducing readers to an approach called “virtue paranormal experiences, ghosts, Bigfoot, and the like—and those additional is- epistemology,” which has much to say of relevance to the sues that have contributed to evolve conscientious skeptic. contemporary skepticism: intelligent design creationism, vaccine denialism, The ethos of the modern skeptical climate change denialism, and so forth. movement, the one that traces its ori- Some skeptics have even ventured into gins to Paul Kurtz and others in the criticism of areas of academic research 1970s, is perhaps best encapsulated by and scholarship, such as the replicabil- the phrase “extraordinary claims require Skepticism has evolved ity issue in psychology and the social extraordinary evidence,” popularized by sciences, the debate about the value of Carl Sagan but first articulated by Mar- over the past several string theory in physics, and the general cello Truzzi as “an extraordinary claim usefulness of philosophy. requires an extraordinary proof.” Both decades, expanding the There are important differences versions, in turn, owe much to two il- circle of its concerns among the three sets of topics I have just lustrious antecedents: Pierre-Simon La- identified insofar as our average skep- place, who in 1812 wrote: “The weight and therefore the type tical practitioner is concerned. When of evidence for an extraordinary claim it comes to the first group (astrology, must be proportioned to its strange- of claims it considers UFOlogy, etc.), skeptics have devel- ness,” and David Hume, who said in “extraordinary” and oped expertise of their own, arguably 1748: “A wise man . . . proportions his superior to that of your average scientist. belief to the evidence.” thus in need of propor- It is more likely that a Joe Nickell or a Skepticism has evolved over the past tional evidence in James Randi will identify the problem several decades, expanding the circle of with an alleged claim of paranormal ac- its concerns and therefore the type of order to be verified. tivity than a scientist who is unfamiliar claims it considers “extraordinary” and with fringe literature, the methodology thus in need of proportional evidence in of tricksters, or the unconscious biases order to be verified. Moreover, skepti- that lead perfectly honest people to con- cism has developed nationally and in- vince themselves that they have had an

54 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer extraordinary experience. which has the purpose of improving torted understanding of it. The second group of topics (includ- our lives as individuals embedded in That’s why both the scientist and the ing especially the various forms of mod- a broader society. As such, it does not skeptic can benefit from a virtue epis- ern “denialism”) is trickier, as it requires yield itself to universal analyses that take temological way of thinking: since sci- a significantly deeper understanding of a god’s eye–view of things, but rather entific knowledge is irreducibly human, the underlying science. Here the skep- starts with the individual as moral agent. our focus should be on the human agent tic can, at most, play a mediation role Similarly with science: contrary to and the kind of practices that make it between the technical literature and the widespread belief (even among skeptics possible for her to arrive at the best ap- general public, but not really contribute and scientists), science cannot aspire proximation to the truth that is accessi- directly herself to the research, unless to a completely neutral view from no- ble to our species. of course she happens to be a medical where, because it is by its own nature a In practice, this means that we researcher or an atmospheric physicist, human activity and is therefore bound should be cultivating epistemic virtues for example. by the limits (epistemic and otherwise) and strive to stay away from epistemic The final group of topics (issues in that characterize human intelligence vices. Below is a partial list of both psychological research, fundamental and agency. (another useful list can be found in a physics, philosophy) is, I maintain, so The best way to think about this classic essay, “Proper Criticism,” by Ray far outside of the realm of expertise of is that science irreducibly depends on Hyman, 2001): the average skeptic (unless, again, she specific human perspectives and pro- This, of course, is much easier said happens to be a research psychologist, a vides us therefore only limited access than done, something that Aristotle—a particle physicist, or a philosopher) that to the world-in-itself. We can observe good connoisseur of human psychol- the proper attitude is simply not to open and explore the world with increasingly ogy—understood very well. Which is one’s mouth and to let the experts sort sophisticated tools, but we will always why he said that virtue begins with unit out. This may sound harsh and un- have a partial view of reality and a dis- derstanding what one ought or ought palatable, but we need to be honest with both ourselves and the public at large: none of us is an expert on everything, Epistemic Virtues Epistemic Vices and knowing one’s own limitations is the beginning of wisdom, as Socrates Attentiveness Closed-mindedness famously reminded us. It also does a lot to enhance our credibility. Benevolence (principle of charity) Dishonesty Humility and competence, then, are virtues that ought to be cultivated by Conscientiousness Dogmatism any skeptic who wishes to intelligently comment on any of the three groups of Creativity Gullibility issues I’ve outlined here. That is why skepticism would benefit enormously by a dip into the field of virtue episte- Curiosity Naiveté mology. Let me explain. Discernment Obtuseness Virtue Epistemology 101 Honesty Self-deception Epistemology, of course, is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge and provides the criteria for eviden- Humility Superficiality tial warrant—it tells us when it is, in fact, rational to believe or disbelieve a Objectivity Wishful thinking given notion. Virtue epistemology is a particular approach within the field Parsimony of epistemology, which takes its inspi- ration from virtue ethics. The latter Studiousness is a general way to think about ethics that goes back to Aristotle and other Understanding ancient Greek and Roman thinkers. Briefly, virtue ethics shifts thjat e Warranty focus from questions such as “Is this action right/wrong?” to “Is the character of this agent virtuous or not?” The idea Wisdom is that morality is a human attribute,

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 55 ity whatever, but because I felt . . . Both Sagan’s and Feyerabend’s points that the tone of the statement was authoritarian. It criticized astrol- were not that there is any substance to ogy for having origins shrouded in superstition. But this is true as well astrology—they both knew better than for religion, chemistry, medicine and astronomy, to mention only four. The that—but that it matters how one approaches issue is not what faltering and rudi- mentary knowledge astrology came public criticism of pseudoscience from, but what is its present validity. . . . Then there was speculation on the psychological motivations of those who believe in astrology. These motivations . . . might explain why astrology is not generally given the skeptical scrutiny it deserves, but is quite peripheral to whether it not to do but becomes entrenched only rithm, programmable in a computer. works. . . . The statement stressed with much practice and endless cor- It also led Feyerabend to advocate that we can think of no mechanism rections, allowing us to internalize its “methodological anarchism,” the idea by which astrology could work. This is certainly a relevant point but by precepts. that we should let anyone pursue the itself it’s unconvincing. No mech- So far our discussion has been rather truth however they like, regardless of anism was known for continental theoretical, but skeptics (and scientists) initial plausibility or of the academic drift . . . when it was proposed by are pragmatic people. They work best credentials of the individual. The good Alfred Wegener in the first quarter stuff will be selected in the open mar- of the twentieth century to explain with actual examples that they can chew a range of puzzling data in geology on and use for future reference. So let ketplace of ideas; the bad stuff will and paleontology. (Sagan 1976) me present you two cases of failure of go away. (Methodological anarchism virtue epistemology on the part of skep- traces its ancestry back to John Stuart Feyerabend was even harsher: tics, so that we can appreciate what is