Skeptics and Quackhunters: "Christian Black Ops"?

SOME REFERENCES

[July 2004] This is some information I clipped from the internet a month ago while searching for connections revealing religious (Christian) motivations discernible within the "skeptics" movement. I have already satisfied myself that the Quackbusters (see www.QuackpotWatch.org) are a mainly Christian endeavor (started by 7th Day Adventists from Loma Linda) of devout individuals fighting the devil in holistic medicine. I think I see the same phenomenon thinly disguised within the Skeptics movement.

These two paragraphs are from the section just below them

...Skeptical attitudes towards religion are important as well. Most local groups now state, informally or formally, that the belief or disbelief in God is not an issue appropriate to their forum. In its literature, NCAS specifies that it does not deal with topics that are beyond scientific proof, such as the existence or non-existence of God. This makes it clear that NCAS is not a Secular Humanist organization, though Secular Humanist members are welcome. ISUNY makes no formal statement concerning religion, but accepts people of all beliefs. It is an example of a Skeptic group that had no Secular Humanists among its founding members, though again, if they wish to join they are welcome.

In 1997 Paul Kurtz called a joint meeting of leaders of Skeptic and Secular Humanist groups in Buffalo in order to discuss the creation of "centers for inquiry" in several US cities. The proposal included shared use of these educational centers by Skeptics and Secular Humanists, and formal affiliation of Skeptic groups with CSICOP and Secular Humanism. According to attendees at this event, all but two Skeptic groups present declined this invitation. Skeptic group leaders felt that formal affiliation with an atheist group would cause a decline in their membership. Apparently this common feeling came as something of a surprise to some of the leaders of local Skeptic groups. Each group was aware of their own stance on issues of religion, but they were not aware that these feelings were shared widely.

Brief History of the Skeptics Movement

(http://www.str.com.br/English/Res/skeptics.htm)

from the Round Earth Society, a report on skeptic organizations, and the movement…

Organized skepticism began in 1976 with the founding of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), headquartered in Buffalo, New York. Several of the founders, including philosopher Paul Kurtz were part of what was then a movement within Humanism called Secular Humanism. Secular Humanism, which asserts that atheism is secular and is a view that scientific evidence tends to support, broke with the American Humanist Association in 1980 and formed the Council for Secular Humanism.⁴ Because Paul Kurtz chairs both the Council for Secular Humanism and CSICOP, many books and articles published about skepticism have emphasized the relationship between these two movements. But from its beginnings, organized skepticism has been influenced by members with various philosophies and ideas, and this variety is still very much apparent in the expressions of organized skepticism today.

CSICOP and it's journal Skeptical Inquirer have inspired the creation of numerous local Skeptic and rationalist groups in many parts of the United States, and in other countries. One local group, the Skeptics Society in Pasadena, California, has launched a nationally distributed magazine, The Skeptic, so currently there are two journals for skepticism in the United States. Internationally, organized skepticism is most prevalent in English-speaking countries, but the movement has spread world-wide. One important point about all these groups is that there is no formal affiliation between US local or other national Skeptic groups and CSICOP. Affiliation between US local groups and CSICOP has been discussed in the past, but never occured. Also, while CSICOP recruits scholars and wealthy patrons as invited members, the local groups must build membership in the same way as any small special interest groups: recruiting members through interest in their events and publications. So individual groups chart their own course.

Goals of the Skeptics Movement

The focus of organized skepticism is said to be challenging claims of the supernatural and paranormal, exposing scams, frauds, and hoaxes, and promoting critical thinking. Skeptic groups typically host eight to ten lectures per year during the fall, winter, and spring, open to the public, as well as informal events for members. Some larger groups, such as NCAS, also host larger weekend meetings from time to time, designed to attract skeptics from other areas. Skeptics write articles for Skeptic and popular science publications and author books on a variety of subjects. Skeptics may also lobby the government and the media on issues of importance to them, and some Skeptics make television or radio appearances. As you may see from the example I have just given, Skeptics may delve into many topics in addition to those considered central. For some NCAS Skeptics, actual product testing is an extension of skeptical interest in debunking frauds. Issues related to the year-2000 bug have been a focus of interest of both NCAS and the ISUNY in the past year (1999). General science topics of interest also appear in Skeptic group's lecture series. This September, NCAS hosted an entertaining presentation of Mathematical "magic," by math whiz Arthur Benjamin, at the University of Maryland that attracted many non-members including quite a few parents with children.

Variation and Change Among Skeptics

Skeptics have a variety of approaches to skepticism and describe themselves in several ways. Skeptics that take a philosophical position of strong disbelief in certain subjects sometimes call themselves "Hard Skeptics." These Skeptics may best be described as coming from an "I'm from Missouri" school that demands strong proof of claims in the paranormal or supernatural. Hard Skeptics often cite magician James Randi, philosopher Paul Kurtz, and/or mathematician Martin Gardner, all founders of CSICOP, as examples of their stance on skepticism. Skeptics who sometimes describe themselves as "Skeptics in the tradition of Carl Sagan" take the view that agnosticism is the right approach to certain issues when clear proof one way or the other is not available. Mike Sofka, of the ISUNY skeptics has called this "scientific skepticism" because it presents the scientifically neutral position to issues that are neither proved nor disproved.5 Marcello Truzzi, a sociologist who helped found CSICOP and edited its early journal, calls this "true skepticism" because it adheres to the standard definition of skepticism meaning "doubt." For Truzzi, this issue of skepticism as disbelief vs. skepticism as doubt was one of the reasons he parted company with CSICOP in its early years.⁶

