Zetetic Scholar - No 10

Magazine Overview

Title: Zetetic Scholar
Issue: No. 10
Date: December 1982
Publisher: Marcello Truzzi
Country: USA
Focus: Journal of the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research (CSAR), dedicated to the scientific review of claims of anomalies and the paranormal.

Editorial

The editorial marks the tenth issue of Zetetic Scholar, celebrating a form of anniversary and expressing hope for a long future. The editor, Marcello Truzzi, notes that the publication schedule is improving due to a backlog of materials, with the next issue nearly ready. However, the journal continues to struggle financially, relying on a 'labor of love.' Truzzi appeals to readers to resubscribe, find new subscribers with serious interest, and encourage university or library subscriptions to ensure financial security, aiming for a readership of approximately 600.

The editorial then clarifies two major areas of confusion regarding the journal's policy: the meaning of 'paranormal' and the focus on 'anomalies.'

Defining the Paranormal vs. the Supernatural

Truzzi distinguishes between the supernatural and the paranormal. The supernatural is defined as ideas or entities outside the natural, empirical world of science, often involving miracles or divine intervention that do not obey natural laws. In contrast, the paranormal is presented as part of the natural order, phenomena that are not yet understood by current science but are assumed to be lawful. Parapsychologists, for instance, do not view psi as a miracle but as a lawful phenomenon yet to be discovered. The paranormal ceases to be so when it is incorporated into 'normal' science. While many paranormal claims may be errors, anomalous facts that are currently denied will eventually be accepted, often through reconceptualizations.

Claims of the supernatural are considered 'ascientific' or 'antiscientific' because they operate outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Paranormal claims, however, aim to extend science by examining possible new phenomena and incorporating them into new theories. This opposition to current scientific opinion is based on scientific grounds and should not be confused with antiscience. Arguments against supernaturalism should not be used to dismiss paranormal claims. Supernatural claims are outside the scope of Zetetic Scholar's dialogues, whereas paranormal explanations of supernatural claims are deemed unsatisfactory by proponents of the supernatural.

The Focus on Anomalies

Truzzi addresses a complementary confusion about the focus on anomalies. He acknowledges that anomalies exist and that while many claims are erroneous, some will likely emerge as validated. Science is seen as an incomplete and fallible, self-correcting system that conservatively integrates new anomalies. Anomalies represent crises for existing theories but also opportunities for new ones. However, Zetetic Scholar aims to avoid 'mystery mongering.' Anomalies are important to science only insofar as they lead to better theories and their incorporation, making them no longer anomalous. The goal is to produce better and more complete science, not to embarrass scientists. The editorial cautions that many anomaly-seekers enjoy puzzles for their own sake, which can become an antiscientific attitude if taken to extremes. Anomalies are a means to an end—improved science—and should not be an end in themselves. They serve to remind us of the limitations of current scientific theory. The journal expresses concern that if a 'pet anomaly' (like UFOs or psi) were neatly explained, many proponents might be disappointed rather than pleased, potentially distorting healthy anomalistics into dysfunctional mystery mongering.

Articles

The Mystery Men from Holland, III: The Man Whose Passport Says Clairvoyant

By Piet Hein Hoebens, this article critically examines the claims of Marinus Bernardus Dykshoorn, a Dutch individual whose passport entry states his occupation as 'Clairvoyant.' Hoebens notes that Dykshoorn, unlike Peter Hurkos, was considered 'born psychic' from childhood. The article details Dykshoorn's early life, his struggles with his gift, and his decision to become a professional clairvoyant in 1938 after being diagnosed with ESP by a German scientist. Dykshoorn moved to Australia in 1960 and later to the United States in 1970, becoming a celebrity. Hoebens focuses on Dykshoorn's pre-1960 exploits, intending to critically examine prize cases as published in English. The primary source cited is Dykshoorn's autobiography, 'My Passport Says Clairvoyant.'

Hoebens recounts Dykshoorn's claims of solving complex crimes, locating lost graves, foretelling events, and tracking a thief. He notes that Dykshoorn's fame is solid in Holland, but questions about him in the US are met with unfamiliarity. Dykshoorn claims his work for Dutch authorities was confidential. Hoebens found limited favorable press clippings and mentions a story from the weekly 'Prive' about Dykshoorn's inaccurate prediction regarding the fate of a missing girl, Truus van der Voort, whose body was later found in a plane wreck.

