Arizona Skeptic - Vol 3 No 2 - 1990

Magazine Overview

Title: The Arizona Skeptic
Issue: February/March 1990 Edition
Publisher: Phoenix Skeptics
Focus: Promoting Critical Thinking

The Secret of the Challenger Secret Mission

This article by Michael A. Stackpole critically examines a theory presented in an advertisement from 'The 'From the Earth to the Sky organization' (also known as 'UFO Multidimensional'). The theory claims the Challenger shuttle's secret mission was to transport a powerful thermo-nuclear missile to investigate Halley's Comet. According to the theory, 'Superior Intelligences' communicated with countries to prevent this 'attack on the cosmos,' and when unsuccessful, destroyed the Challenger. The article highlights several inconsistencies with this claim:

• Missile Size and Fit: The article analyzes the cargo bay dimensions of the Challenger and compares them to the sizes of potential missiles like the Titan II, Poseidon C-3, Trident D-5, and Minuteman III. It concludes that only the Poseidon C-3 and Trident D-5 might fit, but their weight exceeds the shuttle's payload capacity. The Minuteman III is also too heavy.
• Launch Timing: Even if a missile could fit, the article calculates that a Poseidon C-3 launched in September 1985 would have been needed to hit Halley's Comet at its closest approach in April 1986, but the Challenger launched in January 1986.
• Parachute Anomaly: The theory mentions a large white parachute that automatically deployed after the explosion, carrying the missile to a safe landing in the ocean. The author questions the origin of this parachute, especially given the altitude of the explosion (57,000 feet).
• Astronaut Survival: The theory posits that the seven astronauts were teleported to a 'Fourth Dimension' by 'Higher Intelligences' and are alive. This is contrasted with the idea that their bodies might have been left behind, a concept the author finds disturbing.

The article dismisses the theory as having 'holes large enough to drive a Titan II ICBM through,' questioning the logic of a superior intelligence needing to use a nuclear missile or failing to simply teleport it away.

Dissension in the Ranks of the Institute for Creation Research

This section by Jim Lippard discusses potential schisms within the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). It focuses on articles by Dr. Gerald E. Aardsma, who has challenged some prevailing creationist views:

• Speed of Light Decay: Aardsma's article 'Has the Speed of Light Decayed?' debunks Barry Setterfield's claim that the speed of light has been decreasing. Aardsma's reanalysis shows no decay trend and critiques Setterfield's data points.
• Radiocarbon Dating: Aardsma's article 'Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating' debunks common creationist arguments against radiocarbon dating, including 'Myth #3' which claims that shells of live freshwater clams dated over 1600 years old invalidate the technique. Aardsma explains that such cases involve contamination from dissolved limestone.

Lippard notes that while Aardsma's critiques seem to distance the ICR from these theories, the ICR's 'Back to Genesis' seminar endorsed the speed of light decay theory. He also mentions an unanswered request for a technical report from an ICR member.

HGH 3X and The New England Journal of Medicine

Mark Adkins investigates claims made in commercials for a dietary aid called 'HGH-3X,' manufactured by Hi-Health. The commercials imply that an article in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) supports claims that subjects experienced a significant decrease in body fat. Adkins found that the NEJM article (Vol. 321, No. 26, p. 1797) discusses the effect of recombinant human grown hormone (rhGH) on individuals deficient in it, a strictly regulated substance not available for purchase. Hi-Health admitted that HGH-3X contains no rhGH but rather four protein amino acids, claiming it stimulates the pituitary gland to produce more rhGH. Adkins points out that the NEJM article says nothing about the effect of protein amino acids on the pituitary gland.

But Is It Science?

This is a review by Jim Lippard of Michael Ruse's book 'But Is It Science?', a collection of essays examining the philosophical question of whether creationism or evolution satisfies criteria for science. The book is divided into four parts: the historical background of creationism, evolution in the 1980s, creationist arguments, and the philosophical aftermath. Lippard discusses the arguments presented, including those by Ronald Numbers, Henry Morris, and Duane Gish, and the legal cases surrounding creationism. He focuses on the philosophical debate about 'demarcation'—how to distinguish science from non-science—and the arguments of philosophers like Larry Laudan and Philip Quinn, who challenge the possibility of clear demarcation criteria. Lippard, while agreeing with some of their points against a specific legal decision, argues that the concept of demarcation is not entirely useless and that creationism fails to meet reasonable definitions of science.

What is Occam's Razor?

Michael A. Stackpole addresses a question about Occam's Razor. He explains it as the philosophical maxim that 'Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity,' meaning the simplest explanation is usually the best. Stackpole applies this principle to paranormal investigations, using the example of a haunted house. He argues that attributing noises to a ghost requires numerous unproven assumptions (existence of spirits, ability to create physical effects, etc.), whereas simpler explanations like natural house noises or a resident's unfamiliarity with the house are more practical and testable.

Editorial Blathering

This section explains the shift to a monthly newsletter format due to technical issues and a desire for more timely content. It solicits short articles (under 2000 words). It also mentions an article about the Phoenix Skeptics in the Arizona Business Gazette and the author's appearance on the Jami McFerren radio show, where critical thinking and skepticism were discussed.

Who Are We?

Michael A. Stackpole, executive director of the Phoenix Skeptics, outlines the organization's purpose and membership criteria. The Phoenix Skeptics endorse the scientific method as the most reliable approach to knowledge but do not reject claims a priori. They aim to subject paranormal, occult, and fringe claims to tests of science, logic, and common sense, acting as a clearinghouse for information and promoting critical thinking. Membership is open to anyone in the greater Phoenix area who shares these concerns, regardless of background or beliefs, as long as they agree that truth is established through rational inquiry. The group does not investigate doctrinal matters based in religion but will examine claims of faith healing and cult crimes. They emphasize the need for proof and evidence, rather than 'expert's blanket assurance.'

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around critical thinking, skepticism, and the scientific method applied to extraordinary claims. The magazine actively debunks pseudoscientific theories, conspiracy theories, and paranormal phenomena, providing rational explanations and highlighting logical fallacies. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of evidence-based reasoning and a rigorous approach to evaluating claims, whether they pertain to space missions, scientific theories, health products, or supernatural phenomena. The publication aims to educate its readers on how to approach such claims with a discerning and analytical mindset.