Rank And Obvious Dishonety - a footnote

Our reason was simple: the data are irrelevant. We used a classic rhetorical device, adynaton, a form of hyperbole so extreme that it is, in effect, impossible. 

More honestly put, they couldn't refute the science with science so they fell back on using, not a tool of science but one from literature and an especially vulgar level of popular persuasion.   That shows that science doesn't do what they want it to do so they attack science with that.  True to their typical practice,  if it' got a Greek name that will impress their audience of suckers, so much the more useful to them. 

In doing so they clearly prove something that has been obvious about organized "skepticism" from its origins in Corliss Lamont funded organized atheism, their scientific pretenses mask what is essentially a public relations style advocacy for their religious ideology.  

That was why the one and only scientific investigation for the Committee for the Scientific Investigation ff Claims of The Paranormal CSICOP, the infamous sTARBABY scandal was a complete and total scientific botch conducted by Harvard level scientific faculty (Marvin Zelen- A FRIGGIN' STATISTICIAN!) UCLA (George Abel - A FRIGGIN' ASTRONOMER) led by the University of Buffalo philosophy prof.  and general huckster of atheist orthodoxy,  Paul Kurtz.   It was so bad that Dennis Rawlins, who is a pretty serious example of their kind of atheist jerk, couldn't stand the dishonesty and blew the lid off of the carefully controlled cover-up which involved a virtual who's who of post-WWII atheist promotion.*

I'm not surprised that it's two psychologists who are doing it, it's pretty telling how many of the big names in organized atheism-skepticism are professors of that pseudo-science.  Dishonesty pervades all of it.   Though there are degrees of dishonesty practiced among them.  It's telling that it's the most rigorously honest of them who get the most flack and rejection. 

*  As another one of the anti-religious faithful said when he did a rigorous review of the evidence:

On the surface, this is plausible. The trouble with "sTarbaby" on first reading is that the case is too strong, and the cover-up too deep to be entirely believable. Like the other Fellows of CSICOP, I couldn't accept that Dennis Rawlins was the single honest and correct person on a nine-man Council consisting of men of such stature and reputation as Martin Gardner (whose mathematical games column in Scientific American had just been taken over by Hofstadter), Professor Ray Hyman, the Amazing Randi and Kendrick Frazier. In fact, Rawlins seemed to grasp at straws to include these bystanders in the conspiracy plot. It seemed more likely that Rawlins had let his anger get out of control and was seeing connivance in the most innocent remarks. This attitude might then explain why his analysis of the Mars effect had been ignored, and why he was eventually voted off the Council and out of CSICOP. Undoubtedly Rawlins was making a mountain out of a molehill. 

After seven months of research, I have come to the opposite conclusion. CSICOP has no good defense of the trio's Mars fiasco and has progressively trapped itself, degree by irreversible degree, into an anti-Rawlins propaganda campaign, into suppression of his evidence, and into stonewalling against other critics. In short, progressively stuck on the trio's tarbaby.