My post last night mentioning CSICOP's sTARBABY scandal wasn't about astrology, it was about skeptics lying about their expertise and their low level of integrity and total lack of honesty. It was also about incompetence, once proven, passed off as fact by scientists who knew it wasn't true, in the interest of their promotion of materialist ideology.
For an ideological cult which disclaims such things as argument from authority, idol worship and blind credulity, they are notably reliant on all three to maintain a following in a large group of people whose "skepticism" consists of all three of those. It has to because most of the self proclaimed "skeptics" are entirely lacking in the knowledge to even understand the issues involved in scientific research.
As the three major participants in the sTARBABY scandal, Paul Kurtz, George Abell and Marvin Zelen prove, even some people whose professional and academic fields require that knowledge failed to understand the issues involved. George Abell was a rather prominent astronomer at UCLA and Marvin Zelen was a statistician who taught at Harvard, yet they were the ones whose incompetence led to, first the incompetently framed challenge made against the claims of the neo-astrologers Michel and Françoise Gauquelin, and then the ever worsening incompetence in handling it and then the wider cover up by them, Paul Kurtz, the head of CSICOP and numerous other atheist-"skeptical" organizations, the central figure in American pseudo-skepticism. And by all of the members of CSICOP who were aware of the scandal, competent to understand it and who, yet, did nothing and remained with an organization they knew were publishing fraudulent claims about science and the conduct of the Gauquelins.
That group of CSICOP "Fellows" includes Carl Sagan, who as an astrophysicist and astronomer specializing in the solar system certainly understood the issues and Ray Hyman, whose grasp of statistics certainly was enough to have understood that aspect of the problem his colleagues made for themselves, though he may not have understood the physics of it. I would add Martin Gardiner to that group of CSICOP superstars whose professional and media PR should have meant he understood the botch that Kurtz, Abell and Zelen made of the thing and the depth of dishonesty in the cover up. If he's going to be held up as a mathematical genius, it's only fair to hold him responsible in this scandal.
And here, today, we find that such luminaries of the "skeptical" movement as James Randi and Michael Shermer are teaching young "skeptics" to misrepresent themselves as "experts" in "Communicating Skepticism to the Public". Joined by such organizers as Susan Gerbic, whose intention is to turn popular online authorities as Wikipedia into tools of "skepticism". And, since they are all conjoined, you can safely substitute any of the the words "materialism" or "scientism" or "atheism" for "skepticism" and you'll never be far off.
I have little in common with Dennis Rawlins, the ultra-skeptic, old line materialist and obnoxious atheist except a respect for the standards of science, a requirement to be honest and the need to correct mistakes in public statements about science. We also share a skepticism in astrology, neo or old fashioned. And if you doubt my characterization of him, look at his thoughts on Atheism and Religion at his website, complete with many false statements and accusations. Rawlins, in common with many of his ideology, doesn't care much for history when it doesn't say what they want it to, which is especially odd for someone with his CV.
I am skeptical of astrology or any other form of determinism, I'm not an absolutist on the issue, as Rawlins is. His pretty old fashioned materialism precludes one of the purported requirements of science, that all questions remain permanently open, that any claim of even long standing science can be subjected to new information and even overturned*. Not being a dogmatic or ideological materialist, I prefer to take the claim of scientists that all questions are open to account for new information. There are interesting critiques that can be made, even while maintaining my skepticism. You don't get to break the rules of science based on whether or not you like what's being talked about, not while claiming that those rules are inviolable and required of everyone else.
The Strange Case of Astrology, the philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend's critique of Paul Kurtz's well known petition against astrology, the origins of both CSICOP and the challenge made against Gauquelin, was interesting in pointing out how scientists both wanted to have extremely subtle effects of the sun and planets on organisms and each other recognized while denying any possible effects that they didn't like. He also pointed out that few, if any, of the famous people who signed onto Kurtz's call for forbidding the topic of astrology in public life had studied it. Their objections to it were based, firmly in not knowing anything about its claims. It's well worth reading in full as he makes some unusual and entirely rational and important points.**
The conclusion I drew from reading all of these things isn't that astrology is established or valid, it is that scientism and self-announced "skepticism" are just as liable to be wishful thinking and to lead to error and open dishonesty as any other area of human folly. As the sTARBABY scandal proves, even a high degree scientific competence (Abell, Zelen, Sagan, Hyman) isn't a guarantee of avoiding folly and dishonesty when it's a question of protecting your ideological preferences. Those whose scientific knowledge is very low, often consisting of what is more accurately termed urban myth and folk lore, are even more likely to be at the mercy of their cherished beliefs, in the case of scientism, one that I think is probably more difficult to question than Biblical Fundamentalism frequently is. You see, they have the oracle of "science" to guarantee it.
I read through Patrick Curry's analysis of the sTARBABY scandal last night. It is very hard going because the years long mess they made of it added layer after layer of complication. I would have to go through it for many hours to really understand all of the issues. His conclusions are the easiest part of it to understand.
