Skeptical Eye - Vol 16 No 2 - 2004

Magazine Overview

Title: National Capital Area SKEPTICAL EYE
Issue: Vol. 16, No. 2
Date: 2004
Publisher: National Capital Area Skeptics
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of the Skeptical Eye focuses on the intersection of pseudoscience and journalism, the controversial 'cold fusion' claims, and the debate surrounding intelligent design.

Pseudoscience & Skepticism in Journalism

This article, by Heather Keels, explores how pseudoscientific claims often find their way into mainstream news. Paul Kurtz, Chairman of CSICOP, is quoted stating that reporters are prone to inflating meager evidence into significant news. Carl Sagan is also cited, noting that pseudoscience is easier to contrive than science due to relaxed argumentative standards and fewer confrontations with reality. The piece emphasizes that while pseudoscience may be commercially appealing, its prevalence in news media is problematic. The author argues that for news organizations to maintain credibility, they must carefully monitor pseudoscience through scientific standards of editing, reporter education, and balanced reporting. A significant factor contributing to the problem is a general lack of scientific literacy among journalists, many of whom come from liberal arts backgrounds. This deficit hinders their ability to think logically, draw conclusions, and make decisions based on factual scrutiny. Stephen Schneider is quoted on the need for scientifically literate approaches in media, posing questions like 'What can happen?', 'What are the odds?', and 'How do you know?' The article stresses that the most important journalistic value in preventing misleading pseudoscientific information is not necessarily objectivity, but balance. However, balance is often misinterpreted, with some news outlets presenting sides equally regardless of their scientific merit, leading to misrepresentation. To improve credibility and reduce pseudoscience in the news, the article suggests three measures: ensuring scientific literacy among journalists, rigorously defining and applying balance and accuracy (especially in science reporting), and using real science for entertainment instead of pseudoscience. The American Society of Newspaper Editors' clarification that balance is inseparable from fairness and wholeness is highlighted, emphasizing that science reporting should give appropriate weight to significant research, regardless of how exciting or bizarre the claim. The article concludes that by adopting these measures, news media can enhance their credibility and provide a valuable service by replacing misinformation with attention to true science.

Cold Fusion

This article by John Mularski details the 'cold fusion' controversy that erupted in 1989. On March 23, 1989, Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah announced they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature, a process they called 'cold fusion.' Unlike 'hot fusion,' which requires extremely high temperatures and complex containment, their experiment involved a palladium rod immersed in heavy water, with an electric current passed through it to cause electrolysis. They claimed their apparatus produced more energy than was put in, attributing the excess to a nuclear process. However, their research was not published through the standard scientific journal and peer-review system but was announced via a press conference. The article notes that neither Fleischmann nor Pons were nuclear physicists, but electrochemists. Experts in nuclear physics pointed out a major flaw: if the claimed energy output were true, the scientists would have been exposed to lethal levels of radiation. Fleischmann and Pons countered that their process did not follow traditional formulas for fusion radiation. A study at Brigham Young University (BYU) performed a similar experiment and found energy release but significantly less than claimed by Fleischmann and Pons, and their radiation levels were consistent with traditional formulas. The BYU study raised questions but showed no promise as a power source. The media's reporting focused heavily on the potential benefits of cold fusion, such as solving world power and pollution problems, without adequately scrutinizing the scientific soundness. The National Cold Fusion Institute (NCFI) was formed shortly after the announcement. Fleischmann, Pons, and the University of Utah sought funding from Congress, with Ira C. Magaziner advising them on business perspectives. The Department of Energy (DOE) formed a special panel (ERAB) to study cold fusion, which concluded in November 1989 that there was no evidence of a useful energy source and recommended against DOE funding for such research, though it suggested some funds for the BYU study out of scientific curiosity. Fleischmann and Pons eventually published their paper in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry in April 1989. Initially, some scientists reported positive results, but many were later retracted due to experimental errors. The article mentions retractions from Georgia Tech and Texas A&M. The rush to claim benefits blinded many scientists to the need for proper checks and controls, leading to a loss of public faith in the scientific process. While cold fusion might still prove true, it is unlikely to be used as an electricity generation source. The article cites various sources and books related to the cold fusion controversy.

The Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design

This review by Ken Finger examines William A. Dembski's book, 'The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design.' The reviewer, approaching the book as a layman, finds Dembski to be highly intelligent but argues that his defense of intelligent design is complex, often circular, and relies heavily on analogies and statistics that can obscure flawed reasoning. The reviewer contrasts Dembski's lack of a background in evolutionary biology with his multiple degrees in other fields. The core of Dembski's argument, as presented by the reviewer, is that intelligent design is 'the science that studies signs of intelligence.' The reviewer concludes that despite Dembski's erudition, his arguments are fundamentally flawed, and natural evolution is the correct explanation, with no merit to intelligent design.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The Skeptical Eye consistently promotes critical thinking, scientific literacy, and the rigorous examination of extraordinary claims. The magazine serves as a resource for information on paranormal and fringe-science topics, encouraging a skeptical approach to evaluating evidence. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of established scientific consensus and methodology, as demonstrated by its critical analysis of pseudoscience in journalism, the cold fusion controversy, and intelligent design theory. The publication advocates for accuracy, balance, and scientific rigor in media reporting and scientific discourse.

