From Our Readers

The letters column is a forum for views multiplied beyond necessity." But when on matters raised in previous issues. Let­ we translate this statement into "the ters are more likely to be published if simplest explanation for an observation they are brief and typed double-spaced. is most likely to be the correct one," then They may be edited for space and clarity. I pause. In the first place, if the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct, then it is not always correct. Then how Occam's Razor do we know when it is correct? A law with exceptions is of no use unless we I agree with Elie Shneour's results in his have a rule defining the exceptions. article on Occam's Razor (SI, Summer As a matter of fact, there is no reason 1986), but disagree with the method he to believe that the simplest explanation uses to arrive at them. If we take the for anything is the correct one. There is meaning of Occam's Razor to be "the no scientific or logical basis for this belief. simplest explanation for an observation It is simply a convenient prejudice. is most likely to be the correct one," what Counterexamples abound. Consider John is the observation that he is trying to Dalton's belief that all elemental gases explain? Is he trying to explain the bib­ are composed of molecules, each with a lical account of the Flood? Where is there single atom. This was the simplest theory an observation of a flood or an ark? The that explained the observations of the only thing we observe is a story about a day. Dalton's belief led him to conclude flood and ark in the Bible. Applying that the atomic weight of oxygen was 8 Occam's Razor to that story, the simplest (instead of 16), leading to a confusion explanation is that human beings, in among chemists that lasted from 1803 to writing the Bible, used their imaginations 1860. to elaborate on certain myths that had In modern physics, relativity and been handed down from before the time quantum theory explain the observations of writing. better than Newtonian mechanics and are Actually, what Dr. Shneour has done much more complicated than Newtonian is to apply the method of reductio ad mechanics. But the essential point is that absurdum to the account of the Flood. the observations get explained. The sim­ He considers the story as a hypothesis, plicity or complexity of the theory has applies deductive logic, deduces what no bearing on its acceptance. must have taken place considering the number of animal species we now recog­ Milton Rothman nize, and shows that the result is absurd. Philadelphia, Pa. With this kind of logic there is no argu­ ment. What bothers me is holding up I read Elie Shneour's article with great Occam's Razor as a "verity"—a statement interest. May I add in the spirit of assumed to be a permanent truth. It is Occam's Razor that careful reading of certainly true that "things must not be many biblical texts is all that is necessary

Winter 1986-87 213 to apply the razor to many creationists' aboard (seven of the clean). Therefore claims. Although I appreciated all the calculations of the number of existing data Shneour provided, he did not have species becomes (according to this argu­ to go to all that work. ment) irrelevant. Further, many "kinds"— If one reads the Genesis account of marine animals and larval insects, for the Flood carefully one can see that it is instance—need not have been sheltered really two separate accounts loosely tied aboard the ark to survive the Flood. A together by some editors). For instance, popular current estimate of the number one of the accounts tells us that God of animals taken on board is 35,000. required Noah to transport pairs of all Plant seeds could have survived the Flood animals, but later we suddenly hear that in a variety of ways. Babies rather than God wants seven pairs of all clean ani­ adults of the larger "kinds" were taken, mals and pairs of animals that are it is surmised, to avoid crowding. And unclean—as if the ark were not crowded perhaps most animals were able to hiber­ enough! Even though it is less clear, the nate for the duration, eliminating most duration of the Flood is in great dispute. of the food storage (and much of the One account tells us that the Flood lasted elimination) problem. 150 days, while in the other account it The "world that perished," the ante­ lasted about half that time. So, how long diluvian earth, was a much different place did this catastrophic world flood last? from what we now inhabit. There were Obviously I could continue these no high mountains, so the objection to examples for a very long time, but the the volume of water necessary to sub­ examples do not prove or disprove the merge present-day Ararat—not to men­ story. I believe it is important to under­ tion Everest—disappears. (I believe this stand that faith is not dependent upon was pointed out in a response to Jukes's scientific "proof in the data; rather, faith original article.) Also, the Flood waters is a response to God's perceived action were not supplied by our everyday sort in the world. When the creationists or of rain, but by the collapse of the pre- anyone attempt to account "scientifically" Flood canopy: the "waters above the for biblical statements of faith, it is firmament." This consisted of water in neither good science nor good religion. either vapor, liquid, or ice form, and con­ And that is the time we need to sharpen tained the equivalent of 40 feet of water. Occam's Razor. But the bulk of the water came from the "fountains of the deep." There were no Kevin B. Buchanan deep oceans in the antediluvian earth, Oregon, Mo. only springs and streams, and perhaps shallow seas. The deep ocean basins formed as a result of the Flood and now Elie Shneour, in "Occam's Razor," uses accommodate the waters that totally sub­ as his example a literal interpretation of merged the antediluvian plains and low the Flood and Noah's ark. It should be hills. noted that creationists have devised many Of course there is no independent ingenious—though totally ad hoc— evidence for any of these purely ad hoc hypotheses to get around some of the speculations. They are devised solely to obvious difficulties he presents. It is im­ preserve the Flood interpretation. (And portant to acknowledge these; otherwise, supernatural explanations are openly Shneour leaves himself open to the charge relied upon to get around the unavoidable of misrepresenting current creation- difficulties in Rood geology and with the science arguments and attacking a straw ark, in addition to Creation itself.) Thus man. Shneour's main point—science's pre­ Most practitioners of creation-science ference for the more parsimonious deny that all living species had to be explanation—still applies powerfully to represented on the ark. Noah took two this case. But we should be careful that of each originally created Genesis "kind" what we are attacking is what the crea-

