North Texas Skeptic - Vol 04 No 06 - 1990

Magazine Overview

The Skeptic, Volume 4, Number 6, published by The North Texas Skeptics in November/December 1990, features a cover headline of "Browning Emotions" by Mike Sullivan, Associate Editor. The issue also includes articles on "Satanism: Much Sensationalism; Little Substance" by Joe Voelkering, "Origins of Self-Deception" by John Blanton, "OTHERS SPEAK" also by John Blanton, and a cartoon titled "Up a tree" by Laura Ainsworth.

Browning Emotions

This article critically examines the prediction of a major earthquake in the Mid-South on or about December 3, 1990, made by Dr. Iben Browning. Browning, a self-proclaimed climatologist, seismologist, and financial theorist, predicted a 50-50 probability of a quake between 6.5 and 7.0 on the Richter scale along the New Madrid fault line, citing strong tidal forces as the cause. He also widened his prediction to include the entire globe between 30N and 60N latitude and suggested December 31, 1990, as an alternative date, also expressing concern about California. The US Geological Survey (USGS) concurs that a major quake is possible in New Madrid within 40 years, but USGS official Walt Hays compared Browning's broad statements to "throwing darts at a calendar."

A team of independent researchers, the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC), investigated Browning's claims. The NEPEC report found no basis for Browning's theory linking tidal forces to quakes and stated there is no correlation between them. NEPEC also found Browning's claims of past successes in predicting the Loma Prieta quake and the Mount St. Helens eruption to be groundless. Arch Johnston of Memphis State University called Browning's claimed successes "post-dictions," and Browning himself refused interviews, citing he was too busy. Browning was reportedly selling a $99.00 videotape of his predictions.

Dr. David Dunn, technical advisor for NTS, reviewed a report backing Browning's claims and found no scientific basis. Stewart, a supporter of Browning's prediction and director of earthquake studies at Southeast Missouri State University, had a history of questionable claims. In 1974, Stewart supported a psychic, Clarissa Bernhardt, who predicted an 8.0+ quake in Wilmington, North Carolina, for January 17, 1976, which never occurred. Stewart was discredited and lost his position at UNC-Chapel Hill. Dunn suggests Stewart is using flawed logic again with Browning's prediction.

The article highlights the public disservice caused by such predictions, including schools canceling classes, emergency drills, and insurance companies seeing increased interest. It also notes that the public may become less likely to trust valid science stories in the future due to the sensational coverage of unverified claims. The Dallas Morning News, Associated Press, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch are noted for providing some balance, though likely too late to quell public concern.

Satanism: Much Sensationalism; Little Substance

This article summarizes a presentation by Dr. Ronald Flowers, a theology professor at TCU. Dr. Flowers argued that actual satanic cults are rare and that the perceived "problem" of satanism is largely sensationalism with little substance. He provided an overview of controversial religious cults and sects, including creationist groups and faith healers, and discussed how claims of satanic activity are sometimes used to explain events inconsistent with certain groups' beliefs. Flowers noted that denominations often splinter to return to a perceived "pure" doctrine, with sects guided by philosophy and cults by charismatic leaders. He observed that fundamentalist groups often view outsiders as evil until they are "saved." The media's focus on satanic cults, he suggested, contributes to the myth's perpetuation.

Flowers' conclusions align with those of Robert Hicks in the Skeptical Inquirer, evaluating the issue from theological and criminal justice perspectives, respectively. Both concluded that there is significant sensationalism and little substance regarding the "problem" of satanism.

The article also touches on "creation science" and faith healing. Flowers found no convincing evidence that "creation science" is based on objective scientific research, viewing it as an attempt to support a preconceived philosophy. He cited the McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education case, where Judge Overton ruled that "creation science" was inspired by the Book of Genesis and aimed at advancing fundamentalist beliefs, lacking objective scientific methodology. Regarding faith healers, Flowers identified two rationales: a fundamentalist doctrine citing biblical passages against medical practices, and "revelations" like those in the Christian Scientist movement, which reject conventional medical treatment by viewing illness as a perception within the mortal mind.

Origins of Self-Deception

This article, a recapitulation of a talk given at an NTS meeting, explores the roots of "pathological science," where the goal of obtaining a desired result outweighs the desire for truth. It references Irving Langmuir, a Nobel Prize winner, who studied "pathological science" informally. Langmuir's observations included the Barnes and Davis experiment, which purported to show neutral helium atoms forming from combined electrons and alpha particles. Langmuir and C. W. Hewlett found that the experiment's results were based on visual detection of scintillations, where the experimenter's mind produced expected results in a darkened room, a classic case of self-deception. Barnes and Davis later retracted their paper.

The article also discusses the case of Rene`-Prosper Blondlot and "N rays," where physicist Robert W. Wood could not replicate Blondlot's findings, suggesting Blondlot was seeing effects that weren't there. Langmuir also visited Joseph Rhine's extrasensory perception experiments, finding them to have the trappings of pathological science. Rhine reported averages of seven out of 25 correct guesses on card-guessing experiments, statistically significant, but declined Langmuir's offer to include data that would bring the average down to five.

Richard Feynman is cited regarding Robert Millikan's oil drop experiment, illustrating how peer pressure can influence data interpretation. Millikan's experiment, intended to determine the charge of an electron, used an inappropriate value for air viscosity, leading to an incorrect result. Subsequent experimenters, obtaining slightly higher results, assumed errors in their own data, gradually inching the value closer to the accepted one. The article suggests that the physical rigors of the experiment, leading to hallucinations and near blindness, may have contributed to experimenters' willingness to believe errors in their data.

Finally, the article touches on the case of cold fusion, noting that reputable scientists have obtained results validating their hypotheses but which cannot be confirmed by others. It questions what excuses modern-day experimenters, given that three previous examples involved reliance on marginal sensory perception that failed when the experimenter's brain overrode perceptions.

OTHERS SPEAK

This section compiles notable quotes from other skeptical groups' newsletters and literature. It includes excerpts from LASER (Los Angeles Skeptics Evaluative Report) and BASIS (Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet).

From "Gobbledygook in the New Age" by Al Seckel (LASER): Seckel identifies three reasons for "New Age" gobbledygook: the use of technical jargon to impress or intimidate, the equation of obscurity with profundity, and the use of scientific jargon to create an impression of scientific accuracy.

From "Proper Criticism" by Dr. Ray Hyman (LASER): Hyman suggests skeptics clarify their objectives, distinguishing between short-term goals (debunking claims) and long-term goals (educating the public). He advises against strident attacks that only stroke the egos of existing skeptics and suggests tailoring arguments to the audience.

From "Ramparts" (BASIS): This piece discusses the marketing of "organic foods" and the term "biodynamic farming," noting that the public's quest for superlatives leads to the use of terms that sound appealing but may lack technical substance. It emphasizes that in marketing, the name is often more important than the substance.

Up a tree: a skeptical cartoon

This is a single-panel cartoon by Laura Ainsworth depicting a TV evangelist telling a bird to give all its money to God. The bird then questions if the evangelist's address is God's, and the final panel shows the bird updating its Rolodex.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards pseudoscientific claims, the importance of critical thinking and scientific rigor, and the debunking of sensationalized or unfounded predictions and beliefs. The editorial stance is clearly one of promoting scientific rationality and challenging claims that lack empirical evidence or logical consistency. The magazine actively engages with topics such as questionable earthquake predictions, the overblown perception of satanic cults, and the pitfalls of "pathological science," advocating for evidence-based reasoning and a clear distinction between science and pseudoscience.