Although this description of "two kinds of Skeptics" may sound simple, it is not. For some, what is being argued are issues of personal belief. For others, performance style may be the primary issue. For instance, some Skeptics may advocate the emotional and confrontational rhetoric they call "rants" or "tirades" while others prefer a more academic style of presentation. Clearly there are more kinds of Skeptic than two. For example, many "Hard Skeptics" may be atheist or agnostic. But some may point to the example of Martin Gardner, a theist Skeptic, as evidence that one can be a Hard Skeptic and still hold a belief in God. I have found that an important principle to keep in mind is that free thinkers will think freely. Although Skeptics sometimes joke about "The Skeptic's Manual" and some may feel that there are certain works that all Skeptics should read, there is no manual and no absolute agreement on what "skepticism" means, or what ideas all Skeptics should believe or disbelieve. Individuals are free to make up their own minds.⁷

One ongoing debate within skepticism is the scope of the claims they challenge. The example given by CSICOP and its publications is not clear as to the boundaries of their inquiry. Articles and books on topics such as divination, ghosts, UFOs, and psychic ability are the expected fare. But at various times CSICOP publications have attacked feminism, religion, the discipline of psychology excepting behaviorism, the discipline of anthropology, and various works of fiction. These critical views on topics outside the stated focus of skepticism have provoked debate among members of Skeptic groups. The criticism of feminism, for example, came at a time when Skeptic groups were trying to recruit more women members. Complaints have been taken to heart, and now, if an article critical of feminist philosophy appears in Skeptical Inquirer at all, it is likely to be written by a woman. Skeptics have repeatedly criticized CSICOP's penchant for debunking fiction. Its long-running attack on the X-Files is particularly divisive, since many Skeptics are fans of the show. Because some Skeptics watch the program, they are also aware of glaring mistakes in some reviews published by CSICOP, and express the feeling that if fiction is to be criticized at all, the criticism should at least be accurate. Others express concern that shows such as the X-Files promote negative views of science and perpetuate unscientific ideas. They argue that science should be presented in a manner that promotes a positive view of science and scientists, even in fictional television, since fictional television may be a powerful medium for getting that message accross.

Skeptical attitudes towards religion are important as well. Most local groups now state, informally or formally, that the belief or disbelief in God is not an issue appropriate to their forum. In its literature, NCAS specifies that it does not deal with topics that are beyond scientific proof, such as the existence or non-existence of God. This makes it clear that NCAS is not a Secular Humanist organization, though Secular Humanist members are welcome. ISUNY makes no formal statement concerning religion, but accepts people of all beliefs. It is an example of a Skeptic group that had no Secular Humanists among its founding members, though again, if they wish to join they are welcome.

In the fall of 1998, in response to an article in the Skeptical Inquirer that was anti-Christian in tone, leaders of twelve Skeptic groups, eleven in the US and one in Taiwan, organized themselves by Internet and wrote a letter protesting the inclusion of this article. The letter was signed by members of both the National Capital Area Skeptics and the Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York.⁸

Another change advocated by many Skeptics is in the choice of language used to represent skepticism to others. For instance, a phrase that has commonly appeared in articles by Skeptics and in statements in the brochures or Web sites of skeptic groups was an expression of concern about "the rising tide of irrationality." But although this phrase became an identity marker demonstrating alliance with organized skepticism and a statement of shared concern, it has increasingly been criticized by Skeptics themselves. At the NCAS Millennial Madness workshop in May 1999, Chip Denman critiqued this phrase as, perhaps, skepticism's own bit of Millennialism, asking questions such as, "What do we mean by irrationality? How is it measured? How do we know it is rising?" It seems that this phrase, as a marker of skeptical identity, may be going out of fashion.

These events are an indication to me as a researcher that Skepticism is going through changes as it grows, as we might expect in any social movement, and that local groups are beginning to discover the things they have in common. Perhaps because the movement has steadily grown and this may inspire confidence and stability, Skeptics also seem increasingly willing to critique themselves and express strong views on the ways they do and do not want skepticism to be presented to the public. This self-analysis is, of course, a good thing, for any rational endeavor should be willing to critique itself.

Creative Expression and the Rise of Moderation

Skeptics who advocate more moderate views, or more moderate language, or clearer boundaries for skeptical inquiry often must face the problem that the louder voices of confrontational Skeptics will be heard above theirs, especially when those confrontational Skeptics represent the movement at a national level in the nationally distributed journals or on television and radio. The issues are similar to the common debate about political rhetoric: mud-slinging gets attention and media coverage, so many political handlers recommend it. But, the counter argument goes, mud-slinging can backfire and besides, center-of-the-road candidates are more likely to win; providing they can make themselves heard. For Skeptics, how do those who wish to critique skepticism's more extreme expressions and have a voice in charting its future course make themselves heard? For some the answer is to turn the same kind of critiques used on the beliefs of others towards their own movement.