214 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 11 tionists are actually now asserting, lest "Occam's Razor" presented a useful tool we lose credibility with some of our audi­ for discussing issues with people who are ence on technicalities. already capable of and committed to scientific thinking. However, it avoids a Tom Mclver serious problem: all of those other people. Los Angeles, Calif. That omission may be due to a common misconception: that humans are "con­ The writer is the author of "Ancient Tales structed" to think logically and effectively, and Space-Age Myths of Creationist but that many of us just haven't perfected Evangelism" in our Spring 1986 that ability quite yet. issue.—ED. On the contrary, the experiences, in­ cluding education, that "construct" most people do not seem to foster such think­ As an orthodox Christian, I am frequent­ ing. In particular, a high percentage of ly embarrassed by theologians who make humans, including some scientists, accept statements about science that are naive words as a source of knowledge, often in and absolute. But I am equally em­ the form of a revelation from a god and barrassed by scientists who make naive, subsequent pronouncements by deputies. absolute statements about religion like Both differing revelations and contradic­ those of Elie A. Shneour in his "Occam's tions within one revelation are ignored; Razor." I have no quarrel with the body indifference or faith enables most to rise of his article, in which he applies Occam's above such imcompatibilities when they Razor to the Genesis account of the are pointed out. Flood. My discomfort is with the first paragraphs, where, with a literary wave William G. Keehn of the hand, he dismisses philosophical Mountain View, Calif. questions of the greatest depth as though they came from last week's National Enquirer. I enjoyed very much the articles on re­ Mr. Shneour asserts that "most reli­ peatability and Occam's Razor in your gions require uncritical beliefs, resignation Summer issue. Someone is finally tackling to earthly fate in silence, and above all parapsychology's logic as well as its facts. that no questions be asked." I am sur­ Let me suggest another fallacy to tackle. prised that Mr. Shneour has had the time While it is more obscure than those in to examine the foundations of all the your articles, it seems to me parapsy­ world's religions, in their depth and com­ chology's old standby. plexity. I suspect that his barbs are really The fallacy in question is argumentum directed at fundamentalist Christianity. ad ignorantiam. Here denying one fact But Christianity, taken as a whole, does proves another. For instance, believers not fit his description. The continuing in telepathy argue this way: Chance does history of reformation and renewal is not explain a card reading; the odds are evidence of a long tradition of critical one million to one a subject can read so belief in Christianity. The central place many of another's cards. Fraud by staff of social justice in both Jewish and does not explain it; the parapsychology Christian sacred literature is antithetical staff has a reputation for honesty. In fact, to "resignation." And the first steps of believers in telepathy deny all rational scientific discovery were made in the explanations for the reading. But denying Western (Christian) world, under the in­ the rational cannot prove telepathy. That fluence of a tradition that proclaimed that falls into the fallacy of argumentum ad God and His creation could be known ignorantiam. In the end, perhaps nobody and were worth investigating. knows the reading's explanation. Yet nobody knows many things: how to cure Andrew B. Crouch cancer, how to surpass the speed of light. Ithaca, N.Y. And few invoke psychic explanations for

