The Arizona Skeptic

Magazine Overview

Title: The Arizona Skeptic
Issue: Volume 5, Issue 3
Date: November/December 1991
Publisher: Phoenix Skeptics
Focus: A Journal Promoting Critical Thinking

Postscript to "Some Failures of Organized Skepticism" by Jim Lippard

This lengthy article details a chronological dispute between Jim Lippard and the Australian Skeptics, stemming from Lippard's article "Some Failures of Organized Skepticism" published in January 1990. The controversy began in March 1988 with a debate between Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Australian skeptic Ian Plimer. Plimer's aggressive stance and a subsequent summary of the debate in The Skeptic (the Australian Skeptics' publication) by Steve Roberts and Tim Mendham, which Lippard claims seriously misrepresented Gish's statements, are central to the dispute.

Lippard incorporated his findings into his January 1990 article. While the ICR responded, the Australian Skeptics initially did not. In July 1990, CSF publications "Creation Ex Nihilo" and "American Skeptic Slams Australian Skeptics" quoted Lippard's article, distributing copies at the Australian Skeptics' convention.

Mark Plummer, president of the Victoria Branch of the Australian Skeptics, contacted Lippard in July 1990, seeking an explanation for his article. This led to a series of questions from Plummer and responses from Lippard. Barry Williams, executive director of the Australian Skeptics, also commented, calling Lippard's article the "worst example of skeptical failure." Lippard's attempt to get The Skeptic to publish a correction was unsuccessful, with Williams citing cultural differences and admitting to factual errors in the original article only after Lippard's own article criticizing the Australian Skeptics was published.

The dispute continued with Lippard's article "How Not To Argue With Creationists," which criticized Barry Price and Ian Plimer. Price threatened legal action. Lippard also noted an editing error in NCSE Reports regarding Michael Denton.

Wendy Grossman of the UK Skeptics commented on the "kerfuffle," suggesting Lippard should have sent his criticisms to the Australian Skeptic first. Lippard's article "How Not To Argue With Creationists" was accepted for publication in Creation/Evolution.

Book Review: The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie

Reviewed by Hans Sebald, professor of sociology at Arizona State University.

Sebald describes "The Satanic Verses" as a Kafkaesque fairy tale, a phantasmagoric satire about the author's personal religious and ethnic background. The book's plot involves the hijacking of an airliner and the metamorphosis of two men into archangel Gabriel and a figure with horns and sulphurous halitosis. The review highlights the controversy and the "politico-religious uproar" caused by passages that allegedly offended Moslem sensibilities, including a depiction of the Prophet's wives in a brothel. Sebald notes the "T.B.'s" (True Believers') tendency to take vengeance into their own hands when confronted with blasphemy. He contrasts this with the historical "Dark Ages" of Western civilization and emphasizes the importance of separating religious and state powers. Sebald concludes that the difference between irreverence toward ideas and irreverence toward human life is crucial, and that Rushdie likely wrote the book with this distinction in mind.

Book Review: The Unfathomed Mind: A Handbook of Unusual Mental Phenomena by William R. Corliss

Reviewed by Jim Lippard.

This review discusses William R. Corliss's Sourcebook Project, which has been collecting scientific anomalies since 1974. "The Unfathomed Mind" is presented as a compilation of material from respected, peer-refereed journals, focusing on the mind's influence on the body and behavior. Corliss takes a neutral stance on parapsychology, stating that telepathy, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis are not yet proven. The book is organized into six chapters covering topics such as dissociative behavior, hidden knowledge acquisition, anomalous information processing, hallucinations, mind-body interactions, and mind over matter. Lippard notes that the book is well-organized but has a skimpy index, making it difficult to find specific information. He recommends the book for those interested in researching the human mind, despite it being due for a revision due to publications since its 1982 release.

Book Review: Labyrinths of Reason by William Poundstone

Reviewed by Mark Adkins.

Adkins describes Poundstone's book as an "entertaining melange" of epistemology, cognitive science, philosophy of logic, complexity theory, and other disciplines, held together by paradox. He calls it "bubble-gum for the skeptical mind," offering a broad range of topics without dense prose, making it accessible to a popular audience. The book is praised for its stimulating and imaginative speculations and analyses, which encourage critical thinking without being overly academic. Adkins notes that the book "excellently demonstrates that philosophy need not consist of baffling purple prose... and that flights of the imagination do not preclude stimulation of the critical mind." He contrasts this with the superficiality of New Age claims and psychic phenomena.

Letters

Mark Adkins discusses the paradox of Robert Rosenthal's work on expectancy bias, suggesting that studies claiming to find the effect might be influenced by the experimenters' own bias towards finding it. He references William Poundstone's "Labyrinths of Reason" and T.X. Barber's "Pitfalls in Human Research" regarding the lack of statistically significant expectancy effects found in many studies.

Beth Fischi comments on Jeff Jacobsen's article about "Dianetics," suggesting that L. Ron Hubbard both studied other works and made significant money from Dianetics.

October Meeting: "Magical Moments"

Reviewed by Ron Harvey.

This section reports on a meeting featuring Don Lacheman, billed as a magician and psychic. Lacheman proclaimed belief in God and astrology, explaining that God uses heavenly bodies to impart uniqueness. He then performed magic tricks and promoted his business, which includes horoscopes and psychic readings by mail. The reviewer questions whether the audience was being scammed or simply entertained.

Articles of Note

This section lists several articles of interest to skeptics:

• "A.A. Abuse" by Archie Brodsky and Stanton Peele in Reason, discussing courts forcing people into 12-step programs.
• "Debunking Biosphere" by Marc Cooper in The Tucson Weekly, reporting on resignations from the Biosphere 2 project.
• "The Conspiracy That Wasn't" by Steven Emerson and Jesse Furman in The New Republic, analyzing contradictions in the "October Surprise" conspiracy theory and Barbara Honegger's connection to paranormal activities.
• "Put a Zokwendle in Your Tank!" by Alex Heard in Spy, examining claims about perpetual motion machines.
• "The Lawsuits Against James Randi" by Jim Moseley in Saucer Smear, detailing lawsuits by Uri Geller and Eldon Byrd against James Randi.
• "Science Watch: Randi in Deep Doo-Doo?" by Dennis Stacy in Fortean Times, an unsympathetic report on the Geller lawsuits.
• "Natural Direction" by Pamela Weintraub in Omni, reporting on research indicating microorganisms can influence their future evolution.
• "The Experiment That Failed" by Robert Wright in The New Republic, analyzing the failure of Soviet science and the "brain drain."
• Fortean Times #57 (Spring 1991) is recommended for its five skeptical articles on Satanic child abuse hysteria in England.

Next Issue

The January/February 1992 issue will feature skeptical predictions for 1992, a response by Robert A. Baker, and a review of Charles Bufe's "Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure?"

Upcoming Meetings

Announcements for meetings of the Phoenix Skeptics and seminars by the Institute for Creation Research in Phoenix and Tucson.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The Arizona Skeptic consistently promotes critical thinking, scientific methodology, and skepticism towards paranormal claims, New Age beliefs, and pseudoscience. The magazine engages in debates with creationists and critiques alleged misrepresentations within the skeptical community itself. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of rational inquiry, evidence-based reasoning, and a rejection of unsubstantiated claims, as exemplified by the detailed analysis of the dispute with the Australian Skeptics and the critical reviews of books and articles. The publication also serves as a platform for discussing current events and research relevant to skeptics, including critiques of conspiracy theories and analyses of scientific or pseudoscientific claims.