Title: Skeptical Eye
Issue: Vol. 16, No. 2
Date: 2004

This issue of Skeptical Eye delves into critical examinations of 'intelligent design,' the historical roots of alien portrayals in science fiction, and the prevalence of superstitions, all through a lens of skepticism and rational inquiry.

Intelligent Design Under Scrutiny

The lead article, continuing from a previous page, critically analyzes the arguments presented by William A. Dembski in 'The Design Revolution.' The author finds Dembski's central claim—that 'intelligent causes adequately explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology'—to be flawed. The critique focuses on Dembski's concept of 'specified complexity,' arguing that it relies too heavily on human recognition of design and uses circular reasoning. The author points out that Dembski's analogies, such as comparing biological systems to archeological artifacts or scrabble pieces, are not identical comparisons and that the argument for design often stems from a lack of known natural explanations ('God of the gaps'). The author also questions the premise that if an event is improbable, it must be designed, likening it to placing a target on a wall after the arrow has been shot. The article concludes that Dembski's arguments are 'neither convincing nor logical,' and that natural evolutionary processes remain the most capable explanation for the world's complexity.

The Evolution of Alien Archetypes: H.G. Wells and the Grey Alien

Richard Dengrove's article traces the origins of the popular 'Alien Grey' or 'Gray' archetype in science fiction. The author explains that the concept of extraterrestrials, particularly Martians, evolved from the late 19th-century belief in the superiority of white Europeans, who were thought to possess the 'maximum reason possible.' This idea, rooted in the imperialist era, suggested that Martians, being an older civilization, would have developed their reason far beyond humans, though perhaps at the cost of emotions and morals. H.G. Wells is highlighted as a key figure, whose works, including an 1893 essay and 'The War of the Worlds' (1898), explored these themes. Wells's Martians, initially conceived as resembling white Europeans, were later depicted as more alien and frightening, embodying the Victorians' fears about unchecked reason and the potential for dehumanization. The article notes that while Wells's proto-Greys were characterized by enormous heads and shrunken emotions, later science fiction writers adapted these concepts to create cautionary tales about the dangers of reason dominating humanity, often depicting aliens as cold, calculating, and lacking motivation, sometimes even struggling with reproduction.

More Friday the 13th HiJinks: A Skeptical Look at Superstition

Scott Snell recounts a 'superstition social' hosted by the National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) to commemorate Friday the 13th. The event aimed to explore the prevalence of superstitions in everyday life, even among skeptics. Participants shared personal anecdotes and common superstitions, such as 'things happen in threes,' sidewalk cracks, and rabbit's feet. The article reflects on the origins of superstitions, suggesting they arise from perceived correlations, analogies, or the promotion by influential individuals. The author also speculates on how new technologies, like personal computers, might foster new forms of superstition due to a lack of understanding and the misinterpretation of cause and effect. Despite the author's initial feeling of being 'sullied' by the discussion of unfounded beliefs, the event highlighted the charm of folk belief and the importance of critical thinking.

Media Notes: James Randi vs. Sylvia Browne and CNN's Astrology Report

Under the 'Media Notes' section, Paul Harris reports on a radio show where James Randi publicly called psychic Sylvia Browne a 'liar.' Browne had previously agreed to Randi's Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge but had not followed through. Randi is presented as a hero and advocate for rational thinking, while Browne and other self-proclaimed psychics are criticized for exploiting people's beliefs for financial gain. The article promotes the James Randi Educational Foundation and its challenge, emphasizing that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.'

Separately, Garold Stone submits a protest regarding CNN Headline News and CNN NewsNight for reporting an astrologer's prediction about the U.S. presidential election. Stone argues that this panders to those who consult the occult for voting decisions and trivializes the importance of the election, urging the news channels to focus on news rather than 'nonsense.'

About NCAS and Reader Engagement

The issue concludes with information about the National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS), detailing how to join or renew membership, subscribe to email lists ('The Shadow,' 'ncas-share'), and access resources on their website, including the Condon UFO report. NCAS is identified as a 501c(3) nonprofit organization. Readers are encouraged to submit their ideas for future issues of 'Skeptical Eye,' providing contact information via email and phone.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism, critical thinking, and the debunking of pseudoscience and unsubstantiated claims. The magazine consistently promotes a rational approach to understanding phenomena, whether it be 'intelligent design,' paranormal claims, or superstitions. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of scientific explanations and evidence-based reasoning, actively challenging ideas that lack empirical support or rely on logical fallacies. The publication serves as a platform for disseminating skeptical viewpoints and encouraging readers to question extraordinary claims.