Zetetic Scholar - No 05

Magazine Overview

Title: Zetetic scholar
Issue: Number 5
Date: December 1979
Publisher: Marcello Truzzi
Description: An Independent Scientific Review of Claims of Anomalies and the Paranormal.

Articles

Attitudes of College Professors Toward Extra-Sensory Perception

This article by Mahlon W. Wagner and Mary Monnet explores the attitudes of college professors towards Extra-Sensory Perception (ESP). It notes that while students are often taught to value science and objectivity, scientific progress itself may not always be orderly, sometimes involving paradigm revolutions defended on emotional grounds. Parapsychology is presented as a border area where such crises occur. The authors cite previous studies by Jahoda, Pasachoff et al., and Salter and Routledge, which found no overall support for the hypothesis that general university education or scientific training leads to a decline in supernatural belief. These studies indicated an average belief in ESP around 12.0 on a scale of 0-20. Further research by Warner and Clark, and Warner, assessing attitudes within the American Psychological Association, showed a rise in favorable attitudes towards ESP from 8% in 1938 to 17% in 1952, with unfavorable attitudes remaining high at 50% and 49% respectively. However, a significant majority (89%) felt that ESP investigation was a legitimate scientific undertaking, and 77% believed it fell within the province of academic Psychology. The article also references a survey by Goodstein and Brazis which suggested that psychologists' evaluations of research studies could be biased by positive or negative findings, with younger psychologists being more accepting of positive results. A survey of psychology departments indicated that while most felt there should be no separate course for Parapsychology, a majority supported its minimal coverage in other courses, with negative comments often citing lack of relevance and scientific evidence. A recent survey of New Scientist readers, predominantly scientists and technologists, showed a more favorable attitude towards ESP (67% favorable, 22% negative) compared to psychologists, with believers often citing personal experience as their basis. A Gallup Poll from June 1978 indicated that 51% of adults believe in ESP, with two-thirds of college-educated individuals holding this belief. The authors note potential issues with previous studies, including small sample sizes, outdated data, and self-selection bias.

A Dialogue on "Statistical Problems in Psi Research"

This section features a dialogue concerning statistical issues in psi research. It includes a prologue by M. Truzzi, a reply to Persi Diaconis by Edward F. Kelly, and a rejoinder from Persi Diaconis.

Thirty Years After Kenneth Arnold: The Situation Regarding UFOs

Pierre Guerin's article examines the state of UFO research thirty years after the Kenneth Arnold sighting.

A Review of UFO Witnesses' Reliability

J. Richard Greenwell reviews the reliability of UFO witnesses.

A Visit to the Centre de Cryptozoologie

Ron Westrum shares his experience visiting the Centre de Cryptozoologie.

Literalism and Symbolism in Anthropological Understanding: The Sasquatch Image

Robin Ridington's article discusses literalism and symbolism in anthropological understanding, focusing on the image of the Sasquatch.

"The Heresy of a New Synthesis": The Author Responds

Joseph May responds to critiques of his work, "The Heresy of a New Synthesis."

ZS Dialogues Continued

This section includes further dialogue, with a rejoinder by Joseph Agassi and replies from G. Dean & A. Mather, and comments on the Dialogue on Velikovsky by C. Leroy Ellenberger.

Features

Letters and Communications

This section contains correspondence from James W. Davis, Thomas A. Sebeok, Marvin A. Luckerman, and Randall Collins. James W. Davis critiques an article by Dr. Sebeok regarding "Chris," a dog involved in psi research, questioning Sebeok's reliance on popular books over scientific journals and pointing out a misrepresentation of Pratt's wording. Professor Sebeok responds, agreeing on the importance of authoritative citations but disagreeing with the characterization of the Journal of Parapsychology as "scientific." He also discusses "unconscious cues" and leakage in relation to psi experiments.

Marvin Arnold Luckerman comments on the articles related to Dr. May and the Velikovsky movement, noting that while May's article was interesting, the comments seemed dated. He argues that the tiles from Ramses III are key artifacts for determining historical periods and that a panel of experts should determine their nature. Luckerman expresses gratitude to Dr. Velikovsky for forcing original thinking.

Randall Collins discusses the symposium on Velikovsky, questioning why Velikovsky has attracted such popularity. He suggests that Velikovsky's appeal might stem from his challenge to established disciplines and the broader anti-science sentiment prevalent in the post-atomic bomb era. Collins expresses concern about the long-term future of science, noting a trend where rationally worked-out positions are displaced by cruder, dogmatic ones, possibly provoked by the arrogance of intellectual communities.

Editorial

In the editorial, Marcello Truzzi outlines the mission of Zetetic Scholar as a mediator between strong viewpoints on the paranormal, emphasizing the importance of seeking truth, mutual courtesy, and respect for scientific method. He states that the journal is not aimed at educating the general public but at fostering serious discourse among responsible proponents and critics. Truzzi argues against labeling ideas as "crank" or "crackpot" prematurely, asserting that scientific ideas should not be judged by their content but by the quality of their arguments. He stresses that science is a method, not a fixed set of claims, and that inquiry should not be blocked. The editorial highlights the journal's commitment to "scientific due process" and fairness, acting as "amicus curiae" rather than judge or jury, and encourages reader participation.

Quoteworthy

A selection of noteworthy quotes from the issue.

Bibliography on Scientific Studies of the "Lunar Effect" and Human Behavior

Ivan W. Kelly provides a bibliography on scientific studies related to the "lunar effect" and human behavior.

Random Bibliography on the Occult & the Paranormal

A collection of references related to the occult and paranormal.

Book Reviews

This section includes reviews of "Dowsing: The Psi Connection" by Francis Hitching (reviewed by R. Hyman), "The UFO Handbook" by Allan Hendry (reviewed by R. Westrum with a reply by Hendry), and "The Reception of Unconventional Science" by Seymour H. Mauskopf, "Les Derniers Dragons d'Afrique" by Bernard Heuvelmans, and "OUNIS: El Fenomeno Aterrizaje" by Vincente-Juan Ballester Olmos (reviewed by R. Westrum).

Books Briefly Noted

Short notices of other relevant books.

About the Contributors

Information about the individuals who contributed to this issue.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific investigation of paranormal phenomena, including ESP, UFOs, and cryptozoology. The editorial stance, as articulated by Marcello Truzzi, is one of open-minded yet rigorous scientific inquiry. The journal positions itself as a neutral forum for debate, encouraging a critical but respectful examination of evidence and arguments, rather than taking definitive stances or debunking claims outright. There is a strong emphasis on "scientific due process" and the importance of distinguishing between the content of a claim and the quality of the arguments supporting it. The issue also touches upon the sociology of science, the nature of scientific revolutions, and the public perception of science, particularly in relation to figures like Velikovsky and the broader anti-science movement.

This issue of "A DIALOGUE ON "STATISTICAL PROBLEMS IN ESP RESEARCH"" from July 1973, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, delves into the attitudes of American college professors toward parapsychology and ESP, alongside a critical examination of research methodology and publication biases.

Survey of Attitudes Toward Parapsychology

The primary study surveyed 1188 American college and university professors regarding their views on Extra-Sensory Perception (ESP). The methodology involved mailing questionnaires to faculty selected randomly from institutions meeting specific size criteria. The study aimed to survey attitudes across various disciplines, considering previous research that suggested social scientists might be less accepting of parapsychological research.

Subjects and Method

Questionnaires were mailed to 2,100 faculty members from 120 randomly selected colleges and universities (with over 1,000 students and 100 faculty). The selection ensured representation from five academic areas: natural science, social science, humanities, arts, and education. A total of 990 usable replies were received in 1973. A preliminary sample of 300 "on campus" surveys at S.U.N.Y. Oswego yielded 198 returns, with no ambiguous questions identified. The final sample comprised 1,188 usable replies from 2,400 mailed surveys.

The questionnaire was a one-page mimeographed document, similar to those used in prior studies, with the addition of four biographical questions (sex, academic field, birth order, birth month/year). Respondents could choose to receive results or remain anonymous. Data analysis utilized cross-tabulation tables, Chi Square tests, and Pearson correlation coefficients.

Results of the Survey

Biographical data of the respondents generally reflected the academic population: 79% were male, 21% female; 37.5% were oldest children, 14.0% only children, 25% middle children, and 24% youngest, with a median age of 41. However, the academic fields were not proportionally represented in the returns. Natural sciences accounted for 25% of returns, social sciences 20.7%, humanities 18%, arts 15.2%, and education 21%. Returns were significantly fewer than expected from universities with less than 1500 or more than 10,000 students, and more than expected from universities with 1500-3000 students.

Attitudes toward ESP were similar to those found in England and a Gallup Poll, with 66% favorably disposed and 23% negative. However, attitudes were more negative regarding ESP in plants and animals, with only 38% positive and 49% negative. A significant majority (84%) considered ESP a legitimate scientific undertaking, and 65% felt it fell within the province of academic psychology.

Table I compared attitudes toward ESP across studies. This study found 16.3% considered ESP an established fact, 49.3% a likely possibility, 10.9% merely unknown, 19.4% a remote possibility, and 4.1% an impossibility. Sources of belief varied, with newspapers (53.5%) and books by Rhine (18.7%) being prominent.

Academic Field Differences

When academic fields were considered separately, a notable finding was that humanities, arts, and education professors expressed positive attitudes toward ESP at higher rates (73-79%) than natural scientists (55%) and social scientists (56%). Conversely, 53% of those who considered ESP an impossibility were social scientists. These differences were statistically significant.

Table 2a detailed the relation between academic field and attitude toward ESP, showing variations in responses across categories like "established fact" to "impossibility" for each discipline.