Mill, though it is not a mainstream The learned gentlemen have strong going on and how to do things better. view in philosophy, and for good rea- convictions, they use their authority sons, but that’s another story.) to spread these convictions (why 186 Case 1: In Defense of Astrology? Feyerabend—shockingly from a signatures if one has arguments?), skeptic’s perspective—at one point they know a few phrases which Back in the 1970s, Paul Feyerabend wrote in defense of astrology. Not be- sound like arguments, but they cer- was a very controversial philosopher tainly do not know what they are cause he believed astrology has any talking about. . . . [The manifesto] of science. He most famously wrote merit, but in reaction to a famous man- shows the extent to which scientists Against Method, in which he argued ifesto against it that was initiated by are prepared to assert their authority that there simply isn’t any such thing none other than Paul Kurtz and coun- even in areas in which they have no as the scientific method. Scientists are tersigned by 186 scientists. knowledge whatsoever. . . . It is inter- pragmatic knowledge seekers; they use esting to see how closely both parties The anti-astrology manifesto read, [i.e., astrologers and their critics] whatever method works and discard in part: approach each other in ignorance, it as soon as it stops working. This We, the undersigned—astronomers, conceit and the wish for easy power position (which is now more or less astrophysicists, and scientists in over minds. (Feyerabend 1978) standard in the field) means that sci- other fields—wish to caution the ence is not reducible to a how-to algo- public against the unquestioning Both Sagan’s and Feyerabend’s points acceptance of the predictions and were not that there is any substance to advice given privately and publicly astrology—they both knew better than by astrologers. . . . In ancient times that—but that it matters how one ap- people believed in the predictions proaches public criticism of pseudo- and advice of astrologers because astrology was part and parcel of science. One must do it virtuously, by their magical world view. . . . Why taking one’s opponents’ arguments seri- do people believe in astrology? In ously, engaging with them and deploy- these uncertain times many long for ing logic and evidence against them. the comfort of having guidance in One must also not simply attempt to making decisions. (Bok et al. 1975) use the weight of authority to squash a Surprisingly, Carl Sagan himself de- displeasing notion, because that would clined to sign the manifesto, explaining: be intellectually unvirtuous. Although Sagan and Feyerabend did not use the I struggled with [the manifesto’s] wording, and in the end found language of virtue epistemology, they Paul Kurtz myself unable to sign, not because called for the scientists to behave better I thought astrology has any valid- than the pseudoscientists, and rightly so. 56 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer Case 2: The Campeche UFOs phenomenon couldn’t possibly be what • Did I seriously entertain the possibil- My second example concerns a famous it was purported to be) led to rather un- ity that I may be wrong? Or am I too sighting of alleged UFOs over the virtuous, completely unfounded in facts, blinded by my own preconceptions? Mexican state of Campeche on March “explanations” that had the only effect of • Am I an expert on this matter? If not, 5, 2004, a case investigated by Robert tarnishing the reputation of the alleged did I consult experts, or did I just Sheaffer for the Skeptical Inquirer skeptics themselves. conjure my own unfounded opinion (see Sheaffer 2008). The basic facts are out of thin air? these: That night, a reconnaissance air- A Checklist for the Virtuous Skeptic • Did I check the reliability of my own craft of the Mexican government was sources or just Google whatever was So what is the big deal here? The prob- flying over the states of Campeche and convenient to throw at my opponent? lem is that skepticism shares its core Chiapas, looking for evidence of drug • After having done my research, do I values with science, and such values smuggling. The crew videotaped the actually know what I’m talking about, include intellectual honesty, epistemic appearance of up to eleven unidenti- or am I simply repeating someone humility, and a number of other virtues. fied objects that were visible only in the else’s opinion? What is supposed to separate us from infrared. However, despite initial claims creationists, climate change deniers, Virtue ethics is supposed to focus us to the contrary, a local radar installation and all the rest is not that we happen to on improving ourselves as moral agents. could not verify the sighting. be (mostly, often) right and they aren’t. So, most of all, let us strive to live by Ar- istotle’s own words: “Humility requires n us to honor truth above our friends.” What is supposed to separate us from creationists, References and Further Readings Bok, B.J., L.E. Jerome, and P. Kurtz. 1975. climate change deniers, and all the rest is not that Objections to astrology. The Humanist 35(4). Feyerabend, P. 1978. Science in a Free Society. New we happen to be (mostly, often) right and they York: New Left Books. ———. 2010. Against Method. With a new aren’t. It is that we really seek the truth, introduction by Ian Hacking. 4th Edition, New York: Verso. Greco, J., and J. Turri. 2011. Virtue whatever it may turn out to be. Epistemology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available online at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ epistemology-virtue/. Hyman, R. 2001. Proper criticism. Skeptical Inquirer, 24(4) (July/August): 53–55. It is that we really seek the truth, what- As soon as the local press reported Available online at http://www.csicop.org/si/ ever it may turn out to be. This means show/proper_criticism. the incident, there was an unfortunate we do the hard work of carrying out Kidd, I.J. 2016. Why did Feyerabend defend rush of half-baked skeptic “solutions,” astrology? Integrity, virtue, and the author- research; we don’t just sit on a collective all equally unfounded: according to ity of science. Social Epistemology 30(4): arse and pontificate. 464–482. Available online at http://www. local astronomer Jose de la Herrin, the To make sure of this, I suggest two tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728 UFOs were really meteor fragments; .2015.1031851. things: First, a push toward a peer re- but for Dr. Julio Herrera of Mexico’s Pigliucci, M. 2016. Was Feyerabend right in view system within the skeptic com- defending astrology? A commentary on National Autonomous University they munity modeled on the one used by Kidd. Social Epistemology Review and Reply were electrical flares in the atmosphere; Collective 5(5): 1–6. Available online at scientists. Peer review has its own not so in the opinion of Rafael Na- http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-2Vs. shortcomings (ask the psychological Sagan, C. 1976. Reader’s forum. The Humanist varro, also of the National Autonomous and medical communities), but having 36( January/February): 13. University, who thought it was clearly Sheaffer, R. 2004. The Campeche, Mexico, one’s work checked by someone else is a sparks of plasma energy; by contrast, the ‘infrared UFO’ video. Skeptical Inquirer first step toward improving the quality 28(5) (September/October): 36–40. Urania Astronomical Society of More- of what we publish. Second, here is a ———. 2008. The fallacy of misplaced ratio- los declared the objects to be a group nalism. Skeptical Inquirer 32(4) ( July/ handy checklist for the aspiring virtuous of weather balloons. The Campeche August): 23–24. skeptic to keep in mind whenever we UFOs, alas, were none of those things. Massimo Pigliucci is the K.D. Irani Profes- are debunking the (alleged) nonsense Actual investigation—instead of arm- sor of Philosophy at the City College of New du jour: chair skepticism—by Sheaffer revealed York, author of Nonsense on Stilts: How them to be stationary objects on the • Did I carefully consider my oppo- to Tell Science from Bunk (Chicago Press, ground, over the distant horizon—spe- nents’ arguments without dismissing 2010) and coeditor (with Maarten Boudry) cifically, flares erupting from a group of them out of hand? of Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsid- oil wells. • Did I interpret what my opponent ering the Demarcation Problem (Chicago In this case, too, it seems, the a pri- said in the most charitable way possi- Press, 2013). He is a CSI fellow and blogs at ori “knowledge” of some skeptics (the ble before mounting a response? platofootnote.org.