I don't think I need to stress how badly the Committee has handled the investigation of the Mars effect; the facts above speak for themselves. Their work could now best function as a model and a warning of how not to conduct such investigations. Given the ample internal (Rawlins) and external (Gauquelin) warnings that went suppressed or ignored, it is even difficult to accept protestations of "good faith" and "naivete" (Abell, 1981c). Rawlins and Gauquelin are in fact, the only two major figures to emerge with scientific credibility intact. It seems to me that this situation must call into question any further (unrefereed, at least) CSICOP involvement in research on the Mars effect, and possible other "paranormal" areas.
I earlier mentioned that there are occasions in the history of science when a "sociological" explanation seems called for. This seems to be one. It would have to take into account such considerations as: the nature of claims being investigated; undue involvement of scientists with media and publicity, or perhaps conversely, unique (especially in America?) pressures of public-relations on science; considerations of where power resides in such an organization; and how it is exercised (financially? publishing rights?); and lastly, how information circulates, or fails to circulate. (of SI [Skeptical Inquiry, the official publication of CSICOP, now CSI] policy, we are now aware; readers of SI alone are not so lucky. [Skeptical Inquiry was the major organ of the botch and the cover up.] Also, there are a number of "big name" figureheads on the masthead; are they aware of CSICOP behavior, which they presumably support?)
Of course, it could be argued - and has been (e.g. by Abell, 1981c) - that the entire testing of Gauquelin's work was a purely "personal experiment," and nothing to do with CSICOP. This would involve believing that these experiments "just happened" to be run by the Chairman and Fellows of the CSICOP, and be published in its official organ. It would also overlook the fact that Rawlins was paid (starting Oct. 20, 1977) with CSICOP checks for his calculations; and contradict Abell's earlier (1978b) description of "the subcommittee that agreed to look into the Mars effect on behalf of the Committee." Finally, such backpedaling is unflattering to CSICOP; if true, it implies that an organization whose much-publicized raison d'etre is ".... Scientific Investigation..." The scientific quality of its work, if we refuse disownment, is something that thankfully needs no further comment.
But, as mentioned, none of the major figures or the minor accomplices in the scandal ever suffered any serious loss of public credulity of professional consequences, some of the worst continued, in the intervening decades and today to be presented in the media as entirely reliable and even some of those, such as Paul Kurtz, who proved their total incompetence, as experts. James Randi, totally incompetent to understand science and a proven liar, deceiver and fraud, is held up as even a figure of science and promoted, by scientists as an ally and practically as a colleague. Prominent scientists associate with him and add luster to his PR events such as his Amazing Meetings. Science journalism, when it comes to the pseudo-skeptics and the materialists practice the same standards as the journalists in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Apparently that's a standard of truth that can get you far in the world of "science," these days.
* He shares that closed minded attitude with a lot of scientists, even some who will both share his dogmatic view of things while mouthing the claims that all scientific holdings are contingent and open to testing with new information. It's a very old and illogical holding, one that isn't compatible with the very foundations of science in empirical observation. A particularly bad case of it was from the 19th century scientific polymath, Hermann von Helmholtz.
"I cannot believe it. Neither the testimony of all of the Fellows of the Royal Society, nor even the evidence of my own senses, would lead me to believe in the transmission of thoughts from one person to another independently of the recognized channels of sensation. It is clearly impossible."
If he distrusted the evidence of his own senses on that question, that would mean that his senses were unreliable, something that is frequently asserted by pseudo-skeptics but only when what is observed isn't to their liking. That only impeaches the reliability of observation, one of the absolute requirements of science. If he rejected the unanimous judgement of the Fellows of The Royal Society, that would impeach the very substance of science which consists of the judgement of the majority of scientists working and publishing science at any given date. Without those two things science as it's asserted to be, wouldn't exist. But I've never found the materialists to be especially good at reflecting on things like that, they take so much as a given without understanding what it is they are taking as given.
As I've pointed out many times, materialism, at its most rigorous assertion, would invalidate not only all of science but the possibilities of objective observations or analysis and even the possibility of people discerning anything that had the transcendent property of being true.
** It's also worth reading this paper which includes a long analysis of what Feyerabend said and why he may of said it.
It is unsurprising that Feyerabend was familiar with the Humanist
statement. He was well informed and widely read, with a keen sense for the wider cultural and intellectual scene. It is equally unsurprising that he disliked it, partly for its reliance on a crudely triumphalist account of the historical development of science, and partly because it evinced a range of intellectual attitudes to which he was starkly opposed. Feyerabend offered three specific objections first, the "religious tone of the document; second, the weakness--or, in his preferred term, "illiteracy"--of the arguments; and, third, the authoritarian tone and style of the statement. Rather than summarise each objection in turn, which Feyerabend does clearly enough anyway, Iwill focus only on those aspects germane to the theme of epistemic integrity. The core of Feyerabend's objections is that the authors and signatories of the Humanist statement criticise astrology by an appeal to their authority rather than by offering a carefully informed procedurally impeccable critical analysis and rebuttal of astrology. With characteristically imaginative flair, this objection is presented byunfavourably comparing the statement with the Catholic Church's witch hunters manual, the Malleus Maleficarum , also known as the Hexenhammer, or "The hammer of the witches"...
No comments:
Post a Comment