The ISUNY Skeptics have several members with a particular talent for satire, and they often turn that satire on skepticism itself. They are not the only Skeptics who satire skepticism, but they are especially prolific writers. Often these satires are presented by characters the group calls their "sock puppets," an Internet term for a fictional persona. For example, David Quinne, the skeptical psychic and graduate of Maharishi International University, writes an "Ask the Psychic" column in the ISUNY newsletter The Why Files. Why would a psychic become a Skeptic? David Quinne writes:

Personally, I like the uniforms best. They're jet-black with red insignia and berets. Only the officers wear them to most meetings, but we always dress up for investigations. When you show up at a haunted house in uniform, with night sticks and jackboots, people take notice! The ID is also handy when there is a long line at the store. I like flashing it and saying "Step aside, step aside, official skeptic business here,'Ô and then buy a loaf of bread, or a stick of gum or something. You can feel the eyes burning holes in your back, but it don't bother me. We're skeptics, and you can see the jealousy.⁹

Another character is Nick Cooper, an investigator for CSICAAP, the Committee for the Sensationalized Instigation of Clowns Arguing Against the Paranormal, and a skeptic who takes no prisoners. He has debunked such gullible practices as Ground Hog's Day and Swing Dancing. Cooper manages to offend just about everyone and is proud of it. Several of Nick Cooper's articles are examples of "mock rants," a genre of humor among Skeptics that frequently shows up on skeptical Internet Listservs.

The antics of David Quinne and Nick Cooper were once confined to the internal communications of the Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York. In 1997 the two posted a jointly written article to the Skeptics Listserv debunking the a haunted house scam in Lowville, NY. To their dismay, a child in sheets faked a ghost and peeled grapes were passed off as eyeballs by the shameless perpetrators of this hoax. The article, of course, was posted on Halloween.

Since then, David Quinne, Nick Cooper, and other "sock puppet" characters have posted articles to listservs that rib Skeptics about their more extreme expressions, challenge the definition of the boundaries of skepticism, and occasionally parody skeptical rhetoric so well that it is difficult to tell from the real thing. I remember having to re-read a scathing review of the children's book "The Little Engine that Could" several times before I realized it was by Nick Cooper, and therefore a parody. It does make life for an ethnographer especially interesting when some members of a group turn out to be fictional!

Sometimes a few participants in the Skeptics listserv complain about the views expressed by these fictional Skeptics. But others seem to enjoy the humor, and may even help to keep the fiction going. Once, when one Skeptic on the list asserted that the true identity of Nick Cooper was ISUNY Skeptic and author Peter Huston, list participant David Bloomberg was quick to challenge this claim, "I've met Nick Cooper. I know Nick Cooper. Peter Huston is NO Nick Cooper!" (Skeptics Listserv, Sept. 9, 1998. Quoted with permission.).¹⁰

Conclusion

In this short paper, I cannot possibly do justice to all the interesting adventures of these and other ISUNY fictional Skeptics. But you can explore some of them for yourself. Many of the writings of these and other characters created by members of ISUNY are available through the Web sites (http://www.temple.edu/isllc/newfolk/skepticsa.html) listed in the appendix. Please note that views expressed by investigator Nick Cooper do not represent those of the Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York.

In his discussions of science and belief David Hufford has suggested that folklorists should examine groups that organize themselves around shared disbeliefs, as well as groups that organize themselves around beliefs.¹¹ In my own studies I have been frustrated by the scarcity of scholarly research on grass-roots expression of scientific enthusiasm and of disbelief in the supernatural or of cultural expressions of atheism and agnosticism. If folklorists who study belief often take up areas of belief not studied by other disciplines, than traditions of disbelief should surely be among the things we study.

Skeptics, as a group with diverse interests, have a good deal to offer folklorists as well. For those of you who may be interested in UFO's, the Condon Report, an analysis of UFOs by the University of Colorado done between 1966-1968, has been made available online by the National Capitol Area Skeptics. In addition to the article on skepticism I mentioned, the text of Mike Sofka's lecture on UFOs that examines the experiences that may lead to certain types of sightings is available on the ISUNY Web site. A resource I think many folklorists already use is the San Fernando Valley Folklore Society's Urban Legend Reference Web site at www.snopes.com which provides an extensive database of rumors and legends compiled by David and Barbara Mikkelson. There are a number of other resources available produced by Skeptics that may be of interest to folklorists working in a variety of areas. The links listed below will provide a starting point. Especially for folklorists working in areas such as folk medicine, belief, and legends, I encourage you to get to know your local Skeptics.

Notes

1 - Jamy Ian Swiss is a professional magician and a founding member of NCAS. Back

2 - Paul Jaffe was elected president of NCAS shortly after this event, and is the currently president. Back

3 - Mike Sofka, "Myths of Skepticism," 1996. Published on the ISUNY website listed in the appendix (Mike Sofka is currently the resident of ISUNY). Back

4 - Kurtz's views on Secular Humanism and many of the ideas that influenced the founding of the Comittiee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal may be found in his book, In Defense of Secular Humanism, Prometheus Books, 1983. Back

5 - Mike Sofka discusses this in "The UFOs of October: Part I," The Why Files, vol 5 #3, 1999. This article may be found on the ISUNY website listed in the appendix. Back

6 - Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism," in the E-journal The Anomalist, reprinted from the Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987 (link listed in the appendix). Back

7 - See for example, Paul Bernhardt, "A Brief Essay on Perfect Skepticism," 1997 (link listed in the appendix). Back

8 - The article was "Why Would People Not Believe Weird Things?" by Wayne R. Anderson, Skeptical Inquirer, vol. 22 #5 October-November 1998, pp. 42-45. The letter to the editor was published in Skeptical Inquirer vol. 23 #1, January- February 1999, p. 64. Back

9 - Excerpted from David Quinne's "Ask the Psychic" Column in The Why Files, vol. 5, #2, 1999 (available from the link to the ISUNY Web site listed in the appendix). Back

10 - The ISUNY "sock puppets," Nick Cooper and David Quinne, are operated by more than one "puppeteer." Peter Huston has placed some of his contibutions to the Nick Cooper cannon on his Web site, listed in the appendix. Back

11 - See David Hufford, "The Supernatural and the Sociology of Knowledge: Explaining Academic Belief," New York Folklore, vol. 9 no. 3-4, Summer 1983, 21-29; and "Traditions of Disbelief," New York Folklore, vol. 8 no. 3-4, Winter 1982, 47-55. Back

Appendix: Selected Web Sites Related to Organized Skepticism

Bernhardt, Paul, "A Brief Essay on Perfect Skepticism," 1997

Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York

See issues of The Why Files for the column by David Quinne, "the skeptical psychic," as well as non-satirical articles, particularly "What is Skepticism?" by Peter Huston. Also see papers by Mike Sofka, including "Myths of Skepticism," 1996, and a "scholarly article" by David Quinne on "Imagination Deficit Personality."