The article also touches on Dykshoorn's alleged testing by European scientists and his refusal to cooperate with Hoebens's requests for information, suspecting the author wanted to use material for a second book. Dykshoorn's autobiography guarantees that all claims can be checked, but Hoebens found this difficult to verify.

The Invention of Witchcraft: Uses of Documentary and Oral-Historical Sources in Reconstructing the History of the Gardnerian Movement

By Aiden A. Kelly, this article delves into the history of the Gardnerian movement, likely a form of modern witchcraft, by examining documentary and oral-historical sources. The article appears to reconstruct the origins and development of this movement.

UFOs, Fireballs and Meteorites

By Harvey H. Nininger, this article explores the phenomena of UFOs, fireballs, and meteorites, suggesting a connection or comparison between these aerial observations.

On the Mars Effect Controversy

This section features multiple contributions addressing the Mars Effect controversy. R.A. McConnell & T.K. Clark's article, 'Guardians of Orthodoxy: The Sponsors of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal,' likely critiques the stance of a particular committee regarding the Mars Effect. Richard Kammann's article, 'The True Disbelievers: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality,' presents a skeptical viewpoint, suggesting that disbelief in the Mars Effect can lead to irrationality. The Belgian Committee Para offers 'A Last Answer to M. Gauquelin,' and Michel Gauquelin responds with 'Response to the Statement of the Committee Para.' Marcello Truzzi provides 'Personal Reflections on the Mars Effect Controversy,' offering his own insights into the debate.

New ZS Dialogue: Crypto-Science and Social Intelligence about Anomalies

This section, introduced by Ron Westrum, features a discussion on 'Crypto-science and Social Intelligence about Anomalies.' It includes critical commentaries from a range of individuals, including Roy P. Mackal, Robert Rosenthal, Hans J. Eysenck, Patrick Grim, Henry H. Bauer, Susan Smith-Cunnnien, Gary Alan Fine, Andrew Neher, Daniel Cohen, Sonja Grover, William R. Corliss, Norman Dixon, Piet Hein Hoebens, C.L. Hardin, Stanley Krippner, Trevor Pinch, Gerd H. Hövelmann, Brian Inglis, Roy Wallis, Willis W. Harman, J. Richard Greenwell, and Morris Goran.

Continuing ZS Dialogues

On "Patterns of Belief in Religious, Psychic and Other Paranormal Phenomena"

This section features Charles Sullivan's contribution on 'Patterns of Belief in Religious, Psychic and Other Paranormal Phenomena,' followed by a reply from J. Sobal & C.F. Emmons.

Letters

• A collection of letters addresses various topics, including:
• Christopher C. Scott on 'Occultism & Secularization'
• Luc M.J.I. De Marre on 'The Para Committee'
• Christopher Scott on 'The Brugmans Experiment'
• Richard Greenwell on 'UFO Theories'
• Jenny Randles & Hilary Evans on 'Defining UFOs'
• Roberto Farabone on 'More on UFO Theories'

Special ZS Bibliographic Features

• "Fingertip Sight": A Bibliography by Leonard Zusne.
• Chinese Parapsychology: A Bibliography of English Language Items by Marcello Truzzi.
• Debunking Biorhythms: A Supplement by Ivan W. Kelly.
• The Loch Ness Monster: A Guide to the Literature, Supplement 1 by Henry H. Bauer.

Regular ZS Features

• Editorial
• Random Bibliography on the Occult and the Paranormal

Book Reviews

• The issue includes reviews of several books:
• 'Science et Antiscience' by the Secretariat international des Questions Scientifiques, reviewed by Gregory R. McGuire.
• 'Loch Ness Monster' by Tim Dinsdale, reviewed by Henry H. Bauer.
• 'Ball and Bead Lightning' by James Dale Barry, reviewed by W.N. Charman.
• 'Science and Unreason' by Daisie and Michael Radner, reviewed by Gordon Hammerle.
• 'The Andreasson Affair,' 'Missing Time: A Documented Study of UFO Abductions' by Ray Fowler, Ann Druffel, and D. Scott Rogo, reviewed by Ron Westrum.
• 'The Prophecies and Enigmas of Nostradamus' by Liberte E. LeVert, reviewed by James Randi.
• 'Books Briefly Noted' by M. Truzzi.

