Cincinnati Skeptic - Vol 04 No 01 - 1994

Magazine Overview

Title: Cincinnati Skeptic
Issue: Vol. 4, No. 1
Date: October, 1994
Publisher: Association for Rational Thought

This issue of the Cincinnati Skeptic newsletter, published by the Association for Rational Thought, focuses on skepticism towards paranormal claims, critiques of certain academic theories, and scientific perspectives on contemporary issues. The publication aims to provide a rational and evidence-based viewpoint on topics often sensationalized in popular media.

Articles

Psychological Bulletin Publishes Study Supporting Psi Powers

The lead article discusses a research report published in the January 1994 issue of *Psychological Bulletin*, a major academic journal, which appears to support the existence of psychic powers. This is presented as a significant development for psychic researchers who have often been relegated to publishing in less authoritative fringe journals. The study, co-authored by Daryl J. Bem of Cornell University and the late Charles Honorton of the University of Edinburgh, utilized the "ganzfeld" or whole field method. This method involves two subjects, a "receiver" and a "sender," isolated in sound-insulated rooms with visual and auditory distractions. The sender concentrates on a randomly selected target (photograph or video), while the receiver reports their thoughts and images for half an hour. Afterward, the receiver attempts to identify the target from a set of four images. The researchers reported 11 studies involving 240 subjects, finding that receivers achieved a "hit" (correctly identifying the target) in one-third of the trials, which is statistically significant compared to the one-fourth chance prediction. A subset of 29 performing arts students showed a higher hit rate (half the trials), leading the authors to suggest that artistic talents might enhance psychic abilities. However, the article notes that with such a small sample size, this finding is unstable and requires confirmation with a larger study. The article also mentions that no established theory explains such phenomena, except for a quantum theory-based notion, which is critiqued by physicist Victor J. Stenger as being irrationally applied.

Book Review: Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science

This section reviews the book "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science" by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt. The book examines writings from postmodern and constructivist literary theorists, feminist scholars, Afrocentrists, and eco-radicals who are critical of establishment science. The authors argue that these critiques, often originating from academia, are no more rational than those of creationists or UFO cranks. They contend that these radical authors view science as a construct of white, male, capitalist Western culture, rather than an objective pursuit of knowledge about the real world. The book criticizes the idea that scientific findings are determined by social or political factors, emphasizing that empirical verification and reality are the ultimate arbiters of scientific truth. Gross and Levitt acknowledge the need for more diversity in science but reject the notion that politics dictates scientific findings. The review highlights the authors' direct language and their concern that these anti-science sentiments, particularly from environmentalists and AIDS activists, could undermine the public's trust in science and hinder the resolution of scientific problems.

Where Should A.R.T. Put Its Muscle?

This article summarizes a discussion among members of the Association for Rational Thought (A.R.T.) regarding the organization's focus and activities. Members prioritized publishing the newsletter and monitoring the news media for credulous paranormal reports. Other suggested activities included building a library of TV news "clippings" on the paranormal, holding membership meetings, building a local skeptic network, conducting investigations, and offering workshops. The group agreed on areas to avoid, notably challenging personal "faith beliefs" (especially religious ones), attacking individuals rather than ideas, and challenging harmless superstitions. They also decided against focusing on legitimate scientific controversies or nutrition quackery, deeming them less critical for A.R.T.'s mission.

Alternative Medicine Office Update

This section reports on the status of the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM) at the National Institutes of Health, established in 1992 with a $2 million annual budget. Dr. Joseph Jacobs, the first director, resigned after 20 months. Despite successfully engaging mainstream medical groups and establishing programs at medical schools, Dr. Jacobs reportedly left due to the aggressive approach of politicians and supporters who pushed for unresearched acceptance of alternative therapies. These proponents advocated for "field trials" (anecdotal evidence) over rigorous scientific testing. The article notes that the Senate appropriations subcommittee proposed increasing the OAM budget to $6 million, with a significant portion allocated to "field trials." Skeptics are encouraged to contact Senator Tom Harkin to express their concerns.

Letters to the Editor

Real vs. False Science: Andrew O. Lutes of Mansfield, Ohio, provides a checklist to distinguish real science from false science. Real science is characterized by questioning, growth, testability, adherence to established channels, measurable means, openness to criticism, and a few key figures with many dissenters. False science, conversely, claims to have all answers, is fixed, hedges its bets, operates outside established norms, relies on the unexplainable, claims persecution when criticized, and presents itself as a heroic, heretical movement.

Update on Satanism in Mansfield: Andrew O. Lutes also writes about the continued belief in Satanism in Mansfield, Ohio, citing a class catalog from North Central Technical College for professionals on dealing with "Satanic cult abuse." He expresses caution about directly attacking these beliefs due to potential employment risks but intends to diplomatically engage the course instructor and college dean to highlight the lack of evidence for Satanic cult abuse networks. A course listing for "Advanced Occult Practices" at NCTC is included.

Global Warming: Facts, not Myth

Wolf Roder of the University of Cincinnati addresses the issue of global warming. He states that while the future impact is uncertain, global warming is not a myth but a hotly contested scientific topic. Precise measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) since 1958 show an increase. CO2 and water vapor are identified as major greenhouse gases that trap heat. The article explains that burning fossil fuels and deforestation since the industrial revolution have released carbon into the atmosphere, though not all of it can be accounted for in known carbon pools. While global temperature trends show an increase, Roder notes that a clear signal of warming has not yet been definitively measured, and there is general agreement that more research and monitoring are needed. He expresses sympathy with former President Bush's cautious approach due to uncertain knowledge.

Editorial Policy

In January 1994, the Executive Council of Cincinnati Skeptic adopted standards for submitted articles, requiring them to be of interest to skeptics, signed, include a reading list, present the author's view with supporting evidence and counterarguments, and be open to commentary. Articles should not exceed 1000 words. The issue also lists the Executive Council members for 1994-95.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around critical thinking, scientific literacy, and skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of evidence-based reasoning and rigorous scientific methodology, contrasting it with what is perceived as pseudoscience, uncritical acceptance of theories, and flawed academic critiques of science. The newsletter actively promotes a skeptical approach to paranormal phenomena, alternative medicine, and even certain academic trends that challenge established scientific principles. The emphasis is on distinguishing between genuine scientific inquiry and what the publication deems as "false science" or "twaddle."