James Randi Educational Foundation

Select "Opinions" for some examples of Randi's skeptical views.

Jim Lippard's Skeptical Information Links

A searchable presentation of many links to skeptical information on the Internet. Includes links to critiques of organized skepticism from Skeptics and others.

National Capitol Area Skeptics

Includes the text of the Condon Report on UFOs, University of Colorado, 1966-1968.

Peter Huston's Official Web Site

See especially "Satires on Skepticism."

The Skeptic

Web site for the Skeptics Society of Pasadena, CA and its national journal, The Skeptic.

Skeptical Scoundrels Web Site

Two skeptics, Dave Vaughn of the US and Shaun Cronin from Australia, collaborate on an irreverent Web site that presents satires on beliefs in the paranormal (see especially, "The Skeptic's Cookbook"), and on skepticism as well.

The Studmuffins of Skepticism Calendar (edited by Rebecca Long and Peter Bowditch); The SkepChicks Calendar (edited by David Palmer)

These Calendars were first compiled in 1999 as a joking response to the publication of a calendar called "The Studmuffins of Science," and have been enjoyed as a means for Skeptics to see the faces of distant Skeptics they only know by email. The SkepChicks Calendar also notes dates of importance to skepticism.

Truzzi, Marcello, "On Pseudo-Skepticism,"

In the E-journal The Anomalist, reprinted from the Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987.

San Fernando Valley Folklore Society's Urban Legends Reference Pages (also known as www.snopes.com)

An extensive database of rumors, legends, and factual or semi-factual warnings that circulate on the Internet, with information on the validity and history of each. Compiled by David and Barbara Mikkelson.

***

Impromptu Journal Issue 4: March, 2000

----------

The Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York

Volume 0, Issue 0

Welcome to the first, ``rapid prototype,'' issue of the Journal of the Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York (ISUNY for short). In these pages we will keep you informed of club events and provide a forum for discussion, education and entertainment. As the premiere issue, the copy you now hold may or may not reflect the final form of the newsletter. Many simple decisions remains such as selecting a name, and deciding how often the newsletter should be published. Should this, for example, be a monthly newsletter briefly describing upcoming events with short items of interest? Or, should it be a bi-monthly (or quarterly) journal offering longer and more substantial articles? My own preference is for a bi-monthly publication, because of the time involved in preparing even a simple publication such as you now hold.

Regarding a title, I am actively soliciting suggestions by announcing a name the newsletter contest. We need something more clever, less pedantic, and easier to say then The Journal of .... Other skeptic groups have newsletters called: The Skeptic (both the National Committee of Australian Skeptics, Inc. and the North Texas Skeptics), Rational Enquirer (British Columbia Skeptics), BASIS (Bay Area Skeptic Information Sheet), Rocky Mountain Skeptic, and many others. Since skeptic newsletters are re-distributed as part of CSICOP's newsletter exchange, the person who contributes the choosen title will endure lasting fame amoung a small, but interesting, group of people.

It almost goes without saying, that to make a newsletter work we need volunteers. We need volunteers to help proofread and typeset the newsletter, and, most importantly, we need volunteers to write articles and edit columns. Please see any member of the steering committee with your suggestions, or sent your article to the editor via email to: mike@rpi.edi, or by US mail to: Mike Sofka, 8 Providence Street, Albany, NY 12203. I look forward to future contributions from our members.

Ask The Skeptic.

This is Ask The Skeptic, a question and answer column edited by Peter Huston. If you have a question of a skeptical (or not so skeptical) nature Peter is the person to see. I would like to initiate this column with a question of my own. Several months ago on FOX TV's -[encounters]-, a german crop ``circle'' was discussed. The scare-quotes are used because this agri-sculpture was anything but circular. It was a shape that indicates intelligent design. The big question, of course, is whose design and where did he/she/it came from.

Amoung the properties attributed to this crop circle were: radiation levels higher then background, deformities in the wheat, and unusual, ``impossible'' to fake braiding patterns. I've seen these claims made about other crop phenomena, and remain skeptical because the details about the radiation, deformities and why the braiding pattern is so imposibile to fake were not forthcoming.

What was intersting about this particular crop ``circle'' is that three disks were found buried within the design. Each was about one foot in diameter, and included an image of the complete ``circle''. One disk was brass, the other silver and the third (you guessed it) gold. Personally, I would like to know more. My own suspicion is that it is a hoax. The very poor quality of the three disks (which looked like sand castings) adds to this assesment. But, what a hoax! Peter, you got any more information?

If you have questions for ``The Skeptic'' he can be reached by calling (518) 393-3478.

UFO's.

This is the UFO column edited by Alan French. This column will include information on local and national UFO, and UFO observer, activities. Alan is a very experience watcher of the sky, being a long time amature astonomer and telescope builder. His interest in UFOs dates back to his childhood readings, and he was the speaker at ISUNY's second meeting with his talk: The Trouble with UFOs, Crashed Saucers, and Alien Abductions. Besides writing this column, I hope Alan will give his talk again next year.