Other Sections

• ERRATA
• CSAR REPORT
• ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE

Errata

• The errata section corrects information from a previous issue (ZS#9), including:
• Attribution of remarks on Patrick Curry's Mars Effect article to the Belgian Committee Para instead of J. Dommanget.
• Correction of the page number for the Random Bibliography from 68 to 18.
• Correction of the volume number for a paper on "N Rays" from volume 1 to volume 11.

About the Contributors

This section provides brief biographical information on the authors and contributors featured in the issue, detailing their academic affiliations and areas of expertise in fields such as chemistry, psychology, sociology, journalism, and parapsychology.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of anomalous phenomena, with a particular emphasis on the Mars Effect controversy, UFOs, and parapsychology. The editorial stance, as articulated by Marcello Truzzi, is one of scientific skepticism tempered with openness to evidence. The journal distinguishes between the supernatural (outside science) and the paranormal (within science, but not yet understood), advocating for a rigorous, evidence-based approach to anomalous claims. There is a strong emphasis on the importance of anomalies for scientific progress, but a clear rejection of 'mystery mongering' or the celebration of unexplained phenomena for their own sake. The journal aims to foster a quality readership that engages with these complex topics critically and constructively.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, dated 1982, focuses on critical examinations of paranormal claims and historical interpretations. The primary articles scrutinize the alleged abilities of Dutch psychic Marinus Dykshoorn and the historical claims of the Gardnerian witchcraft movement.

Marinus Dykshoorn: A Critical Examination

The issue delves into the claims made by Marinus Dykshoorn, a Dutch psychic known for his supposed abilities in psychic detection and private counseling. The author systematically investigates several of Dykshoorn's most publicized cases, comparing his accounts with official records and contemporary reports.

Official Recognition Claims

Dykshoorn's autobiography, "My Passport Says Clairvoyant," suggests he was officially recognized and even listed as a "clairvoyant" on his Dutch passport. However, the author's inquiries with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1982 revealed this claim to be false. The ministry spokesman described it as "apekool" (rubbish), explaining that professions were not listed in Dutch passports and that citizens were free to state any profession they wished. The article also debunks the claim that the Dutch government "licensed" or "endorsed" psychics, stating that no such legal framework existed.

The Professor Greven Mystery

Dykshoorn mentions being tested by a "Professor Greven," a professor of psychology and parapsychology from the University of Cologne, in 1938. Extensive research, including inquiries with the parapsychology institute in Freiburg and Cologne University, failed to find any record of such a professor. The name is not listed in standard parapsychological handbooks. The only Professor Greven found was a theologian at Bonn University, who was not a psychologist and was too young to fit Dykshoorn's description. A postscript later suggests a possible solution: a Dr. E. Greven, a Dutchman with Germanophile leanings, led an obscure "Society for Philosophy and Parapsychology" in The Hague and was appointed Professor of Parapsychological Philosophy at Leiden University as a personal favor from a Nazi Governor. It is suggested that Dykshoorn may have met this individual in the 1930s.

The Willem the Silent Assassination Case

Dykshoorn's "first prize case" involved reconstructing the assassination of Willem the Silent in 1584. He claimed to have identified the assassin, Balthasar Gérard, and described how Willem was shot and Gérard was lynched by a mob. However, historical records contradict Dykshoorn's account. Willem was shot in the chest, not the throat, and Gérard was arrested, tried, and executed by beheading. The director of the Prinsenhof Museum, where Dykshoorn allegedly gave this demonstration, and subsequent custodians, had no recollection of the event, and the published account was deemed "worthless."

The Duisburg Robbery Case

Another significant case highlighted is the "Duisburg Long Distance Clairvoyance affair" from March 1958. Dykshoorn claimed to have solved a robbery on a Rhine barge by telephone from Holland. He reportedly identified the thief as a 17-year-old crew member. The case received publicity, and Dykshoorn was hailed as a celebrity. However, a critical evaluation reveals discrepancies. An article in the Frankfurter Abendpost suggested Dykshoorn was contacted after the money was stolen, not before the launch went missing. More importantly, inquiries made in 1982 with the Wasserschutzpolizei (water police) in Duisburg and the Public Prosecutor unequivocally denied any cooperation with a clairvoyant. They stated the case was solved by normal police methods and that a state law forbidding police from employing clairvoyants was in effect at the time.