Winter 1986-87 215 them. Why should this ignorance warrant complexity." Fundamentalism is now such explanations? rampant throughout the world, and ap­ parently growing at the expense of Richard A. Dengrove reasoned, established systems of beliefs. Alexandria, Va. Even the Roman Catholic church has now proscribed the relatively mild dissent Elie A. Shneour replies: of theologian Charles Curran. And this writer, personally influenced in his youth The letters in response to my article by Teilhard de Chardin, has experienced testify to the high quality of readership those limitations in the thinking elite of of the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. Although the church. The same can be said for space limitations preclude response in Jewish and Muslim fundamentalism. extenso, the following brief comments are offered in rebuttal. Rothman is correct in that I applied On miracles the method of reductio ad absurdum to the account of the Flood, but I logically Antony Flew's comments on the difficulty got there by the application of Occam's of demonstrating miracles (SI, Summer Razor. These two are not mutually ex­ 1986) remind me of the manner in which, clusive. I do not, however, hold Occam's many years ago, I came to terms with Razor to be a verity and therefore a the supernatural. permanent truth. By its very definition, Simply put, if a phenomenon never Occam's Razor can only be a logical occurs we need not concern ourselves guideline, a starting point: There can with it. If it occurs, even if only once, it never be permanent truths in science, only lies within the capabilities of the natural models. world and is, by definition, natural. Ergo, Buchanan and Mclver are quite right the supernatural cannot exist. in their analysis of the ambiguities in the The same applies to the paranormal. account of the Flood, but no matter how As a scientist I am forced from time to the biblical text is interpreted the results time to amend my picture of what con­ remain essentially those of my article, stitutes "Nature." What Flew refers to as "within experimental error." And who the Basic Limiting Principles are con­ said that such analysis is either good stantly changing. Any phenomenon science or good religion? Obviously it is whose occurrence is demonstrated cannot neither, and that is exactly the point of be paranormal. the article! If treason succeeds then none dare Keehn's letter makes a thoughtful and call it treason. important point that deserves more than appeared in "Occam's Razor." I would Tom Napier only suggest here that semantics plays a Dresher, Pa. crucial and rarely recognized role in human affairs. S. I. Hayakawa's classic Language in Thought and Action makes Animal language an eloquent and documented case for Keehn 's point. "Animal language" is not an appropriate Crouch's letter suggests that I, being subject matter for a journal that deals a scientist, am necessarily naive about with claims of the "paranormal" and with religion. Crouch is mistaken, but this is other fringe science. The evidence of not the forum to develop this argument, communication between humans and except to add that this writer doubts that appropriately trained (appropriately ex­ Crouch himself "had the time to examine perienced) members of some other pri­ the foundations of all [emphasis added] mate species is at least as good as the the worlds religions in their depth and evidence for communication between

216 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 11 humans and very little children. Kids I am convinced chimpanzees are cap­ grow up and can persuade even Dr. able of using language to communicate Sebeok ("Clever Hans Redivivus," SI, with humans, but that is only one part Summer 1986) that they use language. of intelligence. I also believe more is Chimps do not. needed before an animal can be con­ The issue is not between "fact and sidered to have the qualities we associate fiction" as Dr. Sebeok would have it, with humanness. Carl Sagan speculated but between his choice of definitions of in The Dragons of Eden: How smart "language" and the more empirical ones must a chimp be before he should be of the investigative scientist. These very given what are considered to be "human special definitions and conceptualizations rights" and what properties must a chimp enable Dr. Sebeok to classify those who have before killing one consists of "believe in the ascent of animals to murder? human society" together with those who believe in ETs and UFOs. By the same Samuel Bauserman kind of reasoning, we can safely classify Huntington, W. Va. him as a creationist, hostile to the theory of evolution. You might take a skeptical look at Thomas Sebeok's "Clever Hans Redivi­ Dr. Sebeok's interpretation of the results vus" is not up to your usually high edi­ of the Gardners, Fouts, Premack, and torial standards. After a three-and-a-half- the Emory group. It would be naive to page homily on the well-known Clever assume, and wrong-headed to insist, as Hans case and the pitfalls of "scientific" Dr. Sebeok does, that the results of these self-deception, Dr. Sebeok spends half a investigations could be instances of page assuring us that modern ape lan­ "Clever Hans" phenomena and that the guage experiments resemble paranormal researchers were ignorant and took no research in "numerous and significant precautions. particulars." No such particulars are ever This is not to say that some other mentioned. What exactly is being re­ "research" on primate communication has viewed here? What particulars are being not been incompetent or irresponsible, addressed? or both. Rusty Scalf William S. Verplanck Huntington Park, Calif. Prof, of Psychology, Emeritus University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tenn. Thomas A. Sebeok replies:

Dr. Verplanck's thoughtful letter merits I liked the Sebeok article and agree a measured response; but, alas, in the Clever Hans was a well-trained animal interests of conciseness, I must limit my­ that could, with the help of a trainer, self to two quotations, plus a reference. make people believe it could think. 1. My fellow linguist Noam Chomsky However, I believe there is evidence wrote, in 1980, that the discovery of that chimpanzees can use language. Peo­ language in other species than ours ple once believed chimps had vocal cords "would constitute a kind of biological that could not produce the sounds of miracle." I think most objective inquiries speech, but they were able to teach would concur that alleged miracles de­ chimps Ameslan, a sign language used mand extreme skepticism. by the deaf. Chimps were able to make 2. Nobel laureate Konrad Lorenz de­ the correct sign for many objects and clared, in 1978, "that syntactic language were also able to make up Ameslan sen­ is based on a phylogenetic program tences containing the correct grammar. evolved exclusively by humans"and that

Winter 1986-87 217 "anthropoid apes . . . give no indication Jones, Russell, and Nickel (1977) report of possessing syntactic language." I know satisfactory psychometric properties for of no evidence to the contrary. the item, which resulted in their including 3. I have discussed all of the issues it in the Belief in the Paranormal Scale, Verplanck raises, in a series of books, and according to the author the item has the latest of which has just appeared significantly distinguished believers in the under the title I Think 1 Am a Verb paranormal from nonbelievers (p < .05) (Plenum Press, 1986). The quotation from and shows satisfactory item-full-scale Chomsky occurs on page 191; the one correlations (.54 and .74 over two oc­ from Lorenz on page 207; and further casions). Further, Jones, Russell, and references to my other writings on the Nickel (1977) provide impressive support subject on pages 232-233. for the reliability and validity of the Belief Mr. Bauserman is mistaken in his in the Paranormal Scale, which includes belief that any chimpanzee (or gorilla or this item. orangutan) has ever been taught Ameslan. This item showed a moderate rela­ The truth is that the so-called signing tionship to the "Psi Belief* factor in my apes were drilled in but a minuscule research. It was not selected from the number of "signs, "simplified to the point pool to represent "Psi Belief in my 25- of mere caricature and with an alien item Paranormal Belief Scale only be­ syntax superimposed on that rich and cause several other items showed even complex natural language. Some promi­ stronger psychometric and statistical nent psychologists (e.g., II. J. Terrace, properties. the author of Nim, 1979) have denied Thus, granted its inadequacies at the that the subjects have ever mastered any content level (e.g., awkwardness, a signs at all. double-barreled quality, ambiguity), it Mr. Scalfs complaint, that I did not still shows statistical and psychometric enumerate the "particulars" alluded to, properties that appear quite satisfactory is puzzling, for that was not my intent. as a measure of paranormal belief. The topic of my short essay was to exemplify Elizabethan manifestations of Jerome J. Tobacyk what centuries later came to be known Assoc. Prof, of Psychology as the Clever Hans effect and fallacy. Louisiana Tech University This notwithstanding, let me now assure Ruston, La. him that the "particulars" he calls for will soon be forthcoming, in another Jones, W., D. Russell, and T. Nickel. 1977. publication. Belief in the Paranormal Scale: An ob­ jective instrument to measure belief in magical phenomena and causes. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psy­ More on belief scale chology, 7: 100. Tobacyk, J., and G. Milford. 1983. Belief in I would like to add some information to paranormal phenomena: Assessment in­ a comment in Paul Woods's letter (SI, strument development and implications Summer 1986). The item "ESP is an for personality functioning. Journal of unusual gift that many persons have and Personality and Social Psychology, 44: should not be confused with elaborate 1029-1037. tricks used by entertainers*' is from the Belief in the Paranormal Scale and should be attributed to Jones, Russell, and Holistic medicine Nickel (1977). Although I used it in my item pool in developing the 25-item Para­ I am not so thrilled with the book normal Belief Scale (Tobacyk and Mil- Examining Holistic Medicine as your ford 1983), it was not selected for in­ reviewer (SI, Summer 1986). I find much clusion among my final 25 items. of it valuable and informative, but there Although its wording is improvable, are lapses that leave me desirous of a