If you have questions about UFOs, have articles of interest, or suggestions for a column topic please see Alan. He can be reached via email at: 72724.2270@compuserve.com, or by calling (518) 374-8460.

------------------------

http://www.ncas.org/board.shtml

May 2003

Chris Wanjek, Science Journalist, spoke on "Bad Medicine: Health Myths and Quack Alternative Medicine"

November, 2002

Conflicts of interest in alternative medicine by Chris Mooney, journalist

May, 2002

Fred Kourmadas spoke on Science and Chiropractic

March, 2002

A survey of questionable medical devices by Mark Banash

May, 2001

NCAS Weekend - "Understanding belief" at the Hampton Inn, Winchester, VA.

September, 2000

Carol Diament talked on "In the counsel of the wicked" - her suit against two recovered memory therapists in Pennsylvania

September, 1999

Inquiry Or Inquisition? The Religious Right's War on American Values, Intellectual Freedom and Common Sense by Rob Boston, Assistant Director of Communications, Americans United for Separation of Church and State

December, 1997

Walter Rowe talked on the "Star in the East," giving various explanations for the Star of Bethlehem as described in the Gospel of Matthew.

October, 1997

Marv Zelkowitz from the University of Maryland discussed the "Bible Codes," hidden messages that predict the future that are "hidden" in the Bible.

October, 1996

Complementary and Alternative Medicine -- William D. Wurzel, Center for Mind-Body Medicine, Washington, D.C., will present an overview and lead audience discussion of complementary and alternative medicine.

March, 1996

Here We Go Again: The Campaign to Include Creationism in the Public School Science Curriculum, Deanna Duby, Director of Education Policy Research, People For the American Way

For more information call the NCAS 24-hour skeptic line recording at (301) 587-3827

The B-CC Center is located in downtown Bethesda, across the street from the rear of the Bethesda Metro station. It is on the plaza level of the Metropolitan complex, above a Montgomery County parking garage. Free parking in the garage on weekends.

Who are we? The National Capital Area Skeptics is an independent nonprofit educational and scientific organization that promotes critical thinking and scientific understanding, with a focus on paranormal and fringe-science claims. NCAS is based in the Washington, Maryland, and Virginia community, where it serves as an advocate for science and reason, actively promoting the scientific method, rational inquiry, and education. NCAS is at the front lines in the battle against gullibility and fraud.

NCAS members include scientists, students, doctors, lawyers, journalists, educators, magicians, and others who value critical thinking and scientific understanding. Through the voluntary work of its members, NCAS offers public programs and acts as an information resource for the media and the public.

NCAS Membership includes a subscription to our quarterly newsletter, "The Skeptical Eye". Local members receive our monthly bulletin of NCAS events, "The Shadow of a Doubt". Members may also borrow from from our video library, which has tapes of our programs, at no charge, except for round-trip postage.

Who are we?

NCAS is a volunteer organization run by a 16 member Board of Directors. Half of the Board is elected to a 2-year term each spring. From the Board, a set of officers (the Executive Committee) is chosen by the Board. Any member who has paid all dues is eligible to run for a Board position. Contact us at ncas@ncas.org if interested.

Current Board members

Executive Committee

Marv Zelkowitz, President
Gary Stone, Vice President
Grace Denman, Treasurer
Sharlene Deskins, Secretary
Paul Jaffe

Other Board members

Jonathan Boswell
Chip Denman
Jim Giglio
Stephen J. Goodson
Neil Inglis
Eugene Ossa
Walter Rowe
Tim Scanlon
Scott Snell
Jamy Ian Swiss
Chris Wanjek
Helen Hester-Ossa (Skeptical Eye Editor, non-voting)

Contacting NCAS

Address:
NCAS
PO Box 8428
Silver Spring, Maryland 20907

Email inquiries to: ncas@ncas.org
24-hour telephone line: 301-587-3827

-------------

Google found Chip Denman:

[http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/98/navigator981029.htm]

1998---

Chip Denman, National Capital Area Skeptics: Got it, Barry!
The web site is www.ncas.org and the phone is 301/587-3827.

…

Later I discovered magazines like Skeptical Inquirer, and eventually in 1987 my wife Grace and I joined up with a few other folks -including professional magician Jamy Ian Swiss-and started the National Capital Area Skeptics.

…Chip Denman, National Capital Area Skeptics: I'm glad you like the name-it often gets a laugh. I usually have to explain that we are skeptics, not cynics. We have about 200 members who get our monthly mailings and our web site is www.ncas.org. We host a free public lecture series with topics ranging from ghost folklore to the latest scientific debates on alternative medicine.

The next program will be the Hon. Durke G. Thompson, Associate Judge, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland talking about historical and modern standards used in federal and state courts for the admissibility of scientific evidence. He will cover landmark cases like the Scopes "Monkey Trial", DNA evidence, and "emerging science" on "multiple chemical sensitivity". It's Saturday, Nov. 14, 2 p.m., at the Bethesda branch of the Montgomery County Library, 7400 Arlington Road. It's free, and all are

…

Does a skeptic have to test everything first hand? No. But we need to learn to gauge what sources we can trust.

Science is a social activity. The image of the lone scientist in the mountain castle, lightening flashing, is very misleading. Science depends on a community of trained, skilled critiques, all ready to pounce on any individual error. Debate is essential to the enterprise. Any one individual can come up with any sort of idea -it doesn't much matter how - as long as it is held up to the scrutiny of the rest of the community. The building of consensus and the knowledge that everything is subject to review and revision give us some assurance that we don't each have to experience it all firsthand….