The Blood Sample Experiment

The issue also examines a blood sample experiment conducted in 1952 at an unnamed "Dutch provincial university." Dykshoorn claimed to have identified blood from a pregnant female animal (initially guessing a dog, then a fox) and later helped locate two drowned children. The author notes that Dykshoorn does not name the university and that the experiment was not reported in parapsychological journals. Furthermore, the police report on the drowned children indicated the location was known from the start and made no mention of psychic assistance. The blood sample test, as described by Tabori, was allegedly part of Dykshoorn's examination for a government license, which he passed.

The Invention of Witchcraft: The Gardnerian Movement

The second major section of the issue, authored by Aidan A. Kelly, critically examines the historical claims of the Gardnerian witchcraft movement. Kelly argues that the movement's assertion of an ancient lineage, particularly a form of female monotheism, is a modern invention.

Reconstructing Ancient Goddess Religion

Kelly addresses proposals, such as Robert Graves's, that a type of female monotheism existed in neolithic Europe. He contends that research in the Aegean area (2500-1500 B.C.) shows no evidence for such a belief. He also disputes the idea that the veneration of the Virgin Mary was a continuation of an ancient Goddess cult, stating there is no significant pre-Christian evidence for an exalted concept of a Goddess.

Gerald Gardner and the New Coven

The core of Kelly's argument is that the claims for the existence and survival of an ancient female monotheism are based on the magical religion invented in the 1940s and 1950s by Gerald Gardner and his colleagues. Gardner claimed to have been initiated into a coven in the New Forest area dating back to Elizabethan times and that he renovated and augmented its traditions. Kelly asserts that there is no historical continuity between Gardner's system and any ancient religion, and that the claims lack a basis in serious scholarship.

The Historical Problem

Kelly emphasizes that he is not arguing from silence but from a wealth of evidence that makes the claims of continuity virtually impossible. He notes that while many radical feminists in the Goddess movement do not mention Gardner, their position may stem from an intuitive argument about how the religion feels, rather than historical evidence. Kelly's research, based on original documents and oral-historical sources, leads him to conclude that the Gardnerian movement's claims to historicity are a "charming fantasy."

Conclusion

Marinus B. Dykshoorn is presented as the third in a series of Dutch "paragnosts" whose alleged feats are critically examined. Like Peter Hurkos and Gerard Croiset, Dykshoorn's successes in psychic detection do not withstand skeptical scrutiny. The facts presented flatly refuse to corroborate his passport claims. The article concludes that the Gardnerian movement's claims of ancient origins are unsubstantiated and likely a modern invention.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards paranormal claims, rigorous historical investigation, and the debunking of pseudohistory. The editorial stance is clearly critical and evidence-based, prioritizing verifiable facts over anecdotal accounts or unsubstantiated assertions. The Zetetic Scholar aims to challenge widely held beliefs in the paranormal and fringe history by applying scientific and historical methodologies.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as issue #10 and dated 1982, focuses on three main areas: the historicity of Gardnerian witchcraft, observations on UFOs/fireballs and human perception, and a review of Loch Ness Monster literature.

The Documentary Evidence: Gardnerian Witchcraft

The issue begins with an extensive analysis of the documentary evidence concerning Gerald Gardner's witchcraft tradition. The author examines Gardner's published books (High Magic's Aid, Witchcraft Today, The Meaning of Witchcraft), typewritten documents owned by Carl L. Weschcke, and a manuscript book titled "Ye Bok of ye Art Magical" (BAM).

The core of the analysis addresses the Gardnerian claim that their rituals and documents derive from pre-1939 covens. The author argues that the Gardnerian rituals are largely based on the magical system of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, not on native British traditions. Furthermore, it is stated that Gardnerians themselves admit that the rituals involved significant reconstruction by Gardner. The focus then shifts to the "Craft Laws" document, which the author suggests is a draft from 1957. Through textual criticism, it is argued that passages in the "Craft Laws" have been archaicized by incorporating obscure words, and that there is no evidence of a pre-1939 coven tradition within the BoS (Book of Shadows).

The author posits that Gardner, being dyslexic, likely had a co-author for his books, suggesting Doreen Valiente as a strong candidate, especially after her admission of initiation in 1953. The reconstruction of rituals by Valiente and Gardner in the 1950s is described as a significant advancement in magical technology, adapting existing systems for small groups. The emphasis on the Goddess and the High Priestess as central authority is noted to have emerged after 1957, with Valiente adopting Robert Graves' "White Goddess" myth.