218 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 11 fuller treatment. not so troubled, because they have the I am thinking specifically of Edmund orthodox explanation handy whenever Crelin's chapter on chiropractic. Though something odd appears. Crelin does an excellent job explaining the deficiencies of chiropractic theory, he Michael T. Shoemaker does not explain why chiropractic works Alexandria, Va. at all. I have met several people who claim to have gotten immediate relief from a visit to the chiropractor who Robert Sheaffer replies: would insist that the chiropractor is doing something right regardless of theory. I did not quote the two sentences pre­ Most of the endorsements seem to revolve ceding the "strains coincidence" line in around problems with tight muscles, and my piece. They were: "Many cases of it may be that chiropractic's most useful frogs and toads found in rocks have been role is as a form of physical therapy. I recorded. The usual explanation is that think if we could discover what chiro­ the creature crawled into a cavity when practic was doing right as well as what it young and grew too big to escape. This was doing wrong, if we could separate unique three-in-one case strains coin­ the wheat from the chaff (so to speak) cidence. ..." Thus when I say that Mr. and legitimize it in a readily available Shoemaker is not too troubled by a single and inexpensive form, society would be rock-entombed frog, but he says he is, better served than by publishing merely what I think he means is this: He is negative criticism. Most people, after all, troubled by them in the same way that will not respond to negative criticism Charles Fort was troubled by the coal unless a constructive alternative is of­ and cinders alleged to fall from steam- fered. powered aerial super-contraptions made by powers unknown. We skeptics are not Chuck Hoist troubled by reports of rock-entombed, Minneapolis, Minn. flattened, but living frogs, he says, be­ cause we disbelieve them. He is troubled by even one such report because he be­ Frog-in-rock cases lieves it may be authentic, so imagine his distress in trying to deal with three such Robert Sheaffer's oddly titled "Psychic frogs that puff themselves up and hop Vibrations"—which has no vibrations and away. nothing psychic in it—should be studied by debunkers who wish to learn the best way to quote something out of context. Astrology columns Sheaffer (Summer 1986) neglects to men­ tion that I gave the orthodox explanation The update (SI, Summer 1986, p. 299) for frog-in-rock cases immediately before on the number of newspapers that have I said, "This unique three-in-one case adopted the CSICOP astrology disclaimer strains coincidence. . .." The quote does was profoundly disappointing. That only not refer to my beliefs, as he presumes, 6 newspapers, of the 1,200 that received but to the orthodox explanation, which, letters requesting the disclaimer be used, to state the point explicitly, cannot be have in fact adopted it is a piece of data applied to the case under discussion. (The all readers of SI, and indeed all observers case may be a complete fabrication, of of American journalism, must ponder course, a possibility that should comfort seriously and with apprehension. many people.) Sheaffer's presumption Are we to assume that there are 1,194 that I am "not too troubled by a single executive editors in America who them­ rock-entombed flattened frog" gets it selves are believers in astrology? Or are backwards. I am troubled by such cases; they all skeptics who do not have the it is the automatic debunkers who are moral fortitude to express their views via