Berwyn, IL: Is it sufficient for a skeptic to question a phemenon (like dowsing or homeopathy), or does he actually have to come up with an alternative explanation?

Chip Denman, National Capital Area Skeptics: Good question.

I never promise to have all the answers. My main position is that it is essential to ask hard questions.

Professionally, as a statistician, that's often my most important role. I'm the allegedly impartial naysayer who asks questions about the data, the experient and everything else -- hopefully before its too late to fix any problems.

And with skeptical issues, its important to stress that the absence of an explanation does not count as proof of a supernatural one.

Education Links
The following off-site link goes to a course syllabus made available by the instructor..

University of Maryland Honors 228a, "Science & Pseudoscience"
http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/HONR/HONR228A/

Freshman/sophomore honors course evolving since 1989. Taught by Chip Denman, Statistics Laboratory, University of Maryland.

Do you teach a course that would be of interest to others concerned with critical/skeptical thinking and scientific inquiry? Please consider letting us make that kind of material available to others. Email randi@randi.org

Chip Denman
Computer & Space Sciences Building, 1429
Office: 301-405-3084
Home: 301-585-4093
denman@umail.umd.edu

HONR 228A "Science & Pseudoscience"

General course description

Every day we encounter remarkable claims--from the properties of black holes to the existence of ESP to recent sightings of Elvis. Modern science has been responsible for many seeming miracles, resulting sometimes in a blurred distinction between the proven, the sought after and the fantasy. Newspapers, magazines and TV often report sensational, mind-grabbing stories as if they were established fact. As consumers of this information, how can we sort out the useful from the bogus?

This course will explore some of the features which distinguish scientific methodology from pseudoscience. Through a variety of readings we will look back at the history of spiritualism, at controversial healing practices old and new, at "creation science," and at other extraordinary claims which class members may wish to examine. We will address mechanisms of belief, perception and deception to better appreciate why intelligent people sometimes make colossal errors of judgment. The main emphasis is NOT on giving pat explanations for alleged events--weird claims are our starting point, but the real purpose of the course is to develop an understanding of what constitutes scientific proof, rigor and evidence.

Basic scientific literacy is presumed, but the emphasis will be on scientific methodology and process rather than on particular facts. An extensive scientific background is not required; an intention to think analytically and critically is the only prerequisite. One section of this course will address the design of experiments and will emphasize probability and statistical thinking with a minimum of computation. We will examine historical experiments as well as propose new experiments to test weird or extraordinary claims; as a class we will critique the experimental designs to examine the potential strengths, weaknesses and hidden traps. Class discussions will be organized around a series of readings and guest speakers. Requirements include class participation, several short assignments, the design of an experiment for class discussion, and a final paper. Also, we will make extensive use of electronic mail to supplement class discussions.

This course has been evolving since Fall '89. It has never covered exactly the same ground twice, but the underlying subtext--scientific evaluation of remarkable claims--has always been there.

I've been asked several times, in several ways, if this class is just going to "disprove" one thing after another. I have thought about this a lot.

The point of the class is NOT necessarily to debunk everything that comes down the pike. During the short time of one semester, my goal is to introduce you to a wide range of claims and to examine whether those claims have any scientific basis. In the process, I hope to open your eyes to many illusions, delusions, fallacies, and other mental banana peels that we are all (myself included) prone to slip on. Forewarned is forearmed.

I am focused not so much on what any of you personally may believe or disbelieve. I'd be less than honest to say that I don't care at all about your beliefs, but your standing in the course does not in any way depend on these beliefs. What REALLY matters to me is how we arrive at our beliefs and how we support them once we get there. I hope that by the end of the semester, you will be able to distinguish between a scientifically supported theory vs. faith, intuition, wishful thinking, or other non-scientific reasons, good or bad.

If, any time during the semester, you are looking for the focus of anything we do, come back to this last point.

In a way, the question of "disproving" things is a slippery one. It's often said that you can't prove a negative. With some qualifiers, I would agree. Have we "disproved" astrology? Maybe the NEXT experiment will demonstrate "real" astrology, but based on the data so far, I'm doubtful.

Sometimes I'm asked, "Is ANY of this stuff real?" The question is a little imprecise. After all, there are plenty of scientific predictions, hypotheses, and theories which are well supported by data. There's even plenty of really WEIRD stuff that is supported by science; for starters, take a look into Einstein's special relativity, the biological activity at deep ocean vents, the chemistry of low-temperature superconductors, or the emerging field of psychoneuroendocrinology.

I guess the underlying question is something like, "Is any of this weird stuff that lies outside the bounds of normal science real?" I don't know. The best I can do is address the scientific evidence and encourage you to think about how the methods of "normal" science really can be used to investigate an awful lot. This thing called science is a good tool for any claim that has implications on what we can measure--anything that we can poke, prod, count, smell, or take a bite out of. There are limits--"Is there a God?" for instance--but the limits may stretch further than it seems at first.