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 57 [REVIEWS

The Scientist and the Philosopher JAMES E. ALCOCK

o review the 500-page memoirs of a ninety-seven-year-old, Between Two Worlds: Memoirs of a Philoso- Tinternationally renowned philos- pher-Scientist. By Mario Bunge. Springer Inter- opher-scientist is at once an inspir- national Publishing, Switzerland, 2016. ISBN ing and challenging task. One cannot 978-3-319-39250-2. 496 pp., $129. help but be inspired by the story of a young boy with an inquiring mind who escapes the intellectual shackles of the fascist society in which he is reared to become a highly respected intellectual on the world stage. And it is challenging to try to do justice to a life spanning nearly a century and comprising both fascinating twists and it, but he also facilitated its publication among others a judge, an engineer, a turns and an astonishingly productive in 1981. However, since that time we physician, an economist, and an archi- academic career. have only rarely had the opportunity tect, and thus young Mario was cogni- With regard to the latter, not only to interact, just enough to shake hands zant of the value of education. And yet, has Mario Bunge published hundreds two or three times at conferences over his early academic career did not show of professional papers, but he has also the years. great promise. written more than eighty books, in- Bunge’s memoirs explore the factors By his account, he was only a me- cluding such heavy hitters as Foun- that have shaped his character: his love diocre high school student. He was dations of Physics (1967), Philosophy of of the pursuit of knowledge, his dedi- poorly motivated, he tells us, because Science (1998, in two volumes), Medical cation to science, and his unflinching he was not stimulated by his teachers, Philosophy (2013), Philosophy of Psychol- resistance to pseudoscience. However, for whom he had little fondness, and, ogy (1987), Causality in Modern Sci- memoirs tell us more than what peo- worse, intellectual curiosity was openly ence (2008), and his magnum opus, an ple remember and have chosen to relate discouraged in his classrooms and ques- eight-volume Treatise on Basic Philoso- about their lives. It is not just what the tioning was not allowed! Nor did the phy (series completed in 1989). He has person tells us about himself but also larger Argentine society, trapped in the been awarded sixteen honorary degrees what the telling tells us about the per- grips of Perón-style fascism, welcome as well as several honorary professor- son. More about that later. intellectual inquiry. However, his sup- ships, and his scholarly contributions portive and loving parents stimulated have been recognized by fellowships What Mario Bunge Tells Us about Himself his intense curiosity about nature. His in the Royal Society of Canada and father, a man of strong socialist leanings the American Association for the Ad- Because he writes so clearly and engag- and intellectual courage, was his role vancement of Science. He is a long-time ingly, the book carries the reader effort- model. He inspired young Mario to fellow of the Committee for Skeptical lessly along the river of his life. He strive to become “an honest, concerned, Inquiry. And although nearly a cente- describes the historic roots of the Bunge useful citizen, ready to pay for my be- narian, he continues to write and to lec- family tree, beginning long ago in liefs.” ture internationally. Gotland, an island off the east coast His early life was not without ex- I begin with full disclosure: I have of Sweden. His mother, a woman of citement. At one point in his child- long been an admirer of Mario Bunge humble origins, came to Argentina hood, burglars on horseback came to and his work. More than that, he has from Germany shortly before the First his house, chloroformed the family, and had a significant effect on my own aca- World War. There, she met his father, stole everything that they could cart demic career, being directly responsible a physician, national congressman, and away. He had few toys as a child but for my first book, a critical analysis of scion of a highly educated Argentine was encouraged by his parents to ob- parapsychology. He not only encour- “patrician family” of German descent. serve—but not disturb—the insects and aged me (indeed ordered me!) to write His father’s immediate family included animals that inhabited the orchards and 58 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer farms surrounding his home, which he other, he was briefly jailed because of his a full professor of theoretical physics at described as a “small and uncomfortable activities. His home was raided, and the the University of La Plata; he was si- shack.” By age twelve, he writes, he was police, ignorant of mathematical sym- multaneously a full professor in the phi- intrigued with nature and the origins of bols, thought some of his mathematical losophy department at the University of life and already took for granted that life papers could be coded subversive docu- Buenos Aires (1957–1962). had arisen from nonliving things. ments. “Had I not left the country at the In 1966, he came to McGill Uni- At age eighteen, he made a New beginning of 1963,” he writes, “I would versity in Montreal as a Professor of Year’s resolution to focus his attention have been murdered, either by the dic- Philosophy and was subsequently ap- on serious intellectual matters, and tatorship or by the montonero guerillas.” pointed to the prestigious position of higher education took on new im- He completed a PhD in physical- Frothingham Professor of Logic and portance. He was by that time already mathematical science at Argentina’s Metaphysics, a title he held until his reading widely on a variety of subjects, National University of La Plata in formal retirement from the university and he had an early attraction to dia- 1952, having begun his graduate train- at age ninety. lectical materialism (although he being under the supervision of the distin- The question naturally arises: How came increasingly disappointed with did a physicist without a degree in phi- it over time). He was equally attracted losophy become a world-renowned phi- to physics, psychology, and philosophy. The question naturally losopher of science? That certainly did The prospects for a career as a psychol- not come about in the usual way. He ogist in Argentina were dismal at that arises: How did a is essentially self-taught in philosophy. time, and he soon lost interest in a ca- physicist without a While pursuing physics, he continued reer in philosophy after attending a few to educate himself in philosophy. At lectures by philosophers who were dis- degree in philosophy age twenty-five he established Minerva, missive of science. This focused his at- which he describes as “the only philos- tention on a career in science, although become a world- ophy journal to circulate throughout he kept his interests in philosophy alive renowned philosopher the continent,” and invited submissions by reading widely on the subject. from many philosophers. Unfortunately, Through his father, he was exposed of science? That the reception to Minerva was some- to many communist intellectuals while certainly did not come where between lukewarm and hostile, growing up, and when he asked his fa- he writes, and the journal folded a year ther why he had not joined the com- about in the usual later both because of a lack of submis- munist party, his father told him, “Be- sions and a shortage of funds. As he cause I want to retain my freedom of way. He is essentially looks back on that venture, he notes thought,” a comment that obviously self-taught in that “the Argentine philosophical com- had a significant effect on young Mario. munity followed the national custom During the Second World War, the De- philosophy. of rubbishing whoever did something pression worsened in Argentina, and the new.” This had been a costly initiative; government was openly sympathetic to he not only lost all the money he had the Axis powers. Like his parents, he guished physicist Guido Beck. However, invested, but his devotion to the jour- strongly opposed the fascist dictator- after obtaining his doctorate, he was un- nal had violated his full-time require- ship in which he lived. His father was able to find an academic appointment ment as a student. His master’s thesis arrested because he presided over an in Argentina. He was fiercely opposed supervisor and friend, Guido Beck, was association that raised funds for the to Perón, the president/dictator at the so angry that he “expelled me from his Allies fighting the Axis powers. After time, and so he lacked the all-import- flock.” his father’s death from a massive stroke ant Perónist party card. As he describes He was kept to the margins of the in 1943, his mother later joined a group it, without that card one could not even philosophical community until 1956, opposing the military dictatorship. She get a job as a dogcatcher. Fortunately, when he received an invitation to partic- was denounced to the political police opportunity smiled upon him when ipate in the Inter-American Congress of and jailed. Decades later, after more David Bohm, one of the most import- Philosophy. And ever since, he has met open criticism about the dictatorship ant physicists of the twentieth century, with success during his long academic then headed by Perón’s widow, she was invited him to a postdoctoral fellowship career in both philosophy and physics. grazed by a bullet shot through the win- at the Theoretical Physics Institute at Witness the fact that he has been a vis- dow of her home as she sat reading. São Paulo University in Brazil. iting professor of philosophy at several Mario worked diligently against the After Perón was forced to resign and universities and a visiting professor of repressiveness of his society. At one go into exile in 1955, Bunge returned to physics at a number of others. However, point, he set up a worker school. At an- Argentina and from 1956 to 1959 was he stresses that he has always been a Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 59 [NEW AND NOTABLE Listing does not preclude future review. scientist first and points out that many philosophers of science ANCIENT AMERICA: Fifty Ar- have no experience in actually working as scientists. He writes, chaeological Sites to See for “From the start I sought philosophical ideas capable of clarifying Yourself. Kenneth L. Feder. The the philosophical issues that science seemed to generate” (104). magnificent archaeological sites He has applied his intellectual skills to a wide array of subjects, left by America’s native peoples including causality, the mind-body problem, economic develop- are wondrous enough without ment, psychology and sociology, cybernetics, ethics, politics, and the myths and exaggerations law. Throughout his career, he has been obsessed with exploring that often contaminate popular the relations between “philosophy and the sciences of life, mind, discussions about them. There and society as well as the study of values” (277). He considers his is no one better than archaeologist and CSI Fellow Kenneth Feder at debunking the main contribution to physics to have been his book Foundations misconceptions and stereotypes and then showing of Physics (1967), which has a strong philosophical underpinning. in reader-friendly prose what’s real and true. The In it, he set out to prove that quantum and relativistic theories fifty sites in the welcome and lively new book An- are observer-free and that their subjectivist, observer-centered cient America reveal an extraordinary legacy of in- interpretations are “illegitimate philosophical grafts.” telligent and capable ancient peoples and cultures. The “two worlds” in the title of his memoirs might refer to With black & white and color photos. Rowman & Lit- his life in Argentina and his life in Canada, but in his preface, tlefield, 2017, 232 pp., $45. he hints that there are four worlds, presumably pointing to his careers as both a physicist and a philosopher. By my count, there THE BIG PICTURE: On the Ori- are even more. Consider for example his writings on psychology, gin of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. Sean