Winter 1986-87 219 the CSICOP disclaimer? Presumably the study has ever been done to compare the truth lies somewhere in between. But if, suicide rate of D & D players with non- for example, half are believers, we are players as implied by Mr. Swycaffer. Our seeing a situation far more serious than report on CBS's "60 Minutes" did not any of us would have believed. claim that these 28 deaths were the total I suggest that we seize the initiative number of suicides committed by D & D and launch a person-to-person campaign players. enlisting the entire SI readership to per­ Epidemiologic studies can be made suade local editors to adopt the dis­ of illnesses in manners other than purely claimer. statistical. We have visited families of the Our best allies are local astronomer deceased and testified at four D & D groups. Treat your editor to a visit to a murder trials. We have gathered reports local observatory or planetarium and from non-death-related D & D violence, enlist the local science-teaching com­ including rape, attempted murder, and munity in the effort. Remind your editor theft cases. We have examined the diaries that he is asking his readers to give the and writings of suicide victims and same credence to the astrology columns murderers and carefully interviewed the as to his news and editorials if he does murderers themselves. not adopt the disclaimer. Let us launch The results of our study found many Operation Reason, whose ultimate goal instances where the intense, sadistic vio­ is to put astrology where it belongs—in lence, common in D & D role-playing, the dustbin of history. And, remember, had markedly increased fantasies of your local minister may be a helpful killing other human beings. In several source of support for your campaign. The cases the murderers told us that their Judeo-Christian tradition has long de­ killing actions came directly from D & cried astrology as vigorously as has the D materials. In suicide cases we have scientific community. multiple instances of suicide notes and diaries carefully detailing the increase in Lawrence Cranberg violent fantasies, linking these to D & D Austin, Texas role-playing, and detailing the reasons that they were killing themselves. In Editor's note: Newspapers publish astrol­ another case, a suicide was actually an ogy columns not because their editors attempt to replicate D & D astral- believe in them but because their readers traveling. want them, just as readers want countless We have asked for a careful hearing other features—from serious to silly—that by the Consumer Product Safety Com­ newspapers run. As a journalist myself, I mission to examine the more than 60 submit that newspaper editors are very homicides and suicides that have now independent sorts and take great pride in been linked to fantasy role-playing vio­ resisting pressures, from whatever direc­ lence. We welcome any study looking at tion. One needs to work with them, not the rates of violence and suicide in FRP against them. A positive approach is players compared with nonplayers. How­ much more likely to be successful than a ever, that type of epidemiologic study negative one. would far exceed our financial abilities. We have asked the U.S. government to fund a $50,000 study of that type, but Violence and D & D have gotten nowhere. We have surveyed ten leading aggres­ A letter to the editor by Jefferson Swy- sion researchers on the issue of the likeli­ caffer (SI, Summer 1986) attempted to hood that violent fantasy role-playing explain away the 28 suicides (now 32) material would increase the tendency that have been linked to Dungeons & toward violence in players. Nine out of Dragons play by, unintentionally, mis­ the ten thought that our current research representing the facts. No retroactive knowledge of violent entertainment al-

220 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 11 lows us to state with a high degree of the Condon Report, took its conclusions certainty that violent FRP play is likely seriously, and decided there must be to increase one's desensitization to vio­ nothing to the subject. lence and increase the tendency in normal Now, years later, having read the players to respond to frustration with report myself and the sources to which anger and violent behavior in real life. Klass refers in his article, the Condon This certainly does not mean that every project still makes me angry. It was not, D & D gamer will commit murder or in fact, good science. There are parts of suicide. The most likely effect is probably the report that are valuable—largely the a somewhat increased tendency to get case studies and the social science parts. angry in everyday life and a somewhat But for the most part it represented an decreased tendency to protest violence incredible waste of hundreds of thousands and war in the world around us. of dollars. I invite anyone to compare Allan Hendry's UFO Handbook, which Thomas Radecki, M.D. cost a fraction of the Colorado project's Research Director budget, with the Condon Report and tell National Coalition on me which represents a serious investiga­ Television Violence tive effort, useful data, and facts useful Champaign, 111. to know if one is going to investigate UFO reports. Anyone who has worked on a large Condon UFO study scientific project will immediately upon reading the Condon Report know what I would like to make a few observations was wrong. Each part of the team acted on Philip Klass's article on the Condon in complete lack of coordination with Report (SI, Summer 1986). Those famil­ other parts of the team. Thus Condon iar with [Class's treatment of data know could write an introduction that had very what confidence to place in his objectivity little to do with the actual results of regarding the Condon affair. I personally the investigations. The one table he pre­ find it interesting that Klass, who prides sents (with several errors of addition) has himself on his powers of detection, almost nothing to do with any of the doesn't seem to know the means by which research, and less to do with science. the Condon Report got a clean bill of "Rounding up the usual suspects" is not health from the National Academy of an appropriate approach to a complex Sciences, a move that largely nullified the scientific problem, and the negative re­ negative impacts of the Low memoran­ sults of the study simply confirm the dum, at least for the scientific community. complete lack of imagination with which For someone so concerned about public this problem was pursued. appearances, this is a strange omission. What the Condon Report did do—or Ron Westrum rather its introduction, by Condon Professor of Sociology himself—was to keep UFOs out of the Eastern Michigan University press during the period 1968-1973. It was Ypsilanti, Mich. during this time that magazines printed articles with titles like "Where Have All the UFOs Gone?" The Condon Report, Philip J. Klass replies: and this is very important, also provided an excuse for government, science, and If Westrum will reread the opening page ordinary citizens to stop looking into of my article more carefully he will find: UFO reports. The overwhelming impres­ "I cannot endorse the Colorado investi­ sion of the educated public was that gation as having been well managed. . . . science had looked into UFO reports with But under the circumstances, I doubt that adequate methods and had found nothing anyone could have done much better." there. I myself remember hearing about If Westrum has evidence that there

