The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics

Magazine Overview

This issue of "The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics," titled "The Skeptic," is Volume 6, Number 2, dated February 1992. It features articles on psychic predictions, a book review of 'Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom,' and a report on the organization's annual meeting and election of officers. The publication is from the USA and is in English.

"The Third Eye" by Pat Reeder

Pat Reeder's column critiques the phenomenon of psychic predictions that emerge at the start of each new year, labeling January as "Psychic Season." He notes that these predictions are often outrageous or obvious, filling a void of uncertainty with their own void. Reeder points out that even reputable media outlets, such as the Montel Williams Show, feature psychics whose predictions, like one concerning Mikhail Gorbachev, are already disproven by the time the show airs. He recounts an incident where a psychic, challenged by a skeptical audience member, defensively claimed superior knowledge of the future. The column also mentions a local news report by WFAATV's Gerry Oher featuring five local psychics, which Reeder characterizes as tongue-in-cheek.

Reeder criticizes the tendency for psychics to avoid scrutiny of their past predictions, but notes that technology is making this more difficult. He highlights the San Francisco Bay Area Skeptics' eighth annual list of failed psychic predictions from 1991, which included claims like California falling into the ocean, Tom Cruise going bald, and a former U.S. president dying. Reeder sarcastically notes that these predictions often miss major world events like the Persian Gulf War or the fall of Soviet Communism.

He questions the credibility of psychics and whether people actually pay for their advice. Reeder dismisses psychic Terri Brill's defense of her predictions, stating that skeptics dislike dishonesty and superstition, not necessarily the people themselves. He expresses a desire to meet someone with genuine psychic powers.

Reeder also touches upon the results of a Startext poll where most subscribers did not believe in psychic predictions, though some who did considered them "satanic or demonic" rather than simply incorrect. In a lighthearted turn, Reeder offers his own "predictions for 1992," including a mud-slinging presidential campaign, George Bush's narrow reelection, a Southern California earthquake, hampered peace efforts in the Middle East, ethnic violence in former Soviet republics, Russia selling land to Japan, and the JFK assassination records being released with no new information.

"Science on Trial" - Book Review by John Thomas

This section is a review of Peter W. Huber's book, "Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom." John Thomas, a former President of the North Texas Skeptics and NTS technical advisor with a physics background and a law practice, reviews Huber's work. The book examines how scientific testimony is used in tort litigation, arguing that the system has failed to compensate the injured and deter negligence, instead causing significant economic damage.

Huber critiques cases like the Audi 5000 acceleration issue and the morning-sickness drug Bendectin, where alleged epidemics of birth defects were not scientifically supported. He highlights how lawyers use "junk science"—fearful speculations, unsupported conjecture, and bamboozlement—to sway judges and juries, often giving more credence to pseudoscience than to respectable scientists. The book argues that the pursuit of truth is replaced by meaningless "data."

The review explains that the law of torts, a branch of Anglo-American law, has evolved to determine causation and compensation for injuries. Initially based on strict liability, it shifted to requiring intent or negligence. However, the erosion of the Frye rule (which required scientific testimony to be "generally accepted" by the scientific community) in the 1970s, replaced by a new legal philosophy, allowed for more speculative evidence.

Guido Calabresi's theory that liability law should primarily control accident costs by charging the "cheapest cost avoider" is discussed. This led to a search for causation that often pointed to entities with deep pockets and large insurance policies, incentivizing the use of "junk science."

Huber uses historical examples like "traumatic cancer" claims in the late 19th century and the Bendectin litigation to illustrate his points. In the Bendectin case, lawyers used theories by scientists like Alan Done, who created a "mosaic" of poorly-done animal studies and scattered lab data to claim the drug caused birth defects, despite a lack of correlation in major epidemiological studies. The review notes that while the manufacturer eventually defeated most claims, the defense cost over $100 million, and the drug was withdrawn from the market without affecting the incidence of birth defects.

Other examples of "junk science" discussed include the Audi 5000 "sudden acceleration" controversy, "chemically-induced AIDS" claims, cerebral palsy victims allegedly injured by obstetrical bungling, and "clinical ecology." The review also touches on the concept of "fear" as a compensable injury and the "impact rule" which required objective verification.

The Dalkon Shield IUD is presented as another case where a defect allowing bacterial growth was linked to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), but the review argues that sexually-transmitted organisms were a more likely cause for most PID cases in sexually-active women.

Huber criticizes the "litigation casino" where lawyers exploit uncertainty and use the natural reluctance to blame victims to transfer responsibility to solvent defendants. He argues that despite claims of increased safety, lawsuits have not made accident control more efficient, citing examples like asbestos, the Ford Pinto, and the Dalkon Shield, where risks were known before lawsuits. Comparative evidence shows that accident rates have not improved compared to Europe and Japan, which have different liability systems.

Huber proposes reforms, suggesting a return to the Frye rule and aligning evidence rules with the consensus of the scientific community. He emphasizes that science is a community effort, relying on peer review and systematic observation, not individual speculation. He argues that "junk science" is detrimental to the courts and the law, enriching trial lawyers and randomly rewarding plaintiffs.

The review concludes by noting that the next issue will discuss the growing reaction against junk science and legal cases involving hauntings. An editor's note clarifies John Thomas's background.

"1992 Annual Meeting & Election of Officers" by Mike Sullivan

This article reports on the North Texas Skeptics' annual meeting held on January 25, 1992, in Dallas. Eight members attended, and the meeting followed NTS bylaws. The elected Board of Directors for 1992 includes Laura Ainsworth, John Blanton, Ron Hastings, Mark Meyer, Mary O'Grady, Mike Sullivan, and Joe Voelkering. The appointed officers for 1992 are: Joe Voelkering (President), Laura Ainsworth (Vice President), Mark Meyer (Treasurer), John Blanton (Secretary), Mike Sullivan (Newsletter Editor), and Keith Blanton (Associate Newsletter Editor). John Blanton declined re-election as President due to his schedule, and Mark Meyer stepped down as Secretary, with Blanton taking that role.

Other topics discussed included program format ideas, a plan for official NTS spokespersons, and a financial report from the treasurer. The organization is preparing to assist CSICOP in hosting the annual conference in Dallas from October 16-18, 1992, which is expected to bring national media coverage of skeptical topics to Texas. Members are encouraged to volunteer for the conference.

"Up a tree: a skeptical cartoon" by Laura Ainsworth

A short, multi-panel cartoon by Laura Ainsworth satirizes new-age practices. It depicts a character who wakes early, meditates, aligns chakras, dines on seaweed, and attempts to channel spiritual guides, all of which leads to him being in a comatose state. The humor lies in the contrast between the elaborate new-age rituals and their seemingly inert outcome.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards paranormal claims and pseudoscience, particularly psychic predictions and their media portrayal. There is a strong critical stance against the misuse of science in the legal system, termed "junk science," advocating for evidence-based decision-making and adherence to scientific consensus. The publication also emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and rational inquiry, as demonstrated by the organization's activities and the content of its articles. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of scientific rigor and against the propagation of unsubstantiated beliefs and practices.