Carroll. In biology, and neuroscience. And then there is his political/social this lengthy book, the Caltech world and the continuing importance he has placed on the study theoretical physicist and pop- of values, ethics, and society throughout his career. ular writer Sean Carroll has two goals: The first is to explain the Jousting with the Great and the Near-Great story of our universe and why we think it’s the true, big picture His life, both personal and academic, has been peppered with as we currently understand it interactions with members of the world’s academic elite, Nobel (“a fantastic conception”). The second is a “bit of laureates amongst them. True to form, he has never hesitated existential therapy.” He argues that though we are to be forthright expressing his views when in disagreement part of a universe that runs according to impersonal with any of them. For example, he argued with Karl Popper, underlying laws, we nevertheless matter. This, he flatly rejecting his assertion that theories must be falsifiable. He acknowledges, isn’t a scientific question but a phil- writes that the notion that osophical one, and it demands discarding how we’ve been thinking about our lives and their meaning for scientists ought to seek to falsify their pet theories, instead of thousands of years. Dutton, 2016, 470 pp., $28. trying to confirm them, is at once psychologically and meth- odologically false. Indeed, only masochists behave that way; GETTING RISK RIGHT: Under- disconfirmation is not more reliable than confirmation, and standing the Science of Elu- the only true indicator we know and rely on is confirmation sive Health Risks. Geoffrey C. together with compatibility with extant knowledge. (384) Kabat. Understanding risk is an Further, he rejected as pseudoscientific what he saw as Rich- important part of skepticism, ard Dawkins’s genetic determinism (that development and evo- especially regarding medical lution are mutually independent), and he challenged the validity issues (What’s the real risk of HPV vaccines, immunizations, of what he referred to as Daniel Dennett’s “fantasy of evolution- and cell phones, for example?). ary algorithms.” While admiring some of Stephen Jay Gould’s Kabat, a cancer epidemiologist, contributions, he also expressed significant criticism, which, he helps readers understand relative versus absolute was later informed, led Gould to change his mind about Bunge’s risk, medical research, how pseudoscientific and standing as a philosopher, demoting him from the top of his questionable claims get (mis)reported by news totem pole to the bottom. media and activists, and much more. Includes a glossary and extensive notes. Columbia University Bunge the Skeptic Press, 2016, 272 pp, $35. Staunch opposition to pseudoscience has been a constant factor throughout Bunge’s academic career, and he points out that he was one of the few senior philosophers to participate in the so-called “science wars” when postmodernism began its march across university campuses. He strongly criticized constructivist

60 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer relativists and attacked the notions that “science is politics by other means” and that scientific controversies are about power, not truth. THE MADHOUSE EFFECT: How Cli- His skepticism took root early in his life. At age eighteen, he mate Change Denial Is Threaten- ing Our Planet, Destroying Our wrote a small book, Marx vs. Freud, a critical rejection of psycho- Politics, and Driving Us Crazy. analysis, but he never attempted to publish it. While his fierce crit- Michael E. Mann and Tom Toles. icism of psychoanalysis as pseudoscience has continued throughout When a distinguished climate his life, he has repeatedly targeted pseudosciences in general, “be- scientist and a noted political cause they are at best false; because they divert public attention from cartoonist get together, watch important issues and discipline; because they undermine trust in out! This lively collaboration has scientific research; and because some of them may be used to prop produced a short, readable, entertaining, visually appealing book about the “mad- up socioeconomic privilege.” house atmosphere” in which scientific evidence However, he points out that belief in such things as telepathy and documenting our changing climate amasses yet the horoscopes is relatively harmless, compared to political opposition to that data continues to flourish belief in nativism, in standard economic theory, in liberty without in its own parallel universe. Both the scientist and the equality, and in inequality without liberty, [that] have been even cartoonist are passionate and effective in commu- more pernicious than the so-called alternative medicines, because nicating the problem’s urgency. Columbia University they have struck entire peoples. Regrettably, most skeptics have Press, 2016, 186 pp., $24.95. overlooked the crucial difference between harmless and harmful pseudoscience, and have confined their attention to the oldest and A MOST IMPROBABLE JOURNEY: less dangerous superstitions, like astrology and alchemy, perhaps A Big History of Our Planet and because they are easier to criticize. (277) Ourselves. Walter Alvarez. To a historical scientist like famed He urges skeptics to embrace methodological rather than abso- geologist Walter Alvarez (UC lute skepticism, if only because every criticism is relative to some Berkeley, author of T. Rex and body of knowledge. Methodological skeptics, he tells us, doubt only the Crater of Doom), books the insufficiently substantiated claims, reject the groundless ones, about even “world history” are and suspend belief in untested propositions. restricted in time and space. The “Big History” movement, of which Alvarez is an advocate, integrates traditional What the Telling Tells Us historical scholarship with scientific insights to study about Mario Bunge the full sweep of the universe and its past. He thinks of this panoramic viewpoint as combining four re- The telling in this case reveals a man of exceedingly high con- gimes—Cosmos, Earth, Life, and Humanity. Here in fidence who has lived his life guided by strong principles about just a couple hundred pages, he seeks to make the truth, science, and justice. His passion for fairness and equality no first three (all “prehuman” history) accessible and doubt reflects at least in part being reared in a fascist society by comprehensible, no matter whether your background a family that eschewed fascism. From an early age, he took risks is in the humanities or science. W.W. Norton, 2016, to fight against repression and to express his values and speak his 246 pp., $26.95. truths. SCIENTISTS MAKING A DIFFER- As noted above, he has not backed away from expressing his dis- ENCE: One Hundred Eminent dain for faulty reasoning, no matter how celebrated the reasoner. His Behavioral and Brain Scientists impatience with muddy thinking is evident throughout the book, Talk about Their Most Important and he clearly does not suffer fools gladly. Contributions. Edited by Robert And the telling also demonstrates the importance of his family J. Sternberg, Susan T. Fiske, and in his life. The book is filled with references to family members and Donald J. Foss. The subtitle of includes over thirty pages of historical family photographs. In an this book says it all; surveying a broad range of disciples (social appendix, his wife, Martha, writes about what it is like to be married cognition, happiness, autism, so- to Mario Bunge. cial modeling, creativity, memory, and much more), 100 researchers talk about their work and why it mat- Conclusion ters—not only to them but to the world. Contributors span the spectrum, from Elizabeth Loftus to Albert Two Worlds is a highly readable account of the life and times of a Bandura and Daniel Kahneman, and often offer per- distinguished scholar, a remarkable man whose intellectual curios- sonal glimpses into the personalities and processes ity and determination could not be dampened by the overwhelm- that formed (and informed) some of our best-known ing repressiveness of the fascist Perónist regime. Kudos to Mario ideas in cognitive research. Cambridge University Bunge for memoirs well-written and for a life, both personal and Press, 2016, 512 pp, $34.99. n academic, still being well-lived at ninety-seven. Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 61 What Ghosts Mean SENSATIONALISM: Murder, Mayhem, Mudslinging, BENJAMIN RADFORD Scandals, and Disasters in 19th-Century Report- ing. David Sachsman and David Bulla, editors. Sachsman and Bulla have gathered a colorful collection of essays exploring sensationalism in nine- Ghostly Encounters: The Haunt- teenth-century newspa- ings of Everyday Life. By Dennis per reporting. The contributors analyze the role and Michele Waskul. Temple of sensationalism and tell the story of both the University Press, 2016. 184 pp. rise of the penny press in the 1830s and the Paperback, $25.95. careers of specific editors and reporters who contributed to that style. The book is divided into four sections. The first is titled “The Many Faces of Sensationalism,” providing a defense of yellow journalism, analyzing the place of sensational pictures, and giving a detailed examination of the changes in reporting over a twenty-year span. Though ostensibly a book about journalism, there is much of interest to skeptics since paranormal phenomena is in- variably sensationalized in the news media, hostly Encounters is the product of two years of from The Exorcist book and film in the 1970s to fieldwork and interviews with more than sev- Ghost Hunters cable TV shows still on the air. The Genty Midwestern Americans by Dennis Waskul third section, “Murder, Mayhem, Stunts, Hoaxes, and Disasters”—which includes chapters on the (a professor of sociology at Minnesota State University 1835 Moon hoax and other bogus news stories Mankato and author or coauthor of several books) and widely taken as true at the time—may be of par- Michele Waskul (an independent scholar with a focus ticular use to skeptical researchers. Transaction on special education). The authors examine how people Publishers, 2015, 391 pp, $34.95. experience ghosts and hauntings in everyday life through an ethnographic lens, including how uncanny happenings UFO FAQ: All That’s Left become ghosts and why people struggle with belief or to Know about Roswell, disbelief. Aliens, Whirling Discs, They found that “many participants in this study were and Flying Saucers. David not sure that they had encountered a ghost and remained J. Hogan. A new attempt at an all-inclusive guide uncertain that such phenomena were even possible, sim- to UFO lore—hard science ply because they did not see something that approximated and hoaxes, sightings the conventional image of a ‘ghost.’ Instead, many of our and claimed abductions, respondents were simply convinced that they had experi- research and supposed enced something uncanny—something inexplicable, ex- cover-ups. Hogan, an Illinois book publisher, is traordinary, mysterious, or eerie” (p. 20). Thus we see why comprehensive in his approach. While he is not defining and explaining ghostly phenomenon is slippery overtly skeptical and the book seems short on and problematic. Many people who will go on record as critiques, he does attempt to be rational and, having a ghostly experience didn’t necessarily see anything despite his admitted enthusiasm of the topic, that most people would recognize as a classic “ghost,” and reasonably objective. He opens with a section in fact they may have had completely different experi- of short bios of members of the UFO community, proponents and skeptics, past and present. ences whose only common factor is that they could not Backbeat Books, 2016, 407 pp., $19.99. be readily explained. As I describe in my book Scientific Paranormal Investigation, context is critically important to —Kendrick Frazier and Benjamin Radford understanding the claims: something “unknown” or “unexplained” in the context of a reputedly haunted house will be interpreted as a ghost, while something “unknown” or “unexplained” in the context of a wilderness hike may be interpreted as a Bigfoot; in the context of something odd in the skies, it may be explained as a UFO.