And finally, I acknowledge that in the broad approach of our class, I am not trying to cover the depth of any particular claim. There are indeed interesting anomalies. Ask me later about the so-called "Mars effect" of Michel Gauquelin. Later we will talk about homeopathy and other "alternative" medical practices; in many cases, good tests have never been done, but when they are done, a FEW seem to produce positive results. There have probably been more formal tests of "ESP"-like phenomena than any other para-science claim. Later you will read about the problems with the famous Putoff, Targ & Geller experiments. Although they created quite a stir in the 70s, these experiments are not taken very seriously any longer. But today, a group at Princeton, led by the dean emeritus of the engineering school, Robert Jahn, reports experiments in which subjects seem to be able to affect a random sequence of 0s and 1s simply by willful intention. The effect is statistically very significant, but in practical terms very small (equivalent to getting 1 extra "heads" out of 2,500 coin tosses). The researchers are certainly competent, and no one has yet found a definitive flaw in the experiment. None the less, most of the scientific community remains skeptical. For the moment, I am perfectly comfortable saying "I don't know," while I wait for further investigation and independent replication.

Chip Denman

found at http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1992/0003.html

More on the D.C. Deposition of Geller

Chip Denman (geller-hotline)
Sat, 4 Apr 92 17:13 EST

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: James Randi: "Geller in Budapest"
Previous message: James Randi: "The Geller almost-deposition"

[Chip Denman is the President of the National Capital Area Skeptics,
and as Randi mentioned in his own description of the event (already
posted to this list) one of the people who provided significant moral
support. Thanks to Chip for this very interesting side light on
Geller's behavior during the deposition.]

Other than Randi and his attorneys, Penn, Teller and I were the only
ones who were around for the depositions. Unfortunately, none of us
were permitted by Mr. Geller to sit in on the actual proceedings.

When Mr. Geller arrived on our first morning, he dashed out of the
elevator, grabbed my hand and introduced himself warmly. "Hi, I'm
Uri!" Of course, he recognized Penn and gave him a hearty handshake
and a big smile. The fellow could have had a great career in retail
sales.

Once the depositions began, there was little to do. Mr. Geller seemed
to have trouble sitting still; even the receptionists were commenting
on his constant flitting in and out of the closed conference room.
Other folks associated with the law firm where this was taking place
would drop by just to catch the latest tidbits. Clearly this case is
not exactly the norm for Washington. On the rare breaks, Randi seemed
alternately disgusted by the various insinuations and renewed with
determination to see this mess through to its proper conclusion.

Of course, I wasn't inside to actually see it, but I understand that
things were livened up a bit when Randi, in making a point about the
simple nature of certain tricks, vanished a pen or pencil from the
table. That story even got a small mention in the Washington Post.

The next and final morning, Randi & I were there alone. Once again,
Randi's attorney asked permission for me to sit in; again it was
denied. But just before things got underway, Mr. Geller came out and
apologized to me up, down, and sideways for having to exclude me.
Right.

I mostly sat out of sight--but within earshot--of the reception area.
(I took advantange of the forced confinement to write a talk that I
was to give at Johns Hopkins on Spiritualism and psychical research.
There are some interesting parallels here to the 19th century.) I
could hear Mr. Geller coming and going, looking for his lunch, etc. I
wondered what would happen if I made myself more visable, so I took my
computer and moved to the outer area. Sure enough, on his next trip
through Mr. Geller sat down on the sofa beside me to chat. He wanted
to know ALL about me. Where did I live? Did I use computers in my
work? Do I ever do outside consulting? I had the distinct impression
that he REALLY wanted to know who the hell I was and whether I was
perhaps an expert digging up useful bits o' information. I suppose
the vibes just weren't clear that day.

As Randi has already said, the 1 1/2 days turned into 3 of Randi being
deposed. There was no time left to turn the tables. As things wound
down on the last day, Paul Kurtz and Barry Karr were there, getting
ready for their turn the next day. We stepped into a side room to
chat about the whole affair. What a surprise to find Mr. Geller,
literally ear to the door, every time we looked into the hallway!

Chip Denman
President, National Capital Area Skeptics
for whom I'm not speaking.
NCAS >encourages critical and scientific thinking
>serves as an information resource on extraordinary claims
>provides extraordinary evidence that skeptics are cool

Next message: James Randi: "Geller in Budapest"
Previous message: James Randi: "The Geller almost-deposition"

--------------

found at: http://outlook.collegepublisher.com/global_user_elements/printpage.cfm?storyid=207927

Outlook Online - News
Issue: 3/12/02

Promoting Critical Assessment

While Marv Zelkowitz considered himself an unknown skeptic for 25 years and Chip Denman's interest in "weird stuff" goes back to childhood, both have found a place to explore, discuss and investigate their skeptic leanings in the National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS).

Zelkowitz, a computer science professor and Denman, a statistician with the Office of Information Technology, are both executive board members of NCAS, a non-profit organization that was created in 1987 by Denman, his wife and a friend.

"Everyone should be a skeptic," Zelkowitz says. "It's thinking critically about the world." Both men say they use their skepticism every day at work. "Part of being a statistician is always asking hard questions," says Denman, who has to investigate data thoroughly. "It's part of who I am."
Zelkowitz has worked with testing different technologies and finding what works and what doesn't.

Not all of the NCAS members are academics. A formal membership of about 250, Denman says they're a lay audience with an interest in or passion about how the world works. They want people to think critically about it. There's no oath or pledge to join the group — just annual dues of $30. They meet once a month in local libraries and invite speakers to give public lectures on various subjects such as alternative medicine, the teaching of science in schools and the latest in UFO sightings.

While most of the speakers come from the skeptic's perspective, "They're not cut from a mold," Denman says. They will bring in someone from "the other side" if the argument is well reasoned. NCAS will host a weekend workshop in April that will feature well-known skeptic James Randi.

Zelkowitz says his involvement in NCAS has been about trying to help the community. "There's too much bogus nonsense on TV and in newspapers," Zelkowitz says. NCAS sees itself as a source of information for the public. This month's NCAS calendar of events, Shadow of a Doubt, lists some points of interest for its readers: an upcoming UFO, Bigfoot and ghost conference, information on phone psychic Miss Cleo's fraud problems and the winner of a Darwin Day essay contest.