Table 2b compared the attitudes of social science professors and psychologists in this study with psychologists from a 1952 Warner survey. Psychologists in the current study showed a significant difference from the general social science population and from the 1952 psychologist group, being less neutral and more negative toward ESP.

Respondents positively disposed toward ESP were more likely to feel it was a legitimate scientific undertaking, important to science and making progress, and desired to receive the study results.

Sources of Belief and Discipline Differences

An important question explored the sources of information influencing attitudes. The most cited sources were newspapers/magazines, books by Rhine, scientific journal reports, hearsay, a priori grounds, and personal experience. Citing newspapers/magazines and books by Rhine correlated with more positive attitudes toward ESP. Those citing scientific journals showed a split between seeing ESP as an established fact or an impossibility, suggesting diverse sources. A priori grounds correlated with more negative attitudes, while personal experience correlated with more positive attitudes.

Differences in citing sources were observed across disciplines: natural scientists cited hearsay and a priori reasons more, read fewer Rhine books; social scientists read more Rhine books and scientific journals; arts and humanities professors cited personal experience more often.

Opinions on ESP in plants/animals were generally less accepting, with natural and social scientists having a 2-to-1 negative opinion, while other areas were evenly divided.

Psychologists' Skepticism

A final breakdown revealed that psychologists were significantly more negative toward ESP than the general social science population and also differed from a 1952 survey, showing less neutrality and more hostility. Attempts to correlate attitudes with age, sex, or birth order were unsuccessful, though older arts professors were slightly more negative. Universities with Lutheran/Catholic/Episcopalian affiliations showed more favorable attitudes toward ESP compared to other types of institutions.

Discussion

The study's findings largely aligned with recent research, indicating that a general university education does not necessarily decrease belief in the paranormal. College professors, as a group, held more positive attitudes toward ESP than the general American public. The greater negativity from social scientists and greater positivity from humanities, arts, and education professors were highlighted. The authors speculated that the latter groups might be more experientially oriented, making them more open to phenomena criticized for lack of scientific rigor but amenable to personal experience. The higher return rate from natural and social scientists was attributed to their greater orientation towards research.

The low acceptance of ESP in plants and/or animals was noted, possibly due to poor question wording and recent negative publicity regarding the "Backster effect." The study's return rate of 49% was considered accurate, suggesting that Parapsychology may be finding a place in legitimate academia, supported by the increasing number of university courses and the acceptance of the Parapsychological Association as an affiliate member of the AAAS.

Two key questions were posed for the future: what ESP needs to do to gain acceptance from natural and social scientists, and how psychologists can alert colleagues to the problems of uncritically accepting ESP claims. The emergence of journals like "The Skeptical Inquirer" and "The Zetetic Scholar" was noted as relevant to this discussion.

Dialogue on "Statistical Problems in ESP Research"

This section addresses a critique of ESP research published in the July 1973 issue of "Science" by Dr. Persi Diaconis, a statistician. The article, while acknowledged as potentially insightful, sparked controversy within the parapsychological community due to perceived biases in the publication and review process.

Prologue and Concerns

Dr. Diaconis, known for his skills in deception analysis and as a "friendly critic" of psi research, published an article in "Science" that highlighted statistical problems in ESP research. Many in the parapsychological community felt "Science" had a history of rejecting research supporting their claims while accepting critiques. They argued that "Science" had sometimes rejected articles that met the standards of other scientific research, implying a bias against parapsychology. Conversely, proponents of such rejections argued that the submitted studies lacked the rigor required for extraordinary claims.

The publication of Diaconis's article was seen as further evidence of a negative and unscientific bias against parapsychology at "Science." The critique was perceived on two grounds: the substantive quality of the article and the manner in which it was reviewed and refereed.

Review Process and Allegations

While the article was informally reviewed by parapsychologists at Dr. Diaconis's invitation, it was charged that no parapsychologists were involved in the formal review process conducted by "Science" itself. Given that the article attacked parapsychology, and that parapsychologists are members of the AAAS (which publishes "Science"), it was argued that at least one parapsychologist should have been consulted. The authors emphasized that this was not about giving veto power but ensuring "due process." The parapsychological community widely accepted the rumor that no formal involvement occurred.

The editor of "Science," Dr. Philip H. Abelson, was contacted regarding this issue but had not responded by the time of publication. The authors drew parallels to other disciplines, suggesting that an article by an "extremist" in psychology denouncing sociology, or by a physiologist denying mentalist constructions, would surely involve experts from the criticized fields in the review process.

Conclusion of the Dialogue

Whether parapsychologists were involved in the review process remained uncertain. The authors expressed hope that if a parapsychologist was involved, it would be made known to clarify the issue. If not, they hoped such courtesies would be extended in the future. These criticisms were presented as independent of the content of Diaconis's article.

Appendix A: Survey of Attitudes Towards Parapsychology

This appendix contains the actual questionnaire used in the survey. It includes questions on the respondent's opinion of ESP (established fact to impossibility), the basis of their opinion (newspapers, books, journals, hearsay, a priori, personal experience), whether they consider ESP investigation legitimate, their general attitude towards parapsychology (important and progressing, important but not progressing, promising once but not now, never promising, pseudoscience), and their opinion on ESP in plants and/or animals. It also collects demographic data: sex, current academic field, birth order, and birthdate. Finally, it includes a section for those wishing to receive the results.

References

The issue lists 12 references, including studies by Evans, Goodstein & Brazis, Helmstadter, Jahoda, Kuhn, Moss & Butler, Pasachoff et al., Rogo, Rosenthal, Salter & Routledge, and Warner. A note mentions a recent M.A. thesis by Laura P. Otis that found professors more skeptical than students or the general public, and psychologists to be the most skeptical, in essential agreement with the present study.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific community's perception and acceptance of parapsychology and ESP. The survey results indicate a generally positive, albeit varied, attitude among university professors, suggesting that ESP is gaining some traction in academia. However, the discussion also highlights persistent skepticism, particularly from social scientists and psychologists, and the challenges faced by parapsychology in achieving mainstream scientific acceptance. The critique of the peer review process in "Science" underscores the ongoing tension and perceived bias within the scientific establishment regarding research into anomalous phenomena. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical inquiry, aiming to present empirical data on attitudes while also addressing methodological and institutional issues within the field.

Title: ZETETIC SCHOLAR
Issue: 3
Volume: 4
Issue Date: July 14, 1978
Publisher: ZETETIC SCHOLAR
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of ZETETIC SCHOLAR features a significant critique by Edward F. Kelly of an article by Persi Diaconis that appeared in the journal *Science*. The primary focus is on Dr. Kelly's detailed rebuttal of Dr. Diaconis' statistical analysis and characterization of parapsychology research.

Dr. Kelly's Critique of Persi Diaconis' Article

Edward F. Kelly, a Consulting Editor for ZETETIC SCHOLAR, presents a lengthy reply to Persi Diaconis' article, "Statistical Problems in ESP Research," published in *Science*. Kelly begins by stating that Diaconis, despite his qualifications as a statistician, fails to address the main body of published experimental research in parapsychology. Instead, Diaconis raises issues largely irrelevant to the field and makes numerous incorrect and misleading statements.

Kelly identifies himself as having been actively involved in experimental parapsychology for six years and as the primary author of studies involving the subject referred to as 'B.D.', who is discussed in Diaconis' paper. He also co-authored a survey of statistical methods in parapsychology published in B. Wolman's *Handbook of Parapsychology*.

"Feedback Experiments" (p. 134)

Kelly argues that Diaconis incorrectly characterizes feedback experiments, particularly those using a "closed deck" (fixed composition, randomized order), as common in parapsychology. Kelly emphasizes a crucial distinction, familiar since the 1930s, between "closed-deck" and "open-deck" procedures. In "open-deck" procedures, targets are generated independently, making feedback permissible without affecting statistics. Kelly asserts that the vast majority of feedback experiments in parapsychology have used open-deck procedures, a point clear from the literature Diaconis cites.

Kelly points out that even in a review of studies involving feedback, only four studies were identified as combining trial-by-trial feedback with a closed-deck testing regime, and these were labeled methodologically defective. He concludes that representing such procedures as "common" in parapsychology is a gross misrepresentation.

"No Information Case" (p. 134)

Diaconis discusses the variance in the distribution of correct guesses in a "no information" closed-deck situation. Kelly clarifies that the principal direction of change in variance is downward, not upward, relative to standard binomial variance. He notes that for standard ESP decks, the maximum variance is only 1.04 times the binomial variance, and for playing card decks, the correction is even smaller.

Kelly also addresses Diaconis' apparent disparagement of a 1937 statement by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, which vindicated J.B. Rhine's basic methods of statistical evaluation. Kelly states that the closed-deck, no-information situation differs only trivially from the true binomial and is well approximated by the normal distribution, even in short series. Diaconis, according to Kelly, construes this as an example of good statisticians being led astray.

Diaconis also incorrectly suggests that statistical tools for evaluating complex experiments are unavailable. Kelly qualifies this by stating it only applies to closed-deck procedures with trial-by-trial feedback, a rare case in practice.

"Informal Design and Evaluation" (p. 131)

Kelly identifies Diaconis' most serious misrepresentations in this section, where Diaconis suggests that experimental designs in parapsychology are often "non-standard," informal, and careless, leading to difficulties in statistical analysis and opportunities for redefinition of success or subject cheating. Kelly finds these generalizations inaccurate and unsubstantiated.

Diaconis attempts to support his claims with a few non-experimental examples, primarily involving "star psychics" like Bill Delmore (B.D.), Ted Serios, and Uri Geller. Kelly focuses on the B.D. case, with which he is most familiar, having arranged an informal demonstration at Harvard that Diaconis witnessed.

