North Texas Skeptic - Vol 08 No 10 - 1994

Magazine Overview

This issue of The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics, dated October 1994, Volume 8 Number 10, focuses on the theme 'Science Coming Out of the Closet.' The publication is from The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., and is reprinted from The Freeman. The cover headline prominently features 'Science Coming Out of the Closet,' with a subtitle indicating it is by Eric W. Hagen and James J. Worman.

Science Coming Out of the Closet

The lead article, 'Science Coming Out of the Closet' by Eric W. Hagen and James J. Worman, addresses the historical deluge of warnings about the earth's impending doom and the recent emergence of scientists disputing these apocalyptic theories. It highlights the risks faced by those who challenge environmental alarmists, who can be demonized by activists and lobbyists. The article introduces the concept of a 'backlash' against 'eco-crisis' skeptics, citing a Newsweek report that suggests the risks of inaction outweigh the risks of being wrong. The authors emphasize Karl Popper's assertion that scientific statements must be falsifiable to be credible, meaning they must be specific enough to be proven wrong, even if testable in principle. They question the influence of pseudoscientific claims like ESP, astrology, and UFOs, which are often unfalsifiable.

The article critiques predictions of environmental collapse, noting that skeptics are often placed in the difficult position of defending their ground against claims that are logically impossible to disprove. It argues that while the onus of proof should be on the claimant, this is rarely the case, and revised predictions often maintain the credibility of the original alarmists. The authors lament the abuse of scientific credentials and the tendency to present unproven theories as fact. They quote Dartmouth College Astronomy Professor James Thorstensen, who categorizes science into 'good science, bad science, and crackpot science.'

To distinguish good science, the article poses several questions: Is it 'good evidence' when climate models rely on assumptions that don't account for clouds and oceans? Is it 'a good understanding of what has come before' when resource scarcity predictions ignore historical precedents? Is it 'technical competence' when individuals from unrelated fields are presented as experts on complex issues like nuclear power or population growth? Is it 'clear thinking' when proponents of theories like ozone depletion advocate for 'scary scenarios' and simplified statements, downplaying doubts? Is it 'clean interpretation' when global warming arguments are based on evidence that predates significant industrial emissions?

The article criticizes 'science by press release,' a trend popularized in the 1980s where research results are shared with the public before peer review. It cites a 1992 report by the National Academy of Sciences demanding scientists refrain from such practices. Malcolm Forbes is quoted on the importance of innovation driven by individual effort rather than central planning. The authors conclude that an alternative strategy to countering doomsayers involves not only a sound understanding of science but also of economics and politics, encouraging more scientists to 'come out of the closet' to challenge public misinformation.

Healthy Skepticism

This section, authored by Tim Gorski, M.D., presents several short pieces critiquing various pseudoscientific or questionable practices:

Government Pushes Acupuncturists' Cause

The Office of Alternative Medicine, established within the National Institutes of Health, is criticized for actively promoting acupuncture's medical respectability. The article notes that U.S. adherents are seeking FDA reclassification of acupuncture needles from 'investigational' to 'Class II devices,' which would allow them to practice freely and bill insurance companies. The primary obstacle, according to the article, is the lack of evidence for acupuncture's efficacy, a problem proponents attribute to a lack of government regulation.

Fruits And Vegetables Not The Same As Pills?

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found no beneficial effects of antioxidant vitamins (beta-carotene, C, and E) in preventing colorectal adenoma, a precursor to invasive cancer. The study suggests that 'other dietary factors' in fruits and vegetables may be more important for cancer risk reduction.

Let Your Fingers Beware!

The National Council Against Health Fraud Task Force found that among nutritionist listings in telephone directories, almost half of those claiming to be physicians or 'nutritionists' used invalid methods. Dietitians fared better, with 9% using invalid methods. Reliability ratings were 84% for 'dietitians,' 40% for 'nutritionists,' and 32% for those claiming to be physicians.

Homeopathic Quacks Score One On Pediatrics

The journal Pediatrics is criticized for publishing a study on homeopathic remedies for diarrhea in children. Concerns are raised about the study's reliability, its unusual grouping of 18 different remedies, and its failure to compare them with standard oral hydration therapy, instead opting for a comparison with no treatment, resulting in 'uninterpretable data.'

General Nutrition Pays Multi-Million Dollar Fine

General Nutrition, Inc. (GNC) agreed to pay $2.4 million to the Federal Trade Commission for violating previous orders related to false claims for 'energy' products, weight loss remedies, baldness treatments, and other medical preparations.