62 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer The Waskuls note that “given all “true” stories are a dime a dozen—as to “test” their interpretations, but sug- their otherworldly powers to defy the anyone who’s visited a library or book- gesting that they “approximate scien- known laws of nature, the majority of store knows. Ghostly Encounters helps tific methods” is only true if one uses everyday ghosts are dramaturgically im- explain what ghosts mean, not only approximate very broadly. In describing paired. Ghosts are most often indifferent to ghost experiencers but also more how one woman, Amy, tried to “test” to the living. When ghosts bother to pay broadly in society. The book is a bit her idea that a ghost was present, the us any attention at all, that attention is self-indulgent, with several extensive Waskuls admit that “Amy’s test would more frequently friendly and even help- digressions about the authors’ personal not pass ‘a double-blind test in labora- ful than malevolent” (p. 10). Indeed, ap- opinions and beliefs about the spirit tory conditions,’ but they work for her” parently odd, peculiar, or strange things world, though as Dennis Waskul wryly (emphasis in original). But of course happen in our everyday lives—and usu- notes, “I have to admit that I’ve come that’s not how science operates. Science ally pass unnoticed. “When something to envy the people who reported having does not “work” for some people but not odd occurs, we either ignore or investi- poltergeists in their home; they have a others. Subjectively validated science is gate. If we choose to investigate, most ready explanation for anything amiss in no science at all, and it would be more times we find an answer, and sometimes their household” (p. 134). accurate to say that people attempt to we do not, but either way we minded it. Oftentimes, if an answer is not found and the oddity is mundane enough, it is easy to just scratch your head and move When afraid, alarmed, or psychologically primed on with your business” (p. 3). When afraid, alarmed, or psycholog- to the idea that something unusual and unknown ically primed to the idea that something is going on, our sensitivity to anything odd or out unusual and unknown is going on, our sensitivity to anything odd or out of the of the ordinary goes up, and things that we would ordinary goes up, and things that we would otherwise ignore (or perhaps not otherwise ignore (or perhaps not even notice) can even notice) can take on added signif- take on added significance. icance. Common occurrences such as flickering lights, dead batteries, unexplained but fleeting unease, computer crashes, blurry sections in photographs, video glitches, and so on can be, and The book is divided into five chap- “test” their perceptions than that they have been, claimed as possible evidence ters, with such titles as “Ghostly Rea- do so in a way resembling a scientific for ghosts. Not only does this uncon- son,” “Ghostly Topology,” and “Ghostly process. scious psychological bias lead us to pay Legends,” and presents an assortment There are many excellent books on attention to such mundane mysteries, of scholarly curiosities (in case you’ve ghosts from a variety of scholarly per- but it also imbues them with added wondered why most ghosts are assumed spectives, including historical (for exam- significance, making them much easier to be men, the Waskuls speculate about ple, R.C. Finucane’s Ghosts: Appearances to remember. A flashlight that hap- this on pages 87 and 88). In their chap- of the Dead and Cultural Transforma- pens to go out during a power failure ter on “Ghostly Reason,” the Waskuls tion); folkloric (Alas, Poor Ghost! Tradi- will be soon forgotten, but a flashlight claim that “in the process of doubting tion of Belief in Story and Discourse, by that happens to go out in a dramatic what is real, people routinely rely on Gillian Bennett); and sociological (The moment when a ghost hunter is asking an approximated scientific method to Haunted: A Social History of Ghosts, by for a sign from an invisible spirit will be make empirical observations, formulate Owen Davies). Ghostly Encounters is an remembered for a lifetime. inferences, identify correlations, arrive interesting contribution to the literature The book’s approach is less investi- at working hypotheses, and sometimes on what ghosts mean to the individuals gative or skeptical than perhaps many test these hypotheses” (p. 45). As some- who experience and report them. n readers of this publication would like. one who has interviewed hundreds of Ghostly Encounters contains many alleged ghost experiencers (as well as first-person anecdotes about ghostly ex- worked with many amateur ghost hunt- Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of the periences (some of them quite lengthy), ers), I think the Waskuls greatly overes- Skeptical Inquirer and a frequent scien- and little or no effort is made to estab- timate the average person’s understand- tific investigator of ghost claims. His books lish the truth or validity of such claims. ing of scientific methodologies. I agree include Scientific Paranormal Investigation: In this sense the Waskuls’ ethnographic that most ghost experiencers exhibit How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries and research is aligned with a folkloric ap- a modicum of skepticism, don’t auto- Mysterious New Mexico: Miracles, Magic, proach. Ghost stories, whether pre- matically assume that everything odd and Monsters in the Land of Enchantment. sented as fictional campfire tales or is a ghost, and may make some effort

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 63 [ LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

the Magazine for Science and Reason Vol. 40 No. 6 | November/December 2016 unlike at coal mine disasters control of one’s own fate in even too numerous to count. The those circumstances. I was disappointed in reading 40TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION PART II Eugenie SCOTT your article and finding no eval- Harriet HALL Fukushima plant was obsolete Not so with nuclear power. ODYSSEYS IN Christopher C. FRENCH Wendy GROSSMAN uation whatsoever of the risk of Benjamin RADFORD and should have been replaced The fear of losing control of one’s SCIENTIFIC Susan GERBIC Richard SAUNDERS with a newer design that would fate—arising perhaps from both disposing of nuclear waste. SKEPTICISM Michael MARSHALL have sailed through the tsunami, unfamiliarity and, as Vogel points Does the author propose to even though it was of unprece- out, “the psychological effect” of dispose of it at the bottom of the dented size. But misinformation the word radioactive—strikes me ocean or perhaps in deep, deep NUCLEAR POWER wells or perhaps somewhere in and the Psychology of and intransigence by antinuclear as a root cause of opposition to it. Evaluating Risk the Arctic or Antarctic? MICHAEL MANN forces make it impossible to do And despite Vogel’s first-rate and the Climate Wars It seems to me that with the Superstition INTRODUCTORY PRICE U.S. and Canada $5.99 so. And the reactor design used article, I don’t think such fear Masquerading half-lives of some of the waste in as Science at Chernobyl was known to be can be successfully addressed by Published by the Center for Inquiry in association with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry extremely dangerous and should a peppering of statistics. As to almost unbelievable long periods of time, the author should have Nuclear Power and Risk never have been used. how it can be addressed . . . well, there’s a challenge for the clinical addressed this problem at length. Patrick J. Russell Psychology psychologists! Doug Jackson Seattle, Washington In his excellent article on nu- Tom Gordon Knoxville, Tennessee clear power (“Nuclear Power I think Vogel’s excellent article Cedar City, Utah Daniel Vogel replies: and the Psychology of Evaluating overlooks one significant dimen- Risk,” November/December sion to the nuclear power issue, Your article on the issue of nu- Thank you to all who responded. 