Kelly emphasizes that "star" performers are not the sole source of evidence for psi phenomena. He highlights the increasing focus on process-oriented studies with unselected subjects, which are typically like standard psychological experiments. These studies aim to understand the characteristics and conditions of psi occurrence, rather than just accumulating more evidence.

Kelly details the work with B.D., including a main series of tests involving 5,337 guesses on a 4-choice ESP test machine, where B.D. achieved a scoring rate of 28.7% (p < 10-9). Subsequent work, supported by the Hodgson Fund, focused on card-guessing tasks. In one study, B.D. identified individual cards randomly selected from a pool of ten decks, scoring exact hits at three times the chance expectation. The goal of this research was to understand the underlying mechanisms, and Kelly notes that B.D.'s errors were systematic and similar to errors made in visual identification tasks, suggesting a mechanism involving fleeting visual imagery.

A second series of experiments involved B.D. shuffling a "call" deck to match a randomized target deck. In 55 runs, B.D. produced an excess of exact hits without systematic erroneous responses, suggesting different mechanisms.

Kelly criticizes Diaconis for conflating the informal Harvard demonstration with the formal experiments, stating that Diaconis is "entirely confident that none of these distinctions is meaningful." Kelly asserts that Diaconis provides no information about the formal experiments, making it difficult for readers to judge the validity of his claims. He provides details about the Harvard demonstration, clarifying that its purpose was to secure funding and that no effort was made to control B.D.'s performance, making it emphatically not an experiment.

Kelly also refutes Diaconis' claim that the conditions of the formal experiments were not in control, stating that Diaconis provides no warrant for this "astonishing suggestion." He notes that Diaconis' conclusions about the B.D. case go beyond his observations, interpreting events as cheating without certainty.

Kelly concludes that Diaconis' generalization of his tactics to the entire literature of parapsychology is "scholarly irresponsibility." He argues that Diaconis does a "grave disservice" to parapsychology and the scientific process by presenting misinformation.

Related References

The issue provides a list of notes and references, including:

• Diaconis' article in *Science*, Vol. 201 (July 14, 1978).
• "ESP Research" (Letters on the Diaconis article) in *Science*, Vol. 202 (December 15, 1978), featuring contributions from Charles T. Tart, Harold E. Puthoff, Russell Targ, and a reply by Persi Diaconis.
• K. Ramakrishna Rao, "Psi: Its Place in Nature," in *Journal of Parapsychology*, Vol. 42, #34 (December 1978).
• References to various papers by E.F. Kelly and collaborators in journals like *JASPR* and *JP*.
• A reference to the *Handbook of Parapsychology* edited by B. Wolman.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly defends the rigor and validity of parapsychological research against what it perceives as unfair and inaccurate criticism from the mainstream scientific community, as exemplified by Persi Diaconis' article. The editorial stance, as represented by M. Truzzi and the publication of Kelly's detailed critique, is to provide a platform for defending the field and encouraging readers to investigate the evidence themselves. The recurring themes are the importance of sound methodology, the distinction between rigorous experimentation and informal demonstrations, and the need for fair and objective evaluation of research findings in parapsychology.

This document is a rejoinder by Persi Diaconis to Edward F. Kelly, addressing specific points raised by Kelly regarding parapsychology and UFO research. The document, dated around 1979 based on a quote, also includes a collection of quotes on various scientific and philosophical topics, and an article by Pierre Guerin on the situation regarding UFOs.

Rejoinder to Edward F. Kelly by Persi Diaconis

Diaconis structures his response to Kelly around three main points:

Point 1: Feedback Experiments and ESP Research Diaconis asserts that his results on feedback experiments are relevant to ESP research, contrary to Kelly's claim. He explains that in feedback experiments, where subjects are told if their guess was right or wrong, the dependence (correlation) between targets can provide information about the next target. This complicates analysis, especially when computer-generated pseudo-random numbers are used or in remote viewing setups. He cites an example where Tart used a faulty random number generator in a feedback experiment, leading to non-significant results after correction. Diaconis's own studies on simple cases show that feedback must be carefully handled to avoid making ordinary results appear extraordinary. He argues that the ongoing efforts by researchers like Gatlin, Targ, and Puthoff to measure the effect of feedback contradict Kelly's claim that technically correct methods for analyzing modern complex experiments are available.

Point 2: The Case of B.D. Diaconis addresses Kelly's response regarding an informal session with a psychic named B.D. Diaconis had written that B.D. used sleight of hand. Kelly's response, according to Diaconis, essentially makes the same point but without admitting B.D. used sleight of hand or other devices. Diaconis believes that ESP experiments conducted by known sleight of hand users should include magicians skilled in detecting such methods as part of the protocol. He notes that Kelly's experiments with B.D. did not report such precautions. Diaconis presents a dilemma: either Kelly was unaware of B.D.'s sleight of hand, or he was aware but chose not to disclose it. Neither scenario inspires confidence in Kelly's research with B.D., which Diaconis regards as an amusing curiosity rather than scientific evidence.

Point 3: Not a Survey Diaconis agrees with Kelly that the experiments he has encountered are not a random sample of the ESP literature. However, Diaconis bases his conclusions on contact with highly skilled researchers in the field, including Ed Kelly, Julie Eisenbud, Charles Tart, Hal Puthoff, and Russell Targ. He states that despite their expertise, his contact with these researchers has not yielded evidence of paranormal phenomena, but rather has revealed sincere, dedicated researchers conducting sloppy experiments. He concludes that in 1979, a serious ESP researcher is defending experiments involving a performer observed to use sleight of hand as evidence for the paranormal.

Quotes The document includes a collection of quotes from various historical figures on topics such as telepathy, personality, science, truth, and imagination. Notable figures quoted include Luther Burbank, Thomas Alva Edison, T.H. Huxley, Miguel de Unamuno, David Hume, Benjamin Disraeli, Josh Billing, Robert Ingersoll, John Dewey, Benedict Spinoza, O.W. Holmes, Henry Ford, Thomas Jefferson, H.D. Thoreau, Simon Newcomb, Alfred Velpeau, Sir John Erichsen, Colonel Sir John Smuth, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Sir Peter Medawar, George Bernard Shaw, Churton Collins, Mencius, and Montaigne.

Thirty Years After Kenneth Arnold: The Situation Regarding UFOs by Pierre Guerin

This article synthesizes existing works on UFOs, aiming to eliminate unsatisfactory hypotheses and arrive at a conclusion that accounts for known factors. Guerin focuses on the 'irreducible remainder' of UFO cases after eliminating known objects, hoaxes, and hallucinations, estimating this to be 1% to 15% of reported cases.

The Impasse in UFOlogy Guerin describes the current state of UFOlogy as an impasse, reflected in its journals. He outlines three common types of articles: 1. Physicist's predictions: Explaining UFO physical aspects through magnetohydrodynamics or particle physics, assuming extraterrestrial probes. 2. Polemical pieces: Emphasizing the 'paranormal' character of UFOs and their relation to sociocultural context, interpreting them as parapsychological materializations. 3. Critical studies: Dismissing UFO phenomena as resulting from natural stimulus or hallucination, often generalizing from suspicious cases.

Guerin notes that proponents of contradictory interpretations are unwilling to compromise, leading to a deadlock. He suggests this situation arises when the elaboration of new concepts fails to keep pace with the accumulation of facts, forcing a search for reductionist explanations at the cost of rejecting some observed facts.

The Inadequacy of the Classical Extra-Terrestrial "Model" Guerin critiques the model of UFOs as sophisticated extraterrestrial vehicles. * Interstellar Distances: The immense distances between stars make interstellar travel, even at near-light speeds, require tens to thousands of years. This contradicts the observed frequency and size of UFOs, which appear to be small and frequent. * Modeling Human Dreams: Guerin, citing Bertrand Méheust, suggests that UFO forms and behaviors may model themselves on science fiction tales, implying that UFOs are not spatial probes but rather manifestations influenced by human thought and imagination. While acknowledging the possibility of hallucinatory factors, he argues hallucination alone doesn't explain all sightings. * Anthropocentrism and Functionality: The 'humanoid' behavior of collecting plants and pebbles is seen as aping human astronauts and lacks the functionality expected of real scientific explorers. Guerin posits that if extraterrestrial intelligence is involved, its activities would likely be incomprehensible to us, not grotesque or deceptive.

Refutation of the Parapsychological Model Guerin addresses the 'paranormal' model, which assimilates UFOs to materializations of human parapsychological origin. He finds this model contradictory to facts, despite its ability to explain some aspects that the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot. * Lack of Precedent: There are no clear examples in parapsychological literature of materializations resembling UFOs. Guerin dismisses analogies drawn between 'ectoplasm' and UFOs as weak. * Contradiction with Ectoplasm: While acknowledging the controversy surrounding ectoplasm, Guerin notes that ectoplasms, unlike UFOs, are not associated with the physical reality of the phenomenon itself but rather with the medium's effect on matter.

Overall, Guerin concludes that the UFO phenomenon is more complex and difficult to interpret than initially thought, even if extraterrestrial intelligence is controlling it.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The document reflects a critical and skeptical stance towards claims of paranormal phenomena and UFOs, particularly when scientific rigor is perceived to be lacking. Persi Diaconis emphasizes the importance of methodological soundness, statistical analysis, and the exclusion of known trickery (like sleight of hand) in research. Pierre Guerin, while acknowledging the persistence of the UFO phenomenon, critically examines and refutes both the extraterrestrial and paranormal explanations, suggesting a deeper, perhaps psychological or sociocultural, dimension to the sightings. The collection of quotes further underscores a theme of intellectual honesty, the nature of scientific inquiry, and the distinction between belief and evidence.