The author concludes that the Gardnerian movement is a viable new religious movement meeting a societal need for exploring femininity and motherliness of God, but that its claim to ancient authority is spurious. Instead, the movement is presented as the creation of Doreen Valiente and the woman known as Dafo, who created a new religion rather than reviving an ancient one.

An Oral-Historical Source: Floyd

This section presents information from a visitor named Floyd, a member of Gardner's original coven since 1957. Floyd confirmed that Doreen Valiente wrote virtually everything in the BoS and that the master copy was in her possession. He also mentioned people who had met "Dafo," a member of a supposed pre-1939 coven, though Dafo provided no data. Floyd's account supports the reconstruction of the Gardnerian movement's history, suggesting Gardner and Dafo founded a witchcraft religion during World War II, but achieved little success until Valiente's initiation in 1953. Valiente then significantly rewrote rituals and contributed heavily to Gardner's books. The "Craft Laws" document was created in 1957 when the coven split, and the emphasis on the Goddess and High Priestess emerged later, influenced by Robert Graves' "White Goddess."

Conclusions

The author reflects on the importance of the women's rights movement and the societal need for exploring the concept of God as feminine. The Gardnerian movement is acknowledged as a growing religious movement, but its historical claims are deemed bogus. The movement is attributed to the creative efforts of Doreen Valiente and Dafo, who established a new religion.

Notes

The extensive notes section provides citations for various works on witchcraft, mythology, and ancient religions, including Robert Graves' "The White Goddess," and scholarly works on matriarchy and goddesses. It also references specific books and articles related to Gardnerian witchcraft and its historical context.

The Loch Ness Monster: A Guide to the Literature (Supplement 1)

This section, authored by Henry H. Bauer, reviews several books published since 1980 that deal with the Loch Ness Monster. The reviewed books include "The Great Monster Hunt" by David C. Cooke and Yvonne Cooke, "Strange Secrets of the Loch Ness Monster" by Warren Smith, "Is There a Loch Ness Monster?" by Gerald S. Snyder, and "The Loch Ness Monster" by Ian Thorne.

Bauer assesses each book for its content, accuracy, and presentation. He notes that some books are aimed at children, while others are more general. Common criticisms include sensationalism, numerous errors (often minor), misspellings, lack of bibliographies, and difficulty in presenting simple facts accurately. The review highlights the challenges in finding sober and well-researched accounts of the Loch Ness phenomenon.

UFOs, Fireballs and Meteorites

This essay by Harvey H. Nininger, a prominent figure in American meteoritics, focuses on human perceptual errors in observing celestial events. Nininger uses numerous eyewitness accounts of a fireball sighting that occurred simultaneously across several states (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico) to illustrate how perceptions can vary dramatically.

Nininger recounts how reports of the fireball led to confusion, with people mistaking it for a sputnik, a flying saucer, or a meteorite. He describes how witnesses in different locations, sometimes hundreds of miles apart, pointed to specific spots where they believed the fireball had landed, often with significant discrepancies. The essay emphasizes the difficulty in obtaining precise information from eyewitnesses and the importance of a scientific survey to determine the actual landing site and to prevent potential misinterpretations that could have serious consequences, such as mistaking a meteorite for a missile.

The author details a survey he conducted with his wife, funded by the Denver Post, to clarify the event. They determined the fireball's vanishing point was at an altitude of about 12 miles. Nininger discusses what constitutes a dependable report, prioritizing directional information from witnesses over estimates of size or distance. He uses the example of a reputable astronomer who misjudged the distance to a meteor's dust cloud to further illustrate the unreliability of even expert testimony when not properly contextualized.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue consistently questions the historical claims of established traditions, particularly in the context of witchcraft, and highlights the fallibility of human perception and memory when interpreting unusual events. The editorial stance appears to favor critical analysis and empirical evidence over unsubstantiated historical claims or sensationalized accounts. The inclusion of Nininger's essay suggests an interest in understanding the psychological and perceptual factors that contribute to reports of phenomena like UFOs and fireballs. The Loch Ness Monster review further reinforces a critical approach to popular lore and literature.

This document appears to be a section from a magazine or journal, primarily focused on the author's investigations into UFO sightings and meteorites, with a secondary focus on the phenomenon of 'eyeless vision' or dermo-optical perception. The author, H.H. Nininger