2016), Daniel Vogel compares best illustrated with an example. clear power generation could not Let me reply in particular to the nuclear power to a hypothet- I am well aware of the remarkable have been written better if it had three readers who raised under- ical perfect alternative that is safety record the airline industry been done by a professional nu- standable (and real) concerns completely risk free. In spite of has achieved in terms of passen- clear industry consultant. It belit- about waste. All references by phys- doing so, he makes an excellent ger miles traveled. Nonetheless, I tles concerns and avoids inconve- icists that I have examined agree case for why nuclear power is not prefer to drive from here to there nient, substantive issues such as: there are risks to nuclear energy the dirty and dangerous energy because I “feel safer.” The reason the poor safety history of com- but simply state they are very low source it is made out to be. is simple: driving my car gives mercial nuclear power plants; compared with those of other forms How does nuclear power me the illusion of controlling my the lack of any long-term storage of energy. stack up to a real alternative such own fate. I can react to and avoid facility for radioactive waste; the I did stress the integral fast re- as coal? Coal miners are sub- danger; my fate is in my hands. dangers associated with cata- actor in particular as it produces ject to black lung disease. Their Not so with air travel: if some- strophic failure; and how to deal less waste and can be fueled on the deaths are every bit as horrible thing goes wrong, I am helpless; with the huge volume of material waste of existing more wasteful re- as what people imagine dying my fate is sealed by the action remaining when a nuclear plant actors, in essence potentially remov- from radiation poisoning would or inaction of the pilots or the is eventually decommissioned. ing the world of its nuclear waste be like. And coal mining has aircraft’s manufacturer or other The article is in no way an while generating our electricity and despoiled vast tracts of land in forces outside my control. examination in a scientific or not contributing to global warming the “coal country” parts of West Thus perhaps with many op- rigorous manner. Given the poor (see the book Plentiful Energy by Virginia and Kentucky. But what ponents of nuclear power. The editorial oversight inclusion of Till, which discusses its physics in about the storage of radioactive statistical safety record of the this article indicates, I see no rea- great detail). materials? The mining and burn- industry is remarkable. But to son to continue my subscription It interests me psychologically ing of coal concentrates chemical many it represents the loss of (il- to this publication. that a form of energy that does not toxins like arsenic and mercury. lusory) power to determine their contribute to global warming tends James Herndon to be the most criticized by mostly After ten thousand years, almost own fate. Should an accident Seattle, Washington left-leaning citizens (which is why all the radioactivity in nuclear occur (never mind how vanish- a bias was hypothesized here) de- waste has cooked off. After ten ingly likely), they would be, so The Vogel article appears to be spite the fact that its risk (which no thousand years, all of the toxicity to speak, trapped in a crashing correct as far as it goes but ne- scientist is denying) is hugely lower of the arsenic, mercury, and the airplane, unable to do anything glects one very important feature than that of petroleum and coal, many other toxins in the tailings to save themselves. that most of us who strongly and may be the lowest risk of them produced by the mining and All this clearly defies ratio- oppose nuclear power consider all. I just entered a Google search burning of coal remains. Coal is nal analysis. Many who are un- tantamount—nuclear waste! for deaths in various industries and the worst, but there are problems comfortable flying are perfectly Until that problem is addressed came across an interesting chart with all of the alternatives. The happy to ride in a friend’s car, you cannot say that nuclear is a (http://motherboard.vice.com/ question should not be the one despite having no control over non-polluting source of energy. blog/whats-the-deadliest-power- that is usually asked, namely “Are the driver’s actions. Failures of The longevity of the danger of source—yes, nuclear had the least). there problems with nuclear?” hydroelectric and other conven- the waste, plus the huge up-front To eradicate climate warming but instead, “Are the problems tional power plants have claimed costs, leave most of us wondering as soon as possible, should we not with nuclear greater or less than many more lives than failures of why you continue to consider personally in the Western-North- those of the alternatives?” nuclear power plants—but fire this option when alternatives and ern world (who have contributed And finally a word about and flood are familiar phenom- conservation show such promise. the most to it) be the first to ac- 64 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer cept whatever low risks of nuclear have been recruited from skeptics hope it would be the first—after Note: Radford did not receive a re- there may be, given that it will be within the United States?” all, who better to pursue bogus sponse to his offer.) the Eastern-Southern and poorer Then I noted an observation religious claims than someone world that will suffer the most? made in several of the essays that with the inside angle?—but given We should all study the statistics on true believers of many fringe be- what I’ve seen professed in many Contrails and ‘Chemtrails’ these comparative risks (including liefs will maintain their beliefs articles and letters in your mag- nuclear waste storage) and, in a despite all facts and rational ev- azine, I have to say I suspect it Kendrick Frazier’s story about rational world (which admittedly idence to the contrary. would be the latter. chemtrails in the November/ it isn’t) support those solutions with Then I recalled the U.S. elec- I am truly happy to talk with December 2016 issue led me to the least risk for the highest energy tion results. While despairing people of every faith and no faith read the referenced document at yields (assuming our letter writers that despite forty years of active because I think I have something www.iopscience.iop.org. While want to go on with energy-hungry skepticism as documented in the to learn. Are you really willing to the arguments against the chem- laptops and cell phones). pages of the issue (as well as all extend the same courtesy to me? trail conspiracy are based in It seems to me that a valid the past issues), I had to conclude science, the history of contrails question would be: What will be that perhaps many U.S. skeptics Sharon Sheffield encountered on high-altitude Long Beach, California the risk of political biases causing had decided to keep a low profile bombing forays in WWII wasn’t non-action through silencing one at this time. even mentioned in this scientific of the most effective science-driven Benjamin Radford replies: I only hope that all skeptics study. One of the pictures in the solutions to this catastrophic prob- will renew their efforts to pro- I appreciate your writing, as you Wikipedia article on contrails lem? (And of course, as is true in mote rationality and that the raise an important question: “If I science, heated debate goes on until shows a number generated by Skeptical Inquirer will carry came to a [skeptics] meeting, would B-17s over Europe in 1944. It hopefully the evidence brings us to on. I really be welcomed with open a consensus of some sort.) was common to see them in the arms and given a task” or scoffed James Cooper newsreels of the time before the at and dismissed? I of course can’t Benton City, Washington days of TV news. speak for all skeptics (it’s a big tent, after all, with a wide variety of Perry Crabill Editor Kendrick Frazier replies: Odysseys in Skepticism people and positions, ranging from Winchester, Virginia Several points: 1) Skepticism, like