Winter 1986-87 221 was any impropriety in the panel created Obviously, Mr. Carswell has deliber­ by the National Academy of Sciences to ately omitted important parts, such as review the Condon study, as he insinu­ those italicized below, from the Journal ates, I urge him to promptly bring such de Montreal quotes. These were summed evidence to the attention of the NAS or up in this way in the lead paragraph of publish it. Westrum also makes an in- the abovementioned daily: sinuative attack on my "treatment of data," but fails to document his charge "It's possible that this is a truquage. a with specifics. phenomenon originating from Cod or Satan or from the realm of the para­ In the nearly 20 years since Condon normal. All possibilities have to be con­ published his conclusions on UFOs, sidered and one must keep an open mind neither Westrum nor his fellow UFO- and observe, at the start, the 'as if it proponents have been able to come up were true' attitude without failing to with an iota of scientifically credible approach all that in the most rigorous evidence to challenge Condon's con­ manner." clusions. The journalist's summary receives my As for my objectivity on UFOs, I am approval for most of its content with the content to leave the judgment to poster­ exception of her allusion to "God and ity. Westrum hardly qualifies as a neutral Satan," which referred, in reality, to an observer considering his position state­ opinion that, as I had specified in our ment that "UFOs may or may not be interview, originated among some of the extraterrestrial spaceships. Actually the local residents (and not my own personal question is of little importance, for it is opinion). obvious that the intelligences which direct them are technically far more advanced The sensational news fiddled by your than we are. ..." (The Encyclopedia of contributor journalist with the hope of UFOs, edited by Ronald D. Story). making an unfortunate scapegoat sacri­ ficed to the triumphant and skeptical gallery, out of a seemingly naive sheep, has thus fizzled. 'Bleeding statue' hoax Attorney/journalist Carswell and some of his colleagues both at the bar As a subscriber to the SKEPTICAL and at the newsbench could profit from INQUIRER, and as someone who has been the conclusion by an analyst in a report "used" in a most unethical fashion either of a respected Quebec firm dealing with legal or journalisticwise by your con­ mass-communication research: tributor Robert S. Carswell ("The Hoax of the Bleeding Statue," News and Com­ Throughout all this event, journalists and ment, Summer 1986), I wish to set the medias seem to have helped themselves record straight. by feeding the growth of the phenome­ Your columnist reports on my com­ non and through the latter favoring the ments in a Montreal local newspaper in consumption of news. Later, these very people kept the leading role for them­ the following fashion: selves through debunking the myth of the miracle they had a share in creating On the other hand, Professor Louis or at least in amplifying. Belanger, a psychologist at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Mon­ Louis Belanger treal, urged people to approach the phe­ nomenon with open minds, "as if it were University of Montreal true," according to the Journal de Mon­ Montreal, Canada treal, and added that it was possible that it might be a paranormal event or one See also "Bleeding Statue Update," this caused by God or Satan. issue, p. 125—ED.

222 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 11 That dark and windy night Oh, I know that there is probably nothing "out there," but it's such fun on Unlike Poe's concession in his sonnet "To that dark and windy night to imagine Science," I will not allow you to drive that there is. my hamadryads from the wood. I've been reading your publication William H. Sapp, Principal since December and you sound for all Campobello Gramling the world like little boys reassuring each School other in the dark. Campobello, S.C.

Help us fill the shelves of the CSICOP LIBRARY S§3?^|^

K^~&''- As J? V>t<

We need books, magazines, and dippings The new unique CSICOP Library/ Data Bank will include a comprehensive collection of the literature on pseudoscience and paranormal claims—from the skeptic's viewpoint, the be­ liever's, and points in between. It will be the indispensable and definitive source for scholars and researchers and will enable us to respond more ably to the scores of daily requests we receive from scientists, the media, and the public for information on pseudoscience and paranormal subjects. We need contributions of relevant books, journals, maga­ zines, clippings, and unpublished material. Or perhaps you would like to help with monetary support for this important project. All donations are tax-deductible. If you have any questions, please call Elizabeth Gehrman, at 716-834-3222. Please send your contributions to: CSICOP Library Box 229 Buffalo, New York 14215-0229

Winter 1986-87 223