This information is provided by the D/FW Council Against Health Fraud, with Dr. Gorski identified as a practicing physician, chairman of the council, and a North Texas Skeptics Technical Advisor.

"Psycho"-mantiums and The Shirley Show

Authored by Ginny Vaughn, this piece critiques a talk show segment on 'People who can communicate with the dead.' The article focuses on Dr. Raymond Moody and his 'psychomantium,' described as a closet-like setup with a mirror for communicating with deceased relatives. Vaughn questions Moody's claim that 'scientific evidence is an absurdity' when dealing with unfalsifiable claims, likening his logic to believing in possession if a doctor can't immediately diagnose an illness. The article also discusses a guest, Scott Degenhardt, who claimed telepathic communication with his deceased father, suggesting it was likely a dream. The piece highlights the subjective nature of these experiences and the tendency for believers to dismiss skepticism.

Dr. Gordon Stein is mentioned as the lone skeptic on the panel, suggesting these experiences are likely dreams. Vaughn notes that rational skepticism is less flashy than paranormal claims but philosophically sound. Virginia Read Vaughn is identified as a member of the North Texas Skeptics.

The third eye

By Pat Reeder, this column begins with corrections from the previous month's issue: Roswell was a Showtime movie, not HBO, and the publisher's use of cheap staples caused many copies to be lost in the mail. Reeder announces an extension for his 'You Be The Psychic' contest, asking readers to predict an 'October Surprise' news event.

The author expresses a 'deep misanthropy' due to the staple issue and recent media attacks on skeptics. He recounts being asked to discuss the Roswell incident on a radio show, where the Pentagon's conclusion of a spy balloon investigation was presented. Reeder notes that he shared the program with Stanton Friedman, a UFO proponent who wrote early press releases about Roswell. Reeder describes his attempt to be polite and diplomatic, pointing out flaws in the UFO story, but feels conflicted by the lack of direct confrontation.

Reeder then adopts a more direct, critical tone, using the sound 'BONG!!' to dispatch various annoyances. He criticizes actress Joelly Fisher for her claims of past-life reincarnation on 'Late Night with Conan O'Brian.' He also critiques two NBC specials: one on the Bermuda Triangle, featuring Charles Berlitz, and another on aliens and flying saucers, which he found to be 'pro-wacko' and largely ignored skeptics. He specifically criticizes the segment on Roswell, where a skeptic was given only 31 seconds to comment, while the report was heavily biased. Reeder corrects NBC's implication that Columbus was a skeptic who believed the world was flat, stating that Columbus was skeptical of the prevailing view and sought to disprove it scientifically.

He criticizes NBC's programming, referring to it as the 'Nothing But Crap' network. A special note to Robert Stack, the narrator of 'Unsolved Mysteries,' advises him against sacrificing his credibility for a paycheck. Reeder also reports on an incident in Gilmer, Texas, where police officers who were skeptical of Satanic ritual abuse claims were targeted, while those who believed the claims were not.

Reeder then addresses 'Inside Edition' for its coverage of the Pentagon's Roswell investigation, calling it 'pro-UFO hooey' and criticizing Stanton Friedman's interpretation of the government's findings as proof of a cover-up. He also mentions the publication of the Pentagon's plan for invading Haiti.

Finally, Reeder discusses the increasing cost of Transcendental Meditation (TM), noting that the price has risen from $35 in the 1960s to $1,000. He criticizes the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's franchisees for warning that cheaper lessons might not lead to genuine enlightenment. Reeder offers a free mantra: 'BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!!'

He concludes by issuing 'BONG!' to various entities, including sisters who removed their sister's eyeballs due to beliefs of demonic possession, media outlets suggesting voodoo involvement, and those sending catalogs of angel paraphernalia.

Up a tree

This is a skeptical cartoon by Laura Ainsworth, depicting birds being described as beautiful creatures that inspire art and music, and are more beloved than ever. The final panel humorously reinterprets 'birds' as 'angels.'

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of claims presented as scientific fact, particularly those that are unfalsifiable or lack robust evidence. The publication strongly advocates for rational skepticism, scientific rigor, and the importance of critical thinking. There is a clear stance against pseudoscience, alarmism, and what the authors perceive as sensationalism and bias in media coverage of scientific and paranormal topics. The editorial stance is one of promoting a discerning approach to information, challenging unsubstantiated claims, and defending the integrity of science against misinformation.