The members all have a pet interest. Denman's focus has been magic and spiritualism. He and his wife actually attended a séance in Virginia some years ago and came home "underwhelmed." He is also good friends with magician/comedians Penn and Teller; he says he can enjoy and appreciate a well-performed magic show when the performer is upfront about the absence of any real magic taking place.

Zelkowitz is more intrigued with religions and how they came about. He says his interest is on the fringe of skepticism. Since God cannot be proven or tested scientifically, it's outside the realm of skepticism. "It's more belief and ideas," he says, "but one can test the events around religion and the sacred books."

While it may appear that skeptics are always trying to debunk things, Denman said it's more than that. "It's not all about trying to tell people what they should think about. We're about promoting asking questions, demanding data," Denman says.

When claims are larger than life, it makes sense to investigate them. Should you really be concerned with cell phones, power lines and magnets in your mattress? Both men look for the scientific answers to these claims. They want to see and study the data that can prove or disprove them. Denman, who also teaches a Science and Pseudoscience honors class in the fall, says he attempts to teach his students to use science to investigate all that's weird and sensational. "It gives me a chance to challenge them about what science can do," Denman says.
"There's a belief among many that skepticism and cynicism are the same," Zelkowitz says. But while a cynic denies everything, he added, a skeptic simply asks to be convinced.

For more information on NCAS, call (301) 587-3827, send an e-mail to ncas@ncas.org, or visit www.ncas.org. Or contact Chip Denman directly at (301) 405-3084.

What's the skeptic's perspective?
Magic spells? No. David Copperfield can be explained by the use of physics and physiology.
UFOs? Yes, there are many unidentified flying objects, but no, they do not represent extraterrestrial life attempting to contact us.
Bigfoot? There's not enough evidence, but even if it were proven to exist, it wouldn't upset science as we know it.
Psychics? An explainable tactic called cold reading when psychics ask general questions, feeding off a subject's body language and saying general things that could be made personal for anyone. Some do research ahead of time and others eavesdrop on an audience before time to pull out personal facts.
Darwin? Considered a huge scientific influence. There is an immense amount of scientific evidence proving evolution and it should be taught in school.

--------------

http://www.skepticfiles.org/skeptic2/rand004.htm

mailto:frice@skeptictank.org Fredric L. Rice. I know that I am just a lowly,

unenlightened atheist, but it seems to me that it just wouldn't be right to punish people for something done by their ancestors that long ago.

access to skeptic archives:

Operation Clambake, against Scientology: http://www.xenu.net/

-----------------------

[http://www.skepticfiles.org/religion/xtnsympt.htm]

Re: Christian Symptoms of Abuse

From: romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu!aol.com!NELSON1111

To: MIT.EDU!witchhunt

You may remember that last week I posted a note after meeting with one of the

leading Christian "memory experts," Mr. X. Below are his lists of symptoms

which he uses to diagnose repressed abuse; (he says the Holy Spirit reveals

it to him as well, even by merely examining photographs).

I am soliciting scholarly responses to Mr. X, which I will deliver along with

my own, when I meet with him again in two weeks. Some of you might want to

your address and phone number, as a sign of willingness to inform and educate

him (though it isn't necessary to do so).

Please do respond, and please remember that more flies are drawn to honey

than to vinegar. Mr. X appears to be listening, so let's inform him, not

filet him (though I'm sure many of the witchhunt members have valid reason to

do so).

Here are Mr. X's lists:

LIST OF "CLEAR" SYMPTOMS OF CHILDHOOD ABUSE:

Feel unworthy of God's love

Feel "dirty"

Fits of rage

Lack of resistance

Memory gaps in childhood

Obsessive fear of rape

Same-sex attraction

Self-hatred

Uncomfortability with nudity in marriage

LIST OF "STRONG" SYMPTOMS OF CHILDHOOD ABUSE:

Compulsions

Downcast looks

Eating disorders

Fear of being alone

Fear of losing weight

Lack of trust

Migraine headaches

PMS

Uncontrollable anger

Undiagnosed pains, aches

LIST OF "POSSIBLE" SYMPTOMS OF CHILDHOOD ABUSE:

Abortion

Affairs during marriage

Alcoholic excess

Asthma

Childhood depression

Emotionally abused as child

Emotions suppressed in childhood

Guilt feelings

Hide real feelings

Low self-worth

Marital sexual disinterest

Mood Swings

Nudity forbidden in childhood home

Poor teenage opposite-sex relationships

Pornography in childhood home

Recurring bad dreams

Rejection feelings

Sexually abused or molested as child

Suicidal feelings

Teenage promiscuity

Tendency to overreact

Obviously nearly all of these "symptoms" of abuse, as arbitrarily assigned by

Mr. X, are completely devoid of any scientific basis. Arguably, a few may

have some limited validity. Certainly his "test" is useless as a diagnostic

tool.

I look forward to your responses. If this turns out to be a popular project,

with many of you contributing letters to Mr. X, then I will post updates on

witchhunt; if it is less popular, I will post updates privately to

contributors. Thanks.

By the way, the weather here in San Diego has been a little cold lately. I

think it may have gotton below 60 the other day. Last week we had killer 15

foot surf. Oh well, someone has to live in paradise, and I guess it ought to

be me...

Eric L. Nelson, M.A.

Forensic Analyst in private practice

619-230-9170

P.O.Box: 15700

San Diego, CA 92175