North Texas Skeptic - Vol 24 No 08 - 2010

Magazine Overview

Title: The North Texas Skeptic
Issue Date: August 2010
Volume: 24
Issue: 8
Publisher: The North Texas Skeptics
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of The North Texas Skeptic delves into the concept of "intellectual incest," exploring its manifestations in both natural selection and cultural/intellectual spheres. The primary focus is on the scientific community's engagement with Intelligent Design (ID) and the alleged lack of legitimate peer review within this movement. The magazine also features a book review of Martin Gardner's "Science, Good, Bad and Bogus."

Intellectual Incest: A Multifaceted Problem

The lead article, "Intellectual incest" by John Blanton, begins by explaining the biological imperative to avoid incest, as it can lead to the accumulation of detrimental recessive genetic traits. It then transitions to the concept of cultural and intellectual incest, arguing that a lack of diversity can stifle innovation and perpetuate undesirable traits. Open societies are presented as the solution, fostering cultural dilution that has, for instance, led to the decline of practices like honor killings in some European societies.

Science, the article posits, combats intellectual incest through peer review. It suggests that isolated scientists can develop flawed theories without external critique. The article contrasts this with the approach of Intelligent Design proponents, who are accused of creating an insular environment.

The Intelligent Design Controversy and Peer Review

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to critiquing the scientific standing of Intelligent Design. The article traces the origins of ID to a perceived need to counter the rejection of supernatural explanations by modern science, particularly the theory of evolution. It notes that while Young-Earth creationism (YEC) was once prevalent, its decline in public education due to its religious nature led to the resurrection of ID as a more palatable alternative.

The article highlights the role of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) in promoting ID. It points out that CSC fellows, while not necessarily espousing YEC, object to the teaching of evolution and the exclusion of supernatural explanations from public education. The CSC is accused of resurrecting ID to provide a vehicle for supernatural explanations, implicitly referring to God.

The core of the critique revolves around the claim that ID has not undergone legitimate peer review. The article cites Stephen J. Gould's review of Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution" as examples of critical scientific engagement that were largely ignored by the ID community. It details how the CSC founder, Stephen C. Meyer, published a paper in the "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" after bypassing the journal's standard review process, with the editor, Richard Sternberg, allowing publication despite this irregularity. The article questions whether the reviewers were like-minded creationists, labeling this "intellectual incest."

Further scrutiny is applied to Jonathan Wells' paper in "Rivista di Biologia," which is described as an insignificant journal with an editor affiliated with the Discovery Institute. The paper itself is characterized as a hypothesis with a literature review, but no new experiments or findings, and it does not claim ID or a supernatural cause.

Edward Humes' examination of Michael Behe's defense of "Darwin's Black Box" during the Kitzmiller trial is also discussed. Behe's claim of peer review for his book is contrasted with the alleged informal nature of the review, involving a ten-minute phone conversation with an editor's wife who was a student of the reviewer.

The article asserts that while ID has received peer review, it has been consistently negative. The CSC's establishment of the Biologic Institute and its journal, "BIO-Complexity," are presented as attempts to create a controlled environment for scientific research related to ID, effectively tying up the problem of peer-reviewed publication within their own circles.

Book Review: Science, Good, Bad and Bogus by Martin Gardner

This section reviews Martin Gardner's posthumously published collection of essays, "Science, Good, Bad and Bogus." The reviewer, John Blanton, notes that Gardner, a prolific writer and critic of pseudoscience, tackles a wide range of topics.

The book is described as a collection of separately written essays drawn from various sources, including "Science" magazine, "Scientific American," and the "New York Review of Books." Gardner's essays are characterized by their sharp critiques of flawed reasoning and what he perceived as an "intellectual vacuum" in modern society.

A significant portion of the review focuses on Gardner's critique of Charles Tart's ESP experiments. Tart's "Ten-Choice Trainer" (TCT) study, which claimed to show evidence of ESP, was subjected to rigorous examination by Gardner and other scientists. They identified flaws in Tart's methodology, including a non-random randomizer and potential signaling from the sender to the receiver. Tart's response to the criticism is described as an attempt to rationalize away the negative findings, attributing them to a lack of "ESP talent" in subsequent student participants.

The review highlights Gardner's meticulous approach, which involved examining data and questioning experimental protocols. It also touches upon other topics covered in the book, such as "Hermit Scientists," "Geller, Gulls, and Nitinol," and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

The review also briefly discusses Gardner's insights into religious fervor, referencing his reviews of James Morris's "The Preachers," Oral Roberts' ministry, and Billy James Hargis. Billy Graham is mentioned as an exception, holding to "true faith," though his association with Richard Nixon is noted.

Finally, the review mentions Gardner's insight into Carl Sagan's "Broca's Brain" and notes that while some subjects in "Science, Good, Bad and Bogus" are dated, the underlying themes of human sensibility and susceptibility to flawed reasoning remain relevant.

Skeptic Ink

A brief comic strip titled "Skeptic Ink" by Prasad Golla and John Blanton is included, humorously depicting different perspectives on a book, one deeming it "unacceptable for Christian students," another ignoring "the gift of God's creation," and a third finding it relevant to "automobile mechanics."

Events Calendar and Membership Information

The magazine concludes with an "Events Calendar" listing upcoming North Texas Skeptics (NTS) program meetings and social dinners for August and subsequent months. It also includes an "Application for Membership" form with details on different membership levels and subscription options, along with information on making tax-deductible donations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards pseudoscientific claims, particularly Intelligent Design, and the importance of rigorous scientific methodology, especially peer review. The editorial stance is critical of claims that lack empirical support and are not subjected to open scientific scrutiny. The magazine champions rational inquiry and the scientific method as essential tools for understanding the world, contrasting this with what it perceives as intellectual insularity and self-deception within certain movements.