I was so pleased to read Harriet welcoming to cantankerous), but I science, knows no national bound- Hall’s “My Personal Odyssey in think you might be surprised. aries; 2) SI is an international Skepticism” (November/Decem- I have had many fascinating [FEEDBACK magazine; 3) in our first of the two ber 2016) because, to me, she is and fruitful discussions and collab- anniversary issues (September/Oc- The letters column is a forum on one of the luminaries of skepti- orations with believers of all types, matte rs raised in previous issues. tober 2016), eight of the eleven es- cism that I look up to. from ghost hunters and dowsers to Letters should be no longer than sayists were from the United States. I want to add to her report my people who sincerely believe they 225 words. Due to the volume Finally, I’ve never known skeptics of letters we receive, not all can observation of the lack of sexism are psychic, to religious folks who to keep a low profile; we will defi- be published. Send letters as and the equal treatment I have attribute good and surprising res- email text (not attachments) to nitely carry on! cues and seemingly miraculous experienced or observed in the [email protected]. In the subject events to divine intervention. My line, provide your surname and in- skeptic movement. Skeptics have goal is to investigate, to understand formative identification, e.g.: “Smith been very welcoming, warm, and Letter on Jones evolution article.” In I read with interest Benjamin as best I can what happened and patient with me, a nonscientist. clude your name and address at the Radford’s essay “Skepticism’s why. Being mocking or hostile to, The fact that skeptics were will- end of the letter. You may also mail Big Tent” (November/Decem or dismissive of, eyewitnesses and your letter to the editor to 944 Deer ing to question whether there is ber 2016). I have to confess that believers is not only unnecessary Dr. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87122. sexism or unfairness in the move- I’m skeptical about his claim that but counterproductive and disre- ment shows the fine characters “anyone with a willingness to spectful. who are in the movement. As a learn and share is welcomed.” Some skeptics are strident, skeptic, I’m glad there was noth- I am an Episcopal priest who while others are happy to engage ing to find when they looked for reads your magazine and newslet- respectfully; we are as varied as any sexism in skepticism. Keep up ters because I think it’s import- other group. If you haven’t seen it, the good work. ant to keep an open mind and you may be interested in reading Trish Randall remain in dialog with everyone, a piece I wrote a few years ago in Vancouver, Washington especially those whose opinions which I discussed what I had in might differ from mine on im- common with a Canadian Arch- I read the eight essays in the portant topics. If I came to a deacon (see http://tinyurl.com/ November/December issue meeting, would I really be wel- zfyg36c). (“Odysseys in Scientific Skep comed with open arms and given I find that people are far more ticism”) and could not help but a task, per Radford’s claim that alike than different, and that find- notice that four of the eight came there’s no “occupation or hobby ing common ground is far better from skeptics living outside the that doesn’t have some angle into than finding reasons to disagree. United States. While I welcome pseudoscience or paranormal I’d be happy to work with you on hearing of skeptical activities claims”? Or would I be scoffed any projects, articles, or ideas that around the world, I asked myself at and told to run away and play would help encourage skepticism “Couldn’t more of the essayists with my superstitions? I would and critical thinking. (Editor’s

Skeptical Inquirer | March/April 2017 65 [ THE LAST LAUGH BENJAMIN RADFORD, EDITOR

The organizations listed above have aims similar to those of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry but are independent and autonomous. Representatives of these organizations cannot speak on behalf of CSI. Please send updates to Barry Karr, P.O. Box 703, Amherst NY 14226-0703. International affiliated organizations listed at www.csicop.org. 66 Volume 41 Issue 2 | Skeptical Inquirer Scientific and Technical Consultants CENTERS FOR INQUIRY www.centerforinquiry.net/about/branches Gary Bauslaugh, Univ. of California at Berkeley Richard H. Lange, Tim Printy, writer and editor, MD, Mohawk Valley Physician amateur astronomer, UFO skeptic, former Luis Alfonso Gámez, Transnational Victoria, B.C., Canada science journalist, Bilbao, Spain Health Plan, Schenectady, NY Navy nuclear reactor operator/division chief, Manchester, NH 3965 Rensch Road, Amherst, NY 14228 Richard E. Berendzen, Sylvio Garattini, William M. London, Tel.: (716) 636-4869 astronomer, Washington, DC California State Univ., Los Angeles Daisie Radner, director, Mario Negri Pharmacology Austin prof. of philosophy, SUNY Buffalo Martin Bridgstock, Institute, Milan, Italy Rebecca Long, PO Box 300036, Austin, TX 78703 senior lecturer, School of Science, nuclear engineer, president of Geor Robert H. Romer, Susan Gerbic, gia Tel.: (512) 454-0977 Griffith Univ., Brisbane, Australia Council Against Health Fraud, Atlanta, GA prof. of physics, Amherst College founder and leader of the Guerilla Skepti- Chicago Richard Busch, cism on Wikipedia (GSoW) project John R. Mashey, Karl Sabbagh, [email protected] magician/mentalist, Pittsburgh, PA journalist, Richmond, Surrey, England ndianapolis Laurie Godfrey, computer scientist/executive (Bell Labs, then I Shawn Carlson, anthropologist, Univ. of Massachusetts Silicon Valley), analyst of climate-change Robert J. Samp, 350 Canal Walk, Suite A, Indianapolis, IN 46202 Society for Amateur Scientists, denial, contributor to DeSmogBlog and assistant prof. of education and Tel.: (317) 423-0710 Gerald Goldin, Skeptical Science, Portola Valley, CA East Greenwich, RI medicine, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison Los Angeles mathematician, Rutgers Univ., NJ Roger B. Culver, Thomas R. McDonough, Steven D. Schafersman, 4773 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood, CA 90027 Donald Goldsmith, prof. of astronomy, Colorado State Univ. astrophysicist, Pasadena, CA asst. prof. of geology, Miami Univ., OH Tel.: (323) 666-9797 astronomer; president, Interstellar Media Michigan Felix Ares de Blas, James E. McGaha, Chris Scott, Alan Hale, 3777 44th Street SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49512 prof. of computer science, astronomer, USAF pilot (ret.) statistician, London, England astronomer, Southwest Institute for Space Tel.: (616) 698-2342 Univ. of Basque, San Sebastian, Spain Joel A. Moskowitz, Research, Alamogordo, NM Stuart D. Scott Jr., New York City Nahum J. Duker, director of medical psychiatry, Calabasas associate prof. of anthropology, Clyde F. Herreid, 33-29 28th St. Astoria, NY 11106 assistant prof. of pathology, Mental Health Services, Los Angeles SUNY Buffalo prof. of biology, SUNY Buffalo San Francisco Temple Univ. Matthew C. Nisbet, Erwin M. Segal, Sharon Hill, email: [email protected] Taner Edis, associate professor of communication prof. of psychology, SUNY Buffalo geologist, writer, researcher, creator and Tampa Bay Division of Science/Physics studies, public policy, and urban affairs at editor of the Doubful News blog Carla Selby, 4011 S. Manhattan Ave. #139, Tampa, FL 33611-1277 Truman State Univ. Northeastern University anthropologist /archaeologist Tel.: (813) 505-7013 Gabor Hrasko, Julia Offe, Barbara Eisenstadt, ashington chairman of the European Council of Skepti- Steven N. Shore, W , DC psychologist, educator, clinician, neurobiologist, science journalist, creator cal Organizations (ECSO), president of German Science Slam prof. of astrophysics, Univ. of Pisa, Italy 1012 14th Street., NW, Suite 205 East Greenbush, NY Washington, DC 20005 of Hungarian Skeptics Waclaw Szybalski, William Evans, John W. Patterson, tel.: (202) 733-5275 Michael Hutchinson, professor, McArdle Laboratory, Univ. prof. of journalism and prof. of materials science and author; Skeptical Inquirer engineering, Iowa State Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison creative media, Univ. of Alabama Argentina representative, Europe Sarah G. Thomason, Bryan Farha, James R. Pomerantz, Philip A. Ianna, prof. of linguistics, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA Buenos Aires, Argentina prof. of behavioral studies in prof. of psychology, Rice Univ. assoc. prof. of astronomy, [email protected] education, Oklahoma City Univ. Tim Trachet, Univ. of Virginia Gary P. Posner, www.cfiargentina.org MD, Tampa, FL journalist and science writer, honorary John F. Fischer, Canada I.W. Kelly, chairman of SKEPP, Belgium forensic analyst, Orlando, FL 55 Eglinton Ave. East, Suite 307 prof. of psychology, Univ. of Saskatch ewan, David Willey, Eileen Gambrill, Toronto, Ontario, M4P 1G8, Canada Canada physics instructor, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA prof. of social welfare, China China Research Institute for Science Popularization, NO. 86, Xueyuan Nanlu Haidian Dist., Beijing, 100081 China Affiliated Organizations | United States Tel.: +86-10-62170515 Egypt 44 Gol Gamal St., Agouza, Giza, Egypt ALABAMA National Capital Area Skeptics NCAS, Skeptical Society of St. Louis (SSSL) OREGON Alabama Skeptics, Alabama. Emory Maryland, D.C., Virginia. D.W. “Chip” St. Louis, Missouri. Michael Blanford, Oregonians for Science and Reason France Kimbrough. Tel.: 205-759-2624. 3550 Denman. Tel.: (240) 670-6227. Email: President. Email: [email protected]. (O4SR) Oregon. Jeanine DeNoma, Dr. Henri Broch, Universite of Nice, Faculte des Watermelon Road, Apt. 28A, Northport, [email protected]. PO Box 8461, Silver Spring, 2729 Ann Ave., St. Louis, MO 63104 president. Tel.: (541) 745-5026; Email: Sciences, Parc Valrose, 06108, Nice cedex 2, AL 35476 MD 20907-8428 http://www.ncas.org www.skepticalstl.org [email protected]; 39105 Military Rd., France Tel.: +33-492-07-63-12 Monmouth, OR 97361. www.04SR.org ARIZONA FLORIDA St. Joseph Skeptics Germany Tucson Skeptics Inc. Tucson, AZ. James Tampa Bay Skeptics (TBS) Tampa Bay, P.O. Box 8908 PENNSYLVANIA Arheilger Weg 11, 64380 Rossdorf, Germany McGaha. Email:[email protected]. Florida. Rick O’Keefe, contact person. St. Joseph MO, 64508-8908 Philadelphia Association for Critical Tel.: +49-6154-695023 Thinking (PhACT), Bob Glickman Pres- India 5100 N. Sabino Footh ills Dr., Tucson, AZ Tel.: 813-505-7013; Email: NEVADA ident. 653 Garden Road Glenside PA 85715 [email protected]. c/o O’Keefe, Reno Skeptical Society, Inc., 46 Masi garh, New Friends Colony 4011 S. Manhattan Ave. #139, Tampa, FL 19038. 215-885-2089 E-mail: Presi- Phoenix Area Skeptics Society (PASS) Brad Lutts, President. New Delhi 110025 33611-1277. www.tampabayskept [email protected]. Website: www.phact.org http://phoenixskeptics.org Tel.: (775) 335-5505; Tel.: 91-9868010950 ics.org Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]. 18124 TENNESSEE London ILLINOIS Wedge Parkway #1052 Reno, Nevada Rationalists of East Tennessee, East Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, Phoenix Skeptics, Phoenix, AZ. Michael Rational Examination Association 89511. www.RenoSkeptics.org Tennessee. Carl Ledenbecker. Tel.: (865)- Stackpole, P.O. Box 60333, Phoenix, AZ London WC1R 4RL, England of Lincoln Land (REALL) Illinois. Bob 982-8687; Email: [email protected]. 2123 85082 NEW MEXICO Nepal Stonybrook Rd., Louisville, Ladendorf, Chairman. Tel.: 217-546- New Mexicans for Science and Reason Humanist Association of Nepal, CALIFORNIA TN 37777 3475; Email: [email protected]. PO (NMSR) New Mexico. David E. Thomas, PO Box 5284, Kathmandu Nepal Sacramento Organization for Rational Box 20302, Springfield, IL 62708 www. President. Tel.: 505-869-9250; Email: TEXAS Thinking (SORT) Sacramento, CA. Ray Span- Tel.: +977-1-4413-345 reall.org [email protected]. 801 Fitch Ave., North Texas Skeptics NTS Dallas/Ft genburg, co-founder. Tel.: 916-978-0321; New Zealand Chicago Skeptics Jennifer Newport, Socorro, NM 87801. www.nmsr.org Worth area, John Blanton, Secretary. Email: [email protected]. PO Box 2215, email: [email protected] contact person. Email: chicagoskeptics@ Tel.: (972)-306-3187; Email: skeptic@ Carmichael, CA 95609-2215 http://home. NEW YORK Nigeria gmail.com. www.chicagoskeptics.com ntskeptics.org. PO Box 111794, Carrollton, comcast.net/~kitray2/site/ New York City Skeptics Michael Feldman, TX 75011-1794. www.ntskeptics.org PO Box 25269, Mapo, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria LOUISIANA president. PO Box 5122 New York, NY Bay Area Skeptics (BAS) San Francisco— Tel.: +234-2-2313699 Baton Rouge Proponents of Rational 10185. www.nycskeptics.org VIRGINIA Bay Area. Eugenie C. Scott, President. 1218 Peru Inquiry and Scientific Methods The James Randi Educational Miluia St., Berkeley, CA 94709. Email: D. Casanova 430, Lima 14, Peru (BR-PRISM) Louisiana. Marge Schroth. Central New York Skeptics (CNY Skeptics) Foundation. James Randi, Director. [email protected]. www.BASkeptics.org email: [email protected] Tel.: 225-766-4747. 425 Carriage Way, Syracuse. Lisa Goodlin, President. Tel: 2941 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 105 Independent Investig ations Group (IIG), Baton Rouge, LA 70808 (315) 636-6533; Email: info@cnyskeptics. Falls Church, VA 22042 Poland Center for Inquiry–Los Angeles, 4773 org, cnyskeptics.org PO Box 417, Fayettville, Email: [email protected] Lokal Biurowy No. 8, 8 Sapiezynska Sr., MICHIGAN Hollyw ood Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90027. NY 13066 Telephone: 571-318-6530 00-215, Warsaw, Poland Great Lakes Skeptics (GLS) SE Michi- Tel.: 323-666-9797. www.iighq.com Romania gan. Lorna J. Simmons, Contact person. OHIO Science & Reason, Hampton Rds., Sacramento Skeptics Society, Sacramento. Tel.: 734-525-5731; Email: Skeptic31 Central Ohioans for Rational Inquiry Virginia. Lawrence Weinstein, Old Fundatia Centrul pentru Constiinta Critica Terry Sandbek, President. 4300 Aubur n @aol.com. 31710 Cowan Road, Apt. 103, (CORI) Central Ohio. Charlie Hazlett, Dominion Univ.-Physics Dept., Norfolk, Tel.: (40)-(O)744-67-67-94 Blvd. Suite 206, Sacramento CA 95841. Westland, MI 48185-2366 President. Tel.: 614-878-2742; Email: VA 23529 email: [email protected] Tel.: 916 489-1774. Email: terry@ [email protected]. PO Box 282069, Russia Tri-Cities Skeptics, Michigan. Dr. Gary WASHINGTON sandbek.com Columbus, OH 43228 Dr. Valerii A. Kuvakin, 119899 Russia, Moscow, Peterson. Tel.: 989-964-4491; Seattle Skeptics San Diego Association for Rational Inquiry e-mail: [email protected]. Cleveland Skeptics Joshua Hunt, www.seattleskeptics.com Vorobevy Gory, Moscow State Univ., (SDARI) President: Tom Pickett. Email: www.tcskeptics.blogspot.com Co-Organizer, www.clevelandskeptics.org Philosophy Department [email protected]. Program/ Senegal MINNESOTA South Shore Skeptics (SSS) Cleveland general information 619-421-5844. PO Box 15376, Dakar – Fann, Senegal St. Kloud Extraordinary Claim Psychic and counties. Jim Kutz. Tel.: 440 942- www.sdari.org. Postal address: PO Box 623, Teaching Investigating Community 5543; Email: [email protected]. PO Tel.: +221-501-13-00 La Jolla, CA 92038-0623 (SKEPTIC) St. Cloud, Minnesota. Jerry Box 5083, Cleveland, OH 44101 www. CONNECTICUT Mertens. Tel.: 320-255-2138; Email: southshoreskeptics.org New England Skeptical Society (NESS) [email protected]. Jerry Mer- Association for Rational Thought (ART) New England. Steven Novella M.D., Presi- tens, Psychology Department, 720 4th Cincinnati. Roy Auerbach, president. dent. Tel.: 203-281-6277; Email: board@ Ave. S, St. Cloud State Univ., St. Cloud, Tel: (513)-731-2774, Email: raa@cinci. theness.com. 64 Cobblestone Dr., Ham- MN 56301 rr.com. PO Box 12896, Cincinnati, OH den, CT 06518 www.theness.com 45212. www.cincinnati skeptics.org D.C./MARYLAND MISSOURI The organizations listed above have aims similar to those of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry but are independent and autonomous. Representatives of these organizations cannot speak on behalf of CSI. Please send updates to Barry Karr, P.O. Box 703, Amherst NY 14226-0703. International affiliated organizations listed at www.csicop.org.