This issue of L'ÉCHO DES MYSTÈRES, dated Paris, 9 November 1978, delves into the complex nature of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), critically examining and refuting common explanations such as parapsychological manifestations and spontaneous hallucinations. The publication adopts a rationalist stance, emphasizing scientific method while acknowledging the profound mysteries surrounding UFOs.

Refutation of Parapsychological and Hallucination Models

The article begins by contrasting UFOs with ectoplasmic phenomena, noting that while ectoplasm is associated with cooling effects, UFOs often exhibit intense heating effects, even dessicating soil. It argues that UFOs, when observed under good conditions, appear as structured machines, unlike the fluctuating halos or light beams sometimes associated with them. The author contends that equating UFOs with ectoplasms is an oversimplification that ignores substantial evidence.

Furthermore, the text dismisses the idea that UFOs are purely parapsychological manifestations, stating that such a phenomenon would be entirely new and without precedent. While acknowledging profound analogies between extraordinary paranormal phenomena, the author asserts that UFOs are more than just variants of mental effects on matter.

The article then scrutinizes the hypothesis that UFOs are spontaneous waking hallucinations. It highlights that this model fails to account for the physical effects observed, such as ground traces or the stoppage of car motors. Statistical studies by Claude Poher are cited, indicating that the number of UFO sightings increases with the angular height of vision and is proportional to the amount of sun received, suggesting a real physical object or phenomenon is involved, not mere hallucination.

Psychologists recognize common perceptual errors, but these are typically short-lived and caused by fatigue. The author contrasts this with UFO sightings, which are often detailed, terrifying, and experienced by witnesses who are fully awake and sober. The article argues that invoking hallucinations to explain UFOs is a gratuitous 'deus ex machina,' unlike the scientific basis for the existence of extraterrestrials.

Moreover, the text points out the lack of correlation between UFO waves and specific geographical or temporal concentrations of potential stimuli (like planets or weather balloons), which would be expected if hallucinations were triggered by external factors. The descriptions of UFOs are also noted to possess a great number of purely physical properties, such as erratic movements and pulsing lights, which do not easily fit into psychoanalytic interpretations of the unconscious.

The "Model" of Spontaneous Waking Hallucination

The article critiques the 'spontaneous waking hallucination' model, which is invoked by "rationalist" circles when testimonies are too detailed to be dismissed as misinterpretations of natural objects. It argues that this model is implausible and not supported by evidence. The author notes that psychiatric literature does not describe hallucinations of this type in individuals who are not suffering from pathological states.

The Solution of the Problem

The issue proposes several conclusions about the nature of UFOs:

1. UFOs are not space-ships exploring our planet from interstellar space, but they appear as flying machines guided by an intelligence.
2. UFOs are not human parapsychic materializations or spontaneous hallucinations, though they can sometimes create paranormal interferences.
3. UFOs can travel through the atmosphere or disappear and rematerialize elsewhere, suggesting capabilities beyond current physics.
4. The true solution to interstellar travel likely involves 'hyper-physics' and space-time warps, rather than conventional trajectories, which would take too long.
5. Modern astrophysics suggests the existence of countless planetary systems with life, and it's probable that some extraterrestrial species have evolved far beyond human intellectual and technological levels.
6. An intelligence, distinct from our own, directs UFOs. This intelligence seems aware of our technological evolution and presents UFOs in forms that align with current human technological dreams. The phenomenon's elusive nature and the absurdity of some observed scenes (landings, pursuits) suggest a deliberate manipulation.

The author questions whether humanity is being "colonized" without its knowledge, likening it to a cow unaware of its role in a dairy cooperative.

The Reasons for Intellectual Rejection

The article discusses the intellectual resistance to accepting UFOs, particularly the tendency to attribute phenomena to divine or celestial entities. It contrasts this with the scientific endeavor to explain phenomena through natural and logical mechanisms. However, it criticizes the scientific community for becoming exclusively reductionist and for its 'aggressive militancy' in rejecting UFOs, which it likens to obscurantism.

The issue posits two main postulates that underpin the 'rationalist' rejection of UFOs:

1. The Supremacy of the Human Brain: Science progresses by expanding knowledge, implying that the human brain can eventually understand everything in the universe, placing it at the supreme level of intelligence.
2. The Uselessness of Divine Intervention: Because natural phenomena are reducible to logical mechanisms, the hypothesis of intervention by divine or transcendental entities is deemed unnecessary or impossible.

This scientific worldview, the article argues, leads to a fear of the unknown and an attempt to confine the world to a reassuring order. The 'rationalist' approach to UFOs, characterized by distrust and irony, is seen as a manifestation of this fear.

The Future of UFO Research and Potential Dangers

The author suggests that the study of UFOs, now being undertaken by the scientific community, will likely lead to the ruin of the current dominant ideology. However, it is unlikely that UFOlogists alone will achieve this victory. Even national security services, aware of the reality of UFOs, refrain from public disclosure due to fears of panic and denial by elites.

The hope lies in new developments in theoretical physics that could provide a conceptual framework to integrate UFOs rationally into science. The article concludes with a warning: if humanity remains unable to grasp the UFO phenomenon, its ceaseless repetition could lead to a 'pernicious and stupifying wave of religious credulity,' marking a regression of reason. The author questions if this is the ultimate goal of the 'visitors.'

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the nature of UFOs, the limitations of current scientific and psychological explanations, and the potential implications of an unknown intelligence interacting with humanity. The editorial stance is critical of simplistic explanations, advocating for a rigorous, evidence-based approach that does not shy away from the profound implications of the UFO phenomenon. It challenges the prevailing 'rationalist' dogma and suggests that a deeper understanding may require a paradigm shift in our scientific and philosophical outlook.

This issue of "SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF THE "LUNAR EFFECT" AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR", compiled by Ivan W. Kelly, appears to be a collection of academic and bibliographic resources rather than a typical magazine with articles and news. The content spans several pages, featuring extensive lists of cited studies and a few standalone pieces.

"A FABLE"

This section presents a short, allegorical story titled "A FABLE" by "--MT". It describes a breakthrough for parapsychologists led by Dr. Jeremiah Gizmo, who realized that demonstrating "psi missing" (scoring consistently below chance) in skeptical subjects could prove the existence of psi. By gathering skeptical subjects, Dr. Gizmo consistently replicated the psi missing effect. Skeptics were able to produce psi missing, which they admitted proved the existence of psi, as consistent below-chance hits were as indicative as above-chance hits. While believers still couldn't score consistently above chance, proving "bad luck" was considered proof of "luck." This success converted the skeptics to believers, paradoxically eliminating the phenomenon they sought to study.

Bibliographies on the Lunar Effect

The majority of the content is dedicated to comprehensive bibliographies of studies related to the "Lunar Effect" on human behavior. These are divided into two main sections:

I. STUDIES FAVORING A LUNAR INFLUENCE ON HUMAN BEHAVIOR

This section lists numerous academic papers and books published between the 1950s and late 1970s that explore correlations between lunar cycles and various human behaviors, including postoperative hemorrhage, emergency room visits, mental hospital contacts, suicide, homicides, crime rates, obstetric factors, live births, human reproduction, self-inflicted injuries, and childbirth.

II. STUDIES DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF A LUNAR INFLUENCE ON HUMAN BEHAVIOR

This section provides an equally extensive list of studies that have failed to find a significant link between lunar phases and human behavior. Topics covered include the "Lunar Effect" itself, mental illness, suicide attempts, crime, homicides, suicide, crisis calls, antisocial behavior, and general human periodicity.

III. RELEVANT PSYCHOLOGICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL AND GENERAL SCIENCE STUDIES OF THE LUNAR EFFECT AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR

This smaller section includes studies that approach the topic from broader psychological, sociological, or historical perspectives, such as explanations for belief in lunar influence, cosmic clocks, the moon and medicine, and moonlight and nervous disorders.

"A REVIEW OF UFO WITNESSES' RELIABILITY"

This article, by J. Richard Greenwell, addresses the crucial question of whether UFO reports are credible and if human testimony alone can prove UFO reality. The article outlines four stages in the production of a UFO report: sensation, perception, recall, and interpretation. It emphasizes that human senses, particularly vision and hearing, are highly accurate, a result of evolutionary development. However, perception can be less reliable due to cultural and social factors, and memory (recall) is a complex and not fully understood process prone to distortions. The investigator's interpretation is also influenced by their attitude towards the witness and the UFO subject.

The article then presents "Selected Opinions of Professional Scientists" from various fields:

• Astronomers: Frank Drake suggests that perception can fail and witnesses may see what they want to see, noting the inaccuracy of witness reports over time. William Hartmann introduced the term "conception" and studied the "airship effect," where UFO sightings are influenced by popular culture. Allen Hynek, a UFO "proponent," believes credible reporters should be trusted unless there's reason not to, while Carl Sagan argues that no UFO cases are simultaneously reliable and exotic.
• Sociologists: Robert Hall compares UFO witness testimony to court cases, finding some strong, but acknowledges human memory is fallible and influenced by prior information. Donald Warren's work suggests UFO sightings are linked to status frustration and perceived status deprivations.

SUPPLEMENTS TO PAST ZETETIC SCHOLAR BIBLIOGRAPHIES

This section provides bibliographies on "VAMPIRES: STUDIES & ORGANIZATIONS" and "LYCANTHROPY," listing relevant books and articles on these folklore and paranormal topics.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the scientific investigation of paranormal phenomena, particularly the "Lunar Effect" and UFOs, and the critical examination of human perception, memory, and witness reliability. The compilation of extensive bibliographies suggests an academic and research-oriented approach, aiming to provide a comprehensive overview of existing literature on these subjects. The editorial stance, as inferred from the content, appears to be one of rigorous scientific inquiry, presenting both sides of debated topics (like the lunar effect) and critically analyzing the factors that contribute to belief and reporting in areas like UFO phenomena.

This issue of Flying Saucer Review, Volume 26, Number 2, dated August 1977, with a cover price of £0.50, focuses on the psychological aspects of UFO witness testimony and explores the field of cryptozoology. The cover headline highlights "The UFO Witness: A Psychological Study."

The UFO Witness: A Psychological Study

The issue begins by examining the reliability of UFO witnesses from a psychological perspective. Ron Westrum, a UFO proponent, is cited as concluding that eyewitness testimony can be useful but only when its limitations and potential distortions are understood. Psychologists like Peter Delin and Douglass Price-Williams emphasize the difficulty in assessing witness credibility, noting that people often express themselves in "thing-language" rather than "process-language" and are unused to angular estimation.

Roger Shepard of Stanford University suggests that the UFO problem is more amenable to psychological methods than physical science, as the data largely comes from human observers. He argues that human powers of recognition surpass instruments and that witnesses, even under extreme fear or anxiety, can retain accurate, almost photographic records that may be lost if investigators rely solely on the witness's potentially inadequate or misleading words.

Michael Wertheimer, in a review of the Condon Report, concludes that UFO reports are inherently untrustworthy due to the nature of human sensation, perception, cognition, and reporting. He stresses that even credible observers' reports must be viewed cautiously, as they always contain a human element and are subject to distorting effects of energy transmission, imperfect mediums, and subjective interpretations.

Psychiatrists' Perspectives

Lester Grinspoon and Alan Persky propose psychoanalytic theories, linking UFO sightings to "primary-process thinking" and phallic or breast-shaped UFOs, suggesting this might explain the emotionalism surrounding the subject.

Mark Rhine calls eyewitness reports "notoriously unreliable" but cautions that open-minded investigators should not dismiss them without scrutiny, acknowledging possibilities for error and distortion.

Berthold Schwarz states that psychiatrists can help evaluate witness credibility, emphasizing that hospitalization for emotional illness does not invalidate an observation but may even strengthen it, requiring each case to be studied on its own merits.

Sidney Walker III, who conducted comprehensive evaluations of UFO witnesses, criticizes "scientific closed-mindedness" that dismisses eyewitness reports as too bizarre or from "crazy people." He advocates for a "benevolent skepticism," suggesting specialized medical assessment of observers to establish integrity and place human error into a perceptual context, offering both quantitative and qualitative assessment of central nervous system functioning.

Additional Considerations

UFO investigators have used a "strangeness-probability matrix" to rate the unconventionality of reported objects and the reliability of the report. High strangeness and low probability reports are considered most challenging.

Studies on witness reliability in other areas, such as automobile accidents, are discussed. Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus's research shows how subtle changes in questioning can significantly increase inaccurate responses. Her experiments with filmed auto accidents demonstrated that estimates of speed varied based on the verbs used (e.g., 'contacted,' 'hit,' 'smashed'), and that memory could be altered over time by the type of questions asked.

The implications for UFO witness reliability are significant: memory can be distorted, and investigators can inadvertently influence witnesses through leading questions. The article contrasts the methodology of science with the rules of law, noting that scientific judgments require more rigorous and repetitive evidence than legal judgments.

Two core questions are posed: "How reliable are human observers?" and "Can human testimony alone, without physical evidence, constitute proof of UFO reality?" The conclusion is that while human sensation and perception are remarkably accurate, memory is subject to distortions. Therefore, despite numerous reports, the UFO phenomenon has not yet produced the scientific evidence required to prove its reality.

A Visit to the Centre de Cryptozoologie

Ron Westrum recounts his visit in the fall of 1978 to the Centre de Cryptozoologie in Verlhiac, France, run by Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans, author of books on unknown animals. The center houses an extensive library of over 2,000 volumes, with more than 1,000 on zoology alone, and extensive collections of articles, a card catalogue, and iconography related to cryptozoology.

Heuvelmans, a former jazz singer turned zoologist, is dedicated to researching cryptozoological subjects. He is currently working on a series of books that will form a complete survey of cryptozoology, covering various regions and types of creatures, including "man-beasts" of Africa and marine monsters. The projected titles indicate a vast scope for the field.

Literalism and Symbolism in Anthropological Understanding: The Sasquatch Image

Robin Ridington discusses the challenges anthropologists face when encountering the fundamentalism of other cultures and how their own cultural intelligence is tested. He introduces the "Sasquatch image" as an ultimate intrusion into the anthropologist's world, existing as an image of possibility at the fringe of expectation.

Ridington recounts his first encounter with the Sasquatch image in a 1968 film by Roger Patterson. He and his colleague, Wilson Duff, initially viewed the Sasquatch as improbable but acknowledged its possibility due to an epistemology that makes proving a negative impossible. They were initially focused on the literal interpretation of the film.

He quotes Duff on the difficulty of explaining the meanings of one's own culture's images, let alone those of another. Despite their initial skepticism about the literal existence of the creature, the experience generated a "germ of another reality."

The article explores how the Sasquatch image, initially a fleeting glimpse in Patterson's film, has grown into a substantial cultural image over the intervening decade, carrying meanings otherwise lost. The film's stark contradiction of probabilistic knowledge with direct experience forced a confrontation with the possibility that the creature was either real or an artifice.

Ridington emphasizes that the creature's movement in the film, in contrast to Patterson's frantic pursuit, highlighted the profound reflexive nature of the image's communication. The experience of the "cyclops Patterson" brought contact with his excitement and the liminality of the vision.

The film's images, though an artifice, communicated a truth. The paradox lies in studying the unknown, glimpsed fleetingly. The article suggests that as the known world expands, we must look closer to home for images of a zone of reality "left below or beyond the view of ordinary waking consciousness."

The Sasquatch image has grown into a significant cultural symbol, capable of carrying meanings that might otherwise be lost. The authors reflect on how they saw a likeness of themselves had they recognized it at the time. The film shocked them by its contradiction of probabilistic knowledge with direct experience, forcing them to consider whether it was real or an attempt at coercion.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue consistently emphasizes the subjective and psychological nature of UFO reports, highlighting the unreliability of eyewitness testimony due to memory distortions and perceptual biases. The magazine seems to adopt a stance of cautious skepticism, advocating for rigorous scientific investigation while acknowledging the limitations of current evidence. The inclusion of cryptozoology and the anthropological analysis of the Sasquatch image suggests an interest in phenomena that lie on the fringes of conventional scientific understanding, exploring the cultural and symbolic dimensions of unexplained events.

This issue of ZETETIC SCHOLAR, identified as issue #32, delves into the complex relationship between anthropology, belief systems, and the phenomenon of the Sasquatch. The content primarily consists of analytical essays and a bibliography, exploring the symbolic and cultural significance of the Sasquatch, the nature of scientific inquiry, and the challenges of studying the paranormal.

The Sasquatch as a Cultural and Anthropological Phenomenon

The central theme revolves around the Sasquatch, not as a literal biological entity, but as a powerful cultural image. The author recounts how the image of the Sasquatch, particularly from Patterson's film, lay dormant for a decade before resurfacing after Wilson's death. A pivotal moment was the 1978 conference "Anthropology of The Unknown: Sasquatch and Related Phenomena" at the University of British Columbia, organized by Marjorie Halpin. Unlike many anthropologists who dismissed the Sasquatch, Halpin viewed it as a worthy subject of study, prompting a reflexive examination of anthropological inquiry itself.

The text argues that the terms used to describe the fundamental reality of experience must reflect our own life experience. The encounter between anthropologists and Sasquatch hunters at the conference is described as a formal contact that forced a re-examination of both their realities. By rejecting the Sasquatch as unreal, anthropologists, it is argued, tacitly accepted the literalism of believers, cutting themselves off from the broader cultural significance of the Sasquatch image.

The issue emphasizes that denying the literal reality of a "large hairy biped" also closes off the possibility of understanding the creature's image and its tracks beyond the confines of academic reality. The lesson learned from Halpin's initiative is that one's own reality must be examined as closely as the reality of the people being studied.

The Nature of Meaning and Symbolism

The article posits that people's experiences are products of their own assumptions. Phenomena experienced literally by others should not be dismissed simply because they do not align with our own experience. The text critiques the idea of "just a symbol," asserting that symbols are constructed from culturally instructed experience. Anthropologists cannot deny phenomena based on their symbolic meanings any more than they would deny phenomena in the clear light of day.

The meaning of the Sasquatch image has grown substantially over the years, becoming a potent figure in the collective mind. The author suggests that the image directs attention inward to the contemplation of meaning. While its fundamentalistic reality as a natural animal is debated, its reality as an image through which we reflect on our own condition is undeniable. The creature's form, existing just beyond our grasp, compels us to look into meanings obscured by ordinary consciousness. The Sasquatch image acts with symbolic imagination to generate meaning, and both literalism and relativism deny the authority of symbolic experience.

The Sasquatch and Cultural Identity

The Sasquatch is described as liminal, existing on the fringes of culture and at the watershed between skepticism and belief. It is an anomaly in the natural world, arising from a lack of culture rather than an excess. In contrast, modern culture is characterized by excessive intelligence but impoverished individual comprehension, with the threat of nuclear confrontation highlighting this imbalance.

The Sasquatch image is presented as a representation of hope for survival against overwhelming natural conditions, mirroring humanity's own wish for survival against overwhelming cultural conditions. The author recounts a debate about whether to shoot a Sasquatch, strongly opposing it on the grounds that it would lead to human death. The opposing view, held by some anthropologists, argued that only a dead body could prove its existence. The author countered that killing the image would result in the death of our own kind, while opponents believed its destruction would make it real. This debate is framed as an issue concerning the fate of our species and the destruction of creative intelligence.

A sonnet titled "DO NOT SHOOT THE SASQUATCH: A REFLEXIVE PARABLE" is included, urging the preservation of the creature's image as a symbol of beauty and hope.

Special Announcement and Bibliography

A "SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT" details a failed attempt to organize a precognition experiment through ZETETIC SCHOLAR issue #32. The experiment aimed to establish agreed-upon criteria for positive results and implications, with subjects' guesses to be pre-posted. However, the lack of participation, particularly from skeptics, and increased complexity due to criticisms, led to the project being put on hold.

The issue also features an extensive "RANDOM BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE OCCULT & THE PARANORMAL," listing numerous articles, books, and dissertations from various academic journals and publishers. This bibliography covers a wide range of topics including astrology, psychology, folklore, mysticism, UFOs, witchcraft, and other paranormal phenomena, indicating the journal's broad scope and engagement with fringe and interdisciplinary research.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of scientific paradigms, the nature of belief and skepticism, the symbolic interpretation of phenomena, and the reflexive relationship between the observer and the observed. The editorial stance appears to be one of open inquiry into subjects often dismissed by mainstream science, advocating for a deeper understanding of cultural beliefs and the symbolic dimensions of human experience, while also acknowledging the challenges and complexities of rigorous research in these areas. The journal encourages a nuanced approach that moves beyond simplistic literalism or dismissal.

Title: ZS Dialogues
Issue: 3/4
Date: Not specified

This issue of ZS Dialogues presents a multi-faceted discussion centered around the validity of astrology and the nature of scientific inquiry, featuring a rejoinder by Joseph Agassi to a review of Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather's book, "Recent Advances in Natal Astrology."

Joseph Agassi's Rejoinder

Joseph Agassi begins by stating his hesitation to respond, noting the lack of agreed-upon standards in the area of discussion. He reiterates his view that astrology is a superstition and therefore worthless, a stance he believes is justified by his analysis. Agassi addresses criticisms from Dean and Mather, admitting he may not have read their book with the same technical proficiency as others but maintains his commentary on its content is valid. He uses a counter-example from his reading of the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" to illustrate that one can comment on a text's utility even without exhaustive expertise.

Agassi refutes specific points raised by Dean and Mather regarding his review, such as his statement about signs and constellations, and his understanding of precession. He argues that the arbitrariness of astrological systems is a key point of criticism. He also touches upon the broader issue of how scientific communities evaluate new or unorthodox theories, expressing concern about "group-think" and "pre-conception" that can stifle progress. He advocates for a more rigorous process of evaluation, emphasizing the need for objective criteria.

Agassi's core argument is that while Dean and Mather's book may be a review of astrological literature, it also expresses hopes for a "true future astrology." He finds this hope "utterly silly" and characteristic of superstition rather than dogma, distinguishing it from more clearly defined belief systems like Catholicism or Marxism.

Dean and Mather's Response

Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather respond to Agassi, stating that his rejoinder confirms his disbelief in astrology but fails to address the factual evidence for astrological beliefs. They outline their main points:

1. Astrology as Superstition: They argue that Agassi defines astrology as superstition a priori, which is prejudgment. They question what criteria, other than fairness and objectivity, Agassi uses to decide the issue. They also point out that Agassi's condemnation of early science as superstitious, despite its potential flaws, is inconsistent with his view that superstition is necessarily worthless.
2. Technical Inconsistencies: They acknowledge that astrology contains inconsistencies, but state that this is a common issue in science and that resolving them is the task of research. They are working on a next edition to address these inconsistencies.
3. Investigating Astrology: They challenge Agassi's implication that astrology is impossible to investigate. They believe their review demonstrates that a methodical examination of facts can clarify issues and that modern computing facilities may help resolve the question within years.

Dean and Mather conclude by stating they are neither for nor against astrology. They argue that the massive worldwide interest in astrology is sufficient justification for assessing its underlying beliefs, which posit a relationship between planetary configurations and human affairs. They believe that whether astrology is worthless or not will be determined by study, not by refusal to engage with it.

Other Discussions and Themes

Throughout the text, several related themes emerge:

• The Nature of Evidence: The debate hinges on what constitutes valid evidence and how it should be interpreted. Agassi emphasizes rigorous, objective testing, while Dean and Mather suggest that widespread interest and the potential for future resolution of inconsistencies also warrant attention.
• Scientific Method and Evaluation: The issue delves into the process by which new scientific ideas are accepted or rejected. Agassi criticizes the potential for bias and premature dismissal, advocating for procedural reforms.
• Superstition vs. Dogma vs. Pseudo-science: Agassi attempts to demarcate these concepts, viewing astrology as superstition. He contrasts it with dogma, which he sees as having clearer underlying assumptions.
• The Role of Critics: The text highlights the challenges faced by those who present unconventional theories, such as Immanuel Velikovsky, who are often barred from mainstream journals. The authors discuss the importance of allowing new ideas a chance for consideration.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the tension between established scientific paradigms and unconventional theories, particularly astrology. The journal "ZS Dialogues" appears to position itself as a platform for discussing the boundaries between the paranormal and science, inviting critical engagement and debate. The editorial stance seems to be one of encouraging rigorous examination of all claims, whether they be orthodox or unorthodox, while maintaining a skeptical but open-minded approach to evidence and methodology. The journal aims to foster a more open system for the reception of novel ideas within science.

This document is a section from 'ZS Dialogues', specifically issue #3/4, featuring commentary by C. Leroy Ellenberger on the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky. The commentary is framed by quotes from Carl Sagan and Martin Gardner, which Ellenberger uses to illustrate how Velikovskian ideas can be expressed even in neutral contexts.

Ellenberger's Critique of Velikovsky's Critics

Ellenberger's primary argument is that the scientific establishment, particularly critics like Morrison, Jones, Huber, and Goldsmith, have failed to engage with Velikovsky's theories in a scientifically rigorous manner. He contends that their rejections are often based on assertion rather than refutation, and that they ignore the substantial secondary literature that supports Velikovsky's work.

Lack of Substantive Engagement

Ellenberger criticizes the critics for not addressing the secondary literature, citing specific articles and books (e.g., Pensee, Kronos, S.I.S. Review, Juergens' work) that support Velikovsky's scientific merit. He notes that critics often fail to offer refutations that engage with Velikovsky's arguments on their own terms, instead relying on uniformitarian assumptions that lead to circular reasoning.

Morrison's Dogmatism and Bias

Morrison is singled out for his perceived dogmatism and a predisposition against Velikovsky, evidenced by a 1972 statement that Velikovsky was not worth discussing scientifically. Ellenberger suggests Morrison approaches the topic as a debunker rather than a seeker of truth, comparing his stance to that of the Aristotelians who refuted Galileo. Morrison's criticism that Velikovsky's citations are "almost wholly to other pro-Velikovsky literature" is deemed "incredible" and "cheek," given that the scientific journals had largely barred discussion of Velikovsky's ideas.

The 'Guild Mentality' in Science

Ellenberger accuses Morrison of exhibiting a "guild mentality" and arrogance by questioning the competence of those who write in support of Velikovsky. He argues that recognized disciplines are not founded by those with degrees in them and that Morrison fails to address competent scholars like Bass. Ellenberger also points out that Morrison's critique of the cooling rate of Venus is based on an incorrect understanding of the relevant physics.

Sagan's Misinterpretation of Venus Data

Ellenberger highlights an apparent error in Carl Sagan's calculation regarding the cooling of Venus. Sagan's appendix suggests Venus would cool from 6000K to 79K in 3500 years, which Ellenberger states is a misinterpretation of the heat radiation equivalence. A correct computation, he notes, shows Venus cooling to approximately 750K, which he considers strong thermodynamic evidence for Velikovsky's historical account of Venus.

The Nature of Scientific Advance

Drawing on observations from Operations Research and the example of the discovery linking vitamin B-6 to arteriosclerosis, Ellenberger suggests that seminal advances often come from individuals outside the established field. He cautions against the stifling effect of peer review and inter-disciplinary politics, and reminds readers that degree programs can sometimes hinder genius.

Jones and the Resistance to New Ideas

Jones is criticized for his naivete regarding "vested interests and ego involvement" and his confidence in the objectivity of disciplinary scholars. Ellenberger invokes Max Planck's observation that scientific truths triumph not by convincing opponents but by their eventual demise, and cites the British Museum's alleged suppression of radio-carbon dates that contradicted conventional chronology as an example of how established ideas can resist change.

Huber's Criticisms and Velikovsky's Chronology

Huber is presented as particularly audacious in his criticisms, especially given that his own work has been challenged. Ellenberger argues that accusing Velikovskians of misusing sources is "chutzpah" when Huber himself has been accused of such. The article defends the concept of a 360-day year, citing the Canopus Decree and the Ebers Papyrus as evidence, and questions Huber's counterevidence. Dayton's independent refutation of orthodox chronology using metallurgical data is presented as strong support for Velikovsky's revised chronology.

Goldsmith and the Acceptance of Rejected Theories

Goldsmith's concern about "once rejected theories" eventually being accepted is addressed by Ellenberger with examples of previously rejected scientific truths, such as the first law of thermodynamics, Semmelweis' germ theory, and Mendel's genetics. He argues that this resistance to new ideas, even when supported by evidence, demonstrates a lack of humility.

The 'Coming Attractions'

At the end of the document, a section titled "Coming Attractions" lists upcoming topics for "ZS Dialogue," including UFO theories, evidence for psi, bibliographies on various paranormal topics, and a survey article on conjurors and psi research.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critique of the scientific establishment's resistance to Immanuel Velikovsky's theories. The editorial stance, as represented by Ellenberger's commentary, is one of advocating for a more open-minded, evidence-based, and less dogmatic approach to scientific inquiry, particularly when dealing with unconventional ideas. The document champions the idea that scientific progress can be hindered by entrenched paradigms and the politics of academia, and suggests that a willingness to consider alternative interpretations of data is crucial for advancing knowledge.

This issue of Flying Saucer Review, number 106 from volume 25, published in 1979, features reviews and commentary on books related to dowsing and UFO investigation. The cover prominently highlights "The UFO Handbook: A Guide to Investigating, Evaluating, And Reporting UFO Sightings" by Allan Hendry, priced at $8.95 paperback.

Review of "The UFO Handbook" by Allan Hendry

The bulk of the issue is dedicated to a critical review of Allan Hendry's "The UFO Handbook" by Ron Westrum, and a response from Allan Hendry himself.

Ron Westrum's Critique:

Westrum describes Hendry's book as essential reading for anyone seriously interested in UFOs. He commends the first section, which deals with identifying ordinary things (IFOs) reported as UFOs, calling it "pure gold" and highlighting the finding that most people are poor observers of aerial phenomena. However, Westrum finds the second section, which evaluates the implications of IFOs and UFOs, to be "far more problematical." Hendry's approach, suggesting that UFOs and IFO witnesses are a "single class" due to similar reporting characteristics, is questioned. Westrum argues that Hendry makes a strong case that UFOs and IFOs form a single class, but this impression is reinforced by Hendry's treatment of difficult cases, such as the Kelly/Hopkinsville incident, which he suggests might be explained by an escaped circus monkey, and the Delphos physical trace case, which he uses to demonstrate that even celebrated cases lack unambiguous characteristics pointing to a unique origin.

Westrum criticizes Hendry's embrace of Carl Jung's mythological approach and his equating of the "emotional climate" surrounding UFO sightings with a "desire to see a UFO." He argues that fear and the need to resolve uncertainty, rather than ignorance, drive witness investigations. Hendry's explanation for UFO photo hoaxers feeling a need to create external expressions of inner turmoil is also questioned, with Westrum suggesting simpler motivations like playing a joke.

Westrum notes Hendry's "disillusioned" tone, his criticism of other UFOlogists, and his short shrift given to scientists. He finds Hendry's dependence on predecessors unacknowledged. While Hendry's "tools" section, covering hypnosis, animal reactions, and statistics, is valuable, Westrum believes the book is not a good exploration of "unexplained" sightings and that its "20th century mythology" explanation is vague. He concludes that the book has great strengths in its discussion of IFOs and investigative techniques but fails when it seeks to evaluate the entire UFO phenomenon without explicit consideration of all cases.

Allan Hendry's Response:

Hendry thanks Westrum for his review and compliments but contends that Westrum misunderstands the spirit of his IFO/UFO arguments. Hendry clarifies that his intent was not to demonstrate that UFOs and IFOs form a single class, but rather that IFO and UFO witnesses do, sharing similar demographics and motives for reporting. He used IFO witnesses as a gauge for the reliability of human testimony as UFO "data," not to imply UFOs are likely IFOs. Hendry argues that IFO witnesses provide honest descriptions limited to perceptually-available information, and he extends this confidence to UFO witnesses' testimony.

Hendry states that he found a "systematic misattribution of appearance, motion, silence, proximity, size and special UFO effects" in witnesses, contoured by a pre-anticipation of what a UFO experience "is supposed" to be like. He notes that ad plane witnesses described rotating domed discs, hovering, rapid movement, and "EM" effects, with vivid emotional reactions, similar to UFO witnesses.

Hendry's central point, he reiterates, is that human testimony alone is unlikely to elevate the UFO phenomenon beyond its "folk science" doldrums. This led him to analyze the effectiveness of various tools and systems for bolstering anecdotal evidence, concluding that a different methodology is required. He also addresses Westrum's impression that he offered a "partial explanation" for cases like Kelly/Hopkinsville, clarifying that he raised the "escaped monkey" hypothesis because it was in the Davis/Bloecher report, not because he believed it. He argues that the stigma surrounding such cases makes it difficult to disprove them, and that the "excited 'spaceship' assessments" from witnesses prevent incredulity.

Hendry also discusses his use of a fungus ring explanation for the Delphos case as an exercise to show that even celebrated cases do not point to a unique origin. He asserts that many people desire to see a UFO, citing the higher number of IFO sightings and the fact that witnesses often become angry when offered prosaic solutions. He notes that "domed disc" descriptions appear more in his provable IFO reports than in UFO reports, suggesting people project a model of UFOs onto partially-seen forms, which reopens the Jungian idea of "archetypal symbols."

Commentary on Dowsing

In a separate section, the reviewer discusses the book's treatment of dowsing. The middle third of the book explores explanations for dowsing phenomena in terms of known scientific forces, including magnetism and the electromagnetic spectrum. The reviewer notes that Hitching does a good job of introducing these scientific concepts to the layman. However, a paradox arises when dowsers succeed equally well divining over maps thousands of miles from a site, suggesting a paranormal account is needed. The book reviews contemporary parapsychology events and attempts to link them to quantum physics, implying dowsing is a practical form of psi. Hitching's own intercontinental dowsing experiment is presented as a significant test, but the reviewer critically analyzes its methodology, deeming the results "scientifically meaningless" due to numerous overlooked precautions and flawed control site selection. The reviewer emphasizes the importance of scientific procedures to protect against self-deception and argues that dowsers must provide scientifically acceptable data to be taken seriously by scientists.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly emphasizes the importance of scientific methodology, rigorous testing, and the avoidance of subjective bias in the study of paranormal phenomena like UFOs and dowsing. The reviews highlight the tension between believers who rely on personal experience and skeptics who demand empirical evidence. The editorial stance appears to favor a critical, evidence-based approach, questioning explanations that lack scientific rigor and cautioning against the uncritical acceptance of anecdotal accounts. There is a clear emphasis on distinguishing between the generation of hypotheses and their objective testing.

This issue of UFOlogy, identified by its page number 109, presents a collection of book reviews and critical commentary on the field of UFOlogy and related subjects. The content spans discussions on the methodology and challenges within UFO research, the reception of unconventional scientific ideas, and explorations into cryptozoology and other esoteric topics.

Commentary on UFOlogy

The issue begins with a critique of the state of UFOlogy, referencing the work of McCall and Lawson. The author acknowledges that cultural UFO mythology can influence perceptions of sightings, particularly for less spectacular phenomena like Nocturnal Lights and Daylight Discs, compared to Close Encounters. A central argument is that a compelling emotional climate is necessary to 'fuel' UFO theories. The author also addresses criticism from Westrum regarding the book's exploration of Close Encounter cases, clarifying that the goal was not to evaluate the phenomenon itself but to approach issues of witness reliability, testimony as data, and supportive tools from a new perspective. The author expresses a desire for stricter standards in UFOlogy to move beyond its "scientific limbo" and criticizes the reliance on a handful of "classic" cases from the past. There's a lament about the lack of fundamental information in most UFO books, which tend to focus on cherry-picking Close Encounters.

The author expresses "despair over the tools of our trade," not with the existence of UFOs, but with the ability to force them to reveal convincing evidence. The reliance on soft anecdotal information is seen as a barrier. A comparison is drawn to ball lightning research, which faces similar obstacles (anecdotal accounts, transient phenomena, controversial photographs) and has also resulted in a century of research without a clear explanation.

Further commentary touches on variations in CE III events and the need to discuss differences among country-specific collections. The author expresses flattery at Westrum's endorsement of the book.

Book Reviews

The Reception of Unconventional Science

Edited by Seymour H. Mauskopf, this volume contains five papers from a recent AAAS symposium. Reviewed by Ron Westrum, the book is described as a valuable addition to the literature on innovation and deviance in science, comparable to Roy Wallis's "On the Margins of Science." The review highlights:

• Paul Forman's paper: Discusses the different reception of acausal quantum theory in England and Germany (1925-1927), attributing it to differing intellectual and cultural currents.
• Henry Frankel's paper: Examines the resistance and eventual acceptance of continental drift theory, suggesting it was due to evolving versions of the theory and the problems it was called upon to solve.
• John Z. Bowers' paper: Traces Western attitudes toward acupuncture, noting the role of individual motivation and interests in its acceptance.
• Seymour Mauskopf and Michael R. McVaugh's paper: Focuses on the debate over the statistical validity of ESP proofs in 1934-1938, detailing how statisticians defended the mathematics used by Rhine's research.
• Marcello Truzzi's paper: Offers a review of literature attempting to demarcate science from pseudo-science.

The volume is noted for providing case studies rather than final answers.

Les Derniers Dragons d'Afrique

By Bernard Heuvelmans, this book is reviewed by Ron Westrum as a model for future books on "cryptozoology" (the study of unknown animals). Heuvelmans is presented as the foremost authority in this field, having devoted thirty years to the study. The book examines evidence for unknown large or flying reptiles on the African continent, including "surviving dinosaur" stories, giant snakes, sabre-tooth tigers, and anomalous fish. Westrum praises Heuvelmans' rigorous approach, which involves examining witnesses, biological likelihood, and folklore, while also noting his knowledge of ethnography, sociology of anomalous information, and human nature.

OVNIS: El Fenomeno Aterrizaje

By Vincente-Juan Ballester Olmos, this book is reviewed by Ron Westrum. It is recommended for those interested in cross-cultural UFO comparisons, particularly for its catalogue of 200 Close Encounter cases from Spain. The book also includes a theoretical section and an extensive bibliography of 550 items. Westrum notes that while one might disagree with some points, the discussion is scholarly.

Books Briefly Noted

This extensive section provides brief reviews of numerous books across a wide range of subjects, including:

• Neopaganism: "Drawing Down the Moon" by Margot Adler.
• Psychology and Therapies: "Out in Inner Space" by Stephen A. Applebaum.
• Philosophy and Science: "Mind and Nature" by Gregory Bateson, "Perception, Theory and Commitment" by Harold I. Brown.
• Dowsing: "The Divining Rod" by Christopher Bird.
• Folklore and Mythology: "Abbey Lubbers, Banshees & Boggarts" by Katherine Briggs, "The Wold Guide to Gnomes, Fairies, Elvers and Other Little People" by Thomas Keightley.
• Parapsychology and Psychic Phenomena: "Laboratory Investigations into Psychic Phenomena" by Hereward Carrington, "Occult Bibliography" by Thomas C. Clarie, "Mysteries of the World" and "Ceremonial Magic" by Daniel Cohen, "Experiments in Psychical Research" by John Edgar Coover, "Seeing is Deceiving" by Stanley Coren and Joan Stern Girgus, "A Thought Reader's Thoughts" by Stuart Cumberland, "The Magical Philosophy, Book IV" by Melita Denning and Osborne Phillips, "Visions of Time" by David E. Jones, "Advances in Parapsychological Research 2" edited by Stanley Krippner.
• UFOs and Related Subjects: "UFOs and Related Subjects: An Annotated Bibliography" by Lynn E. Catoe.
• Spirituality and Religion: "The Psychology of Enlightenment" by Gurudev Shree Chitrabhanu, "Cults and Cons" by Kenneth Cinnamon and Dave Farson, "Sacred Journeys" by James V. Downton Jr., "The Secrets of Dr. Taverner" by Dion Fortune, "Godwin's Cabalistic Encyclopedia" by David Godwin, "The Paranormal" by Stan Gooch, "Mark Gruner's Numbers of Life" by Mark Gruner and Christopher K. Brown, "The Witch's Garden" by Harold A. Hansen, "Voodoo & Hoodoo" by Jim Haskins, "Science, Sin, and Scholarship" edited by Irving Louis Horowitz, "Religious Change and Continuity" edited by Harry M. Johnson.
• Other Topics: "The Flight of Dragons" by Peter Hogarth, "Cancer Quackery" by L. Kay Gillespie, "Poltergeists: An Annotated Bibliography" by Michael Goss, "Search for Harry Price" by Trevor H. Hall, "Miracles of Love" by Ram Dass.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of evidence, the demarcation between science and pseudo-science, and the challenges faced by unconventional fields of study. There is a consistent emphasis on rigorous methodology, witness reliability, and the importance of scholarly research. The editorial stance appears to favor a "get-tough" policy on evidence in UFOlogy and a critical, yet open-minded, approach to unconventional topics, advocating for stricter standards and a move away from anecdotal information towards more robust data and analysis. The extensive book reviews suggest a broad interest in topics that lie at the fringes of mainstream science and academia, including parapsychology, cryptozoology, and various forms of occultism and alternative belief systems.

Title: Zetetic Scholar
Issue: Vol. 1, No. 2
Date: November 1978
Publisher: Zetetic Scholar
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of Zetetic Scholar is a scholarly journal dedicated to the critical examination of paranormal phenomena, psychical research, and related topics. It features a substantial number of book reviews, articles, and bibliographies, reflecting a rigorous and skeptical approach to the subject matter.

Articles

• "Skopticism, Science, and the Paranormal" by Laurent Beauregard discusses the relationship between skepticism, scientific methodology, and the study of paranormal phenomena.
• "On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification" by Marcello Truzzi aims to clarify the concept of the extraordinary and its place within intellectual discourse.
• "Soler and Economic Relationships: An Updated Report" by Bernard J. Frimmerman presents an updated report on the connections between Soler and economic factors.
• "Castanada: Trickstar-Teacher. A Conversation with Richard de Mille" documents a conversation exploring the figure of Castaneda as a trickster-teacher.

Features

• Editorial: The issue includes an editorial section.
• Letters & Communications: This section contains correspondence and dialogue among readers and contributors.
• Dialogues: Features discussions involving L. Beauregard, J. Palmer, R. Hyman, W.E. Danforth, and others, likely on topics related to the journal's scope.

Book Reviews

The issue contains an extensive section of book reviews, covering a wide array of titles related to the paranormal and occult. Notable reviews include:

• "The Occult Underground" by Jonas Nobb (reviewed by Martin Gardner).
• "Youth Brainwashing and the Extremist Cults" by Ronald Enroth (reviewed by Roy Wallis).
• "Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology" by Leslie Slimpard (reviewed by Marcello Truzzi).
• "In Search of White Crows: Spiritualism, Parapsychology and American Culture" by R. Laurence Moore (reviewed by Marcello Truzzi).
• "The Dark Side of Knowledge" by A. Shadowitz & P. Walsh (reviewed by Laurent A. Beauregard).
• "Hostage to the Devil" by M. Martin (reviewed by Laurent A. Beauregard).
• "The New Soviet Psychic Discoveries" by H. Gris & W. Dick (reviewed by Martin Ebon).
• "Space-Time Transients and Unusual Events" by M. A. Persinger & G.F. Lafreniere (reviewed by William R. Corliss).
• "The UFO Enigmas: The Definitive Explanation of the UFO Phenomenon" by D.H. Menzel & E.H. Taves (reviewed by J. Richard Greenwell).
• "L'Hite Inconnu Dans Le Crime Sans Cause" by E. Tizané (reviewed by Ron Westrum).
• "The Poltergeist Experience: Investigations into Ghostly Phenomena" by D. Scott Rogo.
• "Fifty Years of Psychical Research: A Critical Survey" by Harry Price.
• "Revelations of a Spirit Medium" by Harry Price and Eric J. Dingwall.
• "The Enchanted Boundary" by Walter Franklin Prince, which is highly recommended for its critique of debunkers of psychical research.
• "Atlantis: Fact or Fiction?" edited by Edwin S. Ramage, described as an outstanding scholarly set of essays.
• "Houdini: His Life and Art" by The Amazing Randi and Bert Randolph Sugar.
• "Thirty Years of Psychical Research, Being a Treatise on Metaphysics" by Charles Richet.
• "New Age Blues: On the Politics of Consciousness" by Michael Rossman, a critique of the Human Potential Movement.
• "The Occult Sciences in the Renaissance: A Study in Intellectual Patterns" by Wayne Shumaker, an exceptional scholarly summary.
• "The Concept of Miracle" by Richard Swinburne, an excellent philosophical analysis.
• "Is Your Child Psychic? A Guide for Creative Parents and Teachers" by Alex Tanous and Katherine Fair Donnelly, with a caution advised.
• "The Missing Moon, and Other Case Studies" by Noel Tyl, an anthology of fiction.
• "Science and Psychical Phenomena" by G.N.M. Tyrell, a reprint of a 1938 edition.
• "Dictionary of the Supernatural: An A to Z of Hauntings, Possession, Witchcraft, Demonology, and Other Occult Phenomena" by Peter Underwood.
• "Messengers of Deception: UFO Contacts and Cults" by Jacques Vallee, noted for its creative writing in ufology.
• "Water Witching U.S.A." by Evon Z. Vogt and Ray Hyman, a scientific evaluation of dowsing.
• "On the Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge" edited by Roy Wallis, an exceptional collection of essays.
• "Salvation and Protest: Studies of Social and Religious Movements" by Ray Wallis.
• "A Dictionary of Omens and Superstitions" by Philippa Waring.
• "Sasquatch Apparitions (A Critique on the Pacific Northwest Hominoid)" by Barbara Wasson.
• "The Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony" by A. Daniel Yarmey, an excellent survey and analysis.

Bibliographies

Several bibliographies are provided, including:

• "Skepticism, Science, and the Paranormal" (related to the article by Beauregard).
• "Crank, Crackpot, or Genius? Pseudoscience or Science Revolution? A Basic Bibliographic Guide to the Debate" by M. Truzzi.
• "The Power's of Negative Thinking, or Debunking the Paranormal: A Basic Book List" by M. Truzzi.
• "Uri Geller & the Scientists: A Basic Bibliography" by M. Truzzi & Ray Hyman.
• "Debunking Biorhythms" by M. Truzzi.
• "Random Bibliography of the Occult & the Paranormal" by M. Truzzi.
• "Scientific Studies of Classical Astrology."
• "Vampires: Studies and Organizations."
• "Velikovsky & His Critics: A Basic Bibliography."
• "Random Bibliography on the Occult & the Paranormal."
• "Supplements to Bibliographies."
• "Lycanthropy: A Basic Bibliography on Werewolves and their Kin."

About the Contributors

This section provides biographical information on the contributors to the issue, including their academic affiliations and previous works. Notable contributors include Joseph Agassi, Geoffrey Dean, Persi Diaconis, C. Leroy Ellenberger, J. Richard Greenwell, Pierre Guerin, Allan Hendry, Ray Hyman, Edward F. Kelly, Ivan W. Kelly, Arthur Mather, Joseph May, Mary Monnet, Robin Ridington, Thomas A. Sebeok, Marcello Truzzi, Mahlon W. Wagner, and Ron Westrum.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of paranormal claims, pseudoscience, and the occult. The journal's stance appears to be one of rigorous skepticism, encouraging scholarly analysis and evidence-based reasoning. The extensive bibliographies and detailed book reviews suggest a commitment to providing readers with resources for in-depth study and informed debate on these often controversial subjects. The emphasis on distinguishing between genuine scientific inquiry and unsubstantiated claims is evident throughout the content.