Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet - 1991 03

Magazine Overview

This document is a working, pre-publication draft copy of the March 1991 "BASIS" newsletter from the Bay Area Skeptics, Volume 10, Number 3. The editor is Yves Barbero.

CRYONICS by Brian Siano

The article "CRYONICS" by Brian Siano explores the controversial topic of cryonics, positioning it in the grey area between science and pseudoscience. Siano explains that cryopreservation is a technique used in cell biology for freezing cell cultures, but in cryonics, the aim is to freeze entire human bodies with the hope of future revival once the cause of death is reversible and revival technology exists. A variant discussed is freezing only the head.

The arguments in favor of cryonics include the desire for immortality or an extended life, the possibility of witnessing the future, and the understanding that while current preservation techniques have problems, future technological advances might solve them. Enthusiasts point out that a frozen body has at least a remote chance of revival, unlike a buried or cremated one.

Objections to cryonics include the argument that freezing ruptures cell walls, causing irreparable damage. Critics also view the promises of cryonics as too grandiose, dismissing real technical problems in favor of future developments. As of the writing, no dead mammal has been successfully frozen and revived, though frogs have.

Siano mentions that cryonics supporters often point to theoretical technologies like nanotechnology and gene research as potential solutions. K. Eric Drexler's "Engines of Creation" is cited regarding nanotechnology, describing micromachines with molecule-sized parts. One cryonicist suggested a "Plastic Polymer" to preserve cell walls, removed by micro-robots.

Ethical considerations are also raised, such as the implications for an overpopulated world and the potential for cryonics to be accessible only to the wealthy. The article notes that critics highlight current technological limitations, while supporters rely on future scientific development to overcome them.

Siano questions whether cryonics is a pseudoscience, acknowledging the "crackpottery" aroma but distinguishing it from psychic phenomena. He states that cryonics supporters are not invoking new forces but are making a gamble on possible technological development. This is compared to Pascal's Wager, where the potential for infinite pleasure (revival) outweighs the risk of no gain (remaining dead).

The article discusses the financial aspects, with the Alcor company charging $100,000 for full body preservation and $35,000 for head freezing, plus a $200 annual maintenance fee, often funded by life insurance policies.

Siano concludes that while the potential for fraud exists due to the fear of death, most cryonics supporters are aware that the company's primary promise is to keep the body frozen, not to guarantee revival. He personally cannot make pronouncements on whether cryonics is a worthwhile investment or wishful thinking, adopting a "Wait-and-See" attitude.

HISTORY AND DISTINCTIONS by Rick Moen

Rick Moen's article, "HISTORY AND DISTINCTIONS," traces the origins of the skeptical movement. He notes its abrupt start between the covers of "The Humanist," published by the American Humanist Association. The movement's genesis is linked to a 1975 article, "Objections to Astrology: A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists." The strong reactions to this article led James Randi, Martin Gardner, Paul Kurtz, and Ray Hyman to form CSICOP (the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Claims of the Paranormal) in May 1976. CSICOP, run from Buffalo, NY, by Paul Kurtz, aimed to critically examine fringe-science claims and published "The Skeptical Inquirer" quarterly.

Around the same time, Paul Kurtz left "The Humanist" and founded CODESH (the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism), which publishes "Free Inquiry" magazine. Both CSICOP and CODESH operated from the same building on Bailey Avenue, though their affairs were kept separate. Related enterprises include the Academy of Humanism, Prometheus Books, the Biblical Criticism Research Project, and the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion.

Moen describes the substantive difference between the American Humanist Association (AHA) and CODESH as subtle, with both seeking to advance ethics not rooted in mysticism but differing in emphasis and tone. He notes that AHA-inspired local groups are called "Humanist Community of [location]," while CODESH-type groups are "Secular Humanists of [location]." CODESH is also associated with "Secular Organizations for Sobriety."

A point of contention for the AHA is its tax-exempt non-profit status as a "religious" organization under U.S. Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3), which has caused dissension among supporters.

Moen mentions the unveiling of "The Voice of Inquiry," a series of radio and television programs mixing skeptical and humanist topics, available from the "Center for Inquiry," an umbrella group for CSICOP and CODESH.

Moen expresses strong support for both the humanist and skeptic movements but cautions that their "blithe mixing" can create problems. He argues that the strength of the skeptics' movement lies in its broad appeal, which requires no creed or ideology, allowing diverse individuals (parapsychologists, fundamentalists, atheists, etc.) to participate. His group, Bay Area Skeptics, has deliberately avoided philosophical and ethical claims to maintain this broad appeal.

He uses an analogy: being a feminist and environmentalist does not mean combining them is wise, as it could alienate potential allies. Similarly, while humanism and skepticism both involve "inquiry" and "critical thinking," combining them is not necessarily a good idea. Moen fears that the "Center for Inquiry" might be perceived as evidence of a hidden ideological agenda within skepticism, prompting him to state, "CSICOP is _not_ the skeptics' movement."

He also notes the potential harm to the humanist movement, as alienating individuals who might be fine humanists but also interested in fringe topics could be counterproductive.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: BAY AREA SKEPTICS

The Bay Area Skeptics' purpose is to promote scientific thinking by exposing pseudoscience (astrology, psychic predictions) and other non-scientific beliefs. They also investigate unsubstantiated claims like psychic surgery and "systems" designed to "fill-in" where science fails. The organization acts to inform the public about charlatans or sincere individuals promoting unsafe "cures" and may assist law enforcement. They publish a periodical, hold meetings, and test paranormal claims made on a "scientific" basis. They do not judge religion or personal faith unless fraud or scientific claims are involved.

TOP TEN ANSWERS TO: "How many psychics does it take to change a light bulb?"

This section presents humorous answers to a classic joke, with contributions from Art & Emily Freund. Answers range from practical (one, if they're an electrician) to the absurd (one psychokinetic to turn the bulb, one telepath to tell him how, and a clairvoyant to verify). Some answers play on psychic predictions, like the National Enquirer predicting four psychics will accomplish the feat in 1991, or Uri Geller mentally refusing broken bulb filaments. The question was rephrased from the original, and more answers are solicited for future issues.

THE SOCRATIC APPROACH by Bob Steiner

Bob Steiner presents a dialogue titled "THE SOCRATIC APPROACH." The questioner asks how many psychics it takes to screw in a light bulb, and the answerer provides the number 62,827,975.4881. When asked why, the answerer explains it's the square of the Earth's equatorial diameter in square miles. The questioner expresses skepticism about the number of psychics, but the answerer encourages an open mind, referencing Galileo and urging the questioner to "Manifest yourself. Enhance your energy. Live a little. Believe." Supporting data from "The World Almanac" is provided.

COME TO THE CSICOP CONFERENCE!

An announcement invites readers to the 1991 CSICOP Conference, co-sponsored by the Bay Area Skeptics and the University of California at Berkeley Physics Department. The conference is scheduled for May 3, 4, and 5, 1991, at the Claremont Resort Hotel in Berkeley/Oakland Hills, California. The keynote address is "In Search of Our Origins" by Donald C. Johanson, President of the Institute of Human Origins, Berkeley. Details and registration information are available in "The Skeptical Inquirer" or the issue's insert. Volunteers are needed, and contact information for Yves Barbero is provided.

Letter to the Editor: RACIST CONNOTATION by Molleen Matsumura

Molleen Matsumura writes a letter to the editor addressing an error in Thomas Jukes's "Statement on Water Fluoridation" published in the February '91 "BASIS." Jukes referred to "mongoloid births," which Matsumura states is an outdated and racist term. The correct term is "Down syndrome." She explains that disorders are typically named after clinicians, symptoms, or causative agents, and while some have ordinary names from sufferers (e.g., Lou Gehrig's disease), "mongolism" has racist connotations stemming from inaccurate historical classifications of three races (Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid), leading to the belief that people from these groups looked alike. Matsumura points out that people with Down syndrome do not resemble Mongolians and that the term is misused when applied to Asian people.

Reply From DR. JUKES

Dr. Jukes replies, explaining that he used the term "mongoloid births" because it appeared in anti-fluoridation publications (citing Rapaport in "Health Quackery"). He admits the term was used erroneously for "Down Syndrome," which is a chromosomal defect without distinctive facial characteristics. He clarifies that "mongol" should refer only to Mongolian people and languages, and that its application to Down Syndrome or Asian people is inappropriate, as Dr. Matsumura correctly noted. He also regrets his sloppiness in letting the term slip past him.

Rick Moen's Response to Bob Steiner

Rick Moen responds to a previous mention by Bob Steiner regarding John R. Lee. Moen clarifies that Steiner told him Lee would be "interesting" and "absolutely." Moen then criticizes Steiner for sermonizing about "closed-minded, ideological cheerleaders of the science establishment" and missing the point that the objection to giving Lee a platform was his use of misrepresentations to oppose a procedure needed for children's health.

WALLY by Bob Steiner

A brief note states that Wally Sampson has returned home from the hospital, recovering.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around critical thinking, the examination of pseudoscience and fringe claims, and the distinction between scientific inquiry and unsubstantiated beliefs. The Bay Area Skeptics' editorial stance is clearly in favor of promoting scientific thinking and exposing what they consider to be pseudoscientific or unscientific claims. There is a strong emphasis on evidence-based reasoning and a cautious approach to speculative technologies like cryonics. The issue also highlights the importance of accurate and non-offensive terminology, as seen in the discussion about "Down syndrome," and addresses the internal dynamics and philosophical differences within the broader skeptical and humanist movements. The overall tone is analytical, questioning, and at times, humorous, encouraging readers to engage in critical evaluation of extraordinary claims.

This document is the March 1991 issue of the "Bay Area Skeptic Informatoin Sheet," also referred to as "BASIS," the monthly publication of the Bay Area Skeptics. It features articles and editorials focused on skepticism, critical thinking, and the examination of pseudoscientific claims and alleged paranormal phenomena.

Article: "Out Where?" by Tom Woosnam

This article critically examines Howard Blum's book "Out There: The Government's Secret Quest for Extraterrestrials." Woosnam reports that a recent "Inside Edition" segment found Blum's research highly questionable. Blum claims that an incident in December 1986 prompted the U.S. government to launch a $50 million covert UFO investigation by the Defense Intelligent Agency. The incident, according to Blum, involved Navy Commander Sheila Mondran and her crew witnessing an unexplained object on radar screens at the space surveillance center in Cheyenne Mountain.

Woosnam details how the "Inside Edition" reporter verified facts and found discrepancies. For instance, the elevator Mondran was said to use daily does not exist as described, and military and civilian experts state that surveillance screens provide numerical readouts, not real-time displays, making the visual observation of a UFO joyriding through the atmosphere a technical impossibility. The U.S. Space Command confirmed an uncorrelated target report in December 1986 but identified it as "space junk." Furthermore, the Navy stated they had no record of a Sheila Mondran being stationed at Cheyenne Mountain.

Blum's response to these discrepancies was to claim Mondran used her unmarried name and to evade requests to connect the reporter with her or other key figures. The article also cites UFO investigator Philip J. Klass, who claims Blum's book contains 25 errors of fact regarding Klass's career. Jonathan Thompson is quoted as being angry about alleged lies in Blum's book, and ufologist Stanton Friedman criticizes Blum's journalistic approach as lazy.

Woosnam suggests that Blum's reluctance to provide verifiable evidence might stem from having already sold the rights to his book to television.

Tribute to Wallace I. Sampson, M.D.

The issue begins with a brief note expressing happiness that Wallace I. Sampson has recovered from a heart attack and will be around for a long time. It then details his significant contributions and roles. Wallace I. Sampson, M.D., is a founding Board Member of Bay Area Skeptics, established in 1982. He served on the Board for many years, has written articles for "BASIS," and acted as an Advisor. He has presented at CSICOP conferences and national medical conventions, teaching critical thinking. He was President of his medical society, serves on the Board of Directors of The National Council against Health Fraud, has testified in Sacramento on legislative matters, and has been an expert witness at trials. He is also a Clinical Professor of Medicine at Stanford University Medical School and runs a medical practice. The author emphasizes that this description only scratches the surface of Sampson's contributions and highlights his role in debating mystics, "alternative treatment" purveyors, and "psychics." Sampson is described as having courage, knowledge, compassion, and an ability to think clearly under pressure, making him an asset to the skeptical movement, the medical profession, and humanity.

Editorial

The editorial reflects on the history and challenges of the Bay Area Skeptics, which began in 1982 with six individuals and has grown to over six hundred members. The organization engages in fun activities like debunking psychics' annual predictions and serious work, such as exposing faith-healer Peter Popoff's scams.

The editorial acknowledges both successes and failures. A major success has been cultivating relationships with the media, leading to increased consultation by journalists. However, a significant failure is seen in the internal education and dynamics of the group, where skepticism has sometimes become an ideology. The editorial discusses how the group has faced internal clashes between those advocating for open thinking and those focused on protecting the movement from perceived external enemies. Personal empire-building is also cited as a problem, leading to splintering and wasted energy on infighting.

The author questions whether this is a failure of leadership, noting that honest disagreements can devolve into ideological struggles. Since the organization is voluntary, individuals can easily leave, resulting in a loss of valuable assets to the group. The editorial also addresses a habit of becoming too comfortable with opposition due to media's need for conflict, which can lead to holding back criticism and not effectively challenging weak arguments.

Skepticism is clarified as a methodology, not an ideology, borrowing from science but lacking rigorous peer review, which can lead some to "oddball cosmologies." It is also stated that skepticism is not democratic, as the majority is not always right. It is distinguished from humanism, focusing on earthly concerns and equipping people with the intellectual tools for a realistic view of life, rather than debating supernatural forces.

The editorial concludes by emphasizing the need for flexible worldviews and concrete goals that can adapt to reality. The Bay Area Skeptics is entering its tenth year, continuing its mission with organized individuals supporting a first-rate system of looking at things.

Staff and Advisors

The issue lists the Board of Directors, "BASIS" Staff (editor, associate editor, distribution, circulation), and BAS Advisors. Notable advisors include William J. Bennetta (Scientific Consultant), Dean Edell (M.D., ABC Medical Reporter), Donald Goldsmith (Ph.D., Astronomer and Attorney), John E. McCosker (Ph.D., Director, Steinhart Aquarium), James Randi (Magician, Author, Lecturer), and Robert Sheaffer (Technical Writer, UFO expert).

Contact Information

Information is provided on how to obtain a free sample copy by sending a name and address to Bay Area Skeptics, or by leaving a message on "The Skeptic's Board" BBS or the 415-LA-TRUTH hotline. Copyright is noted as 1991 by Bay Area Skeptics, with reprints requiring credit to "BASIS, newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of UFO claims and alleged paranormal phenomena, the importance of rigorous skepticism as a methodology, and introspection on the internal health and direction of skeptical organizations. The editorial stance is one of promoting critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and a commitment to intellectual honesty, while also acknowledging the challenges of maintaining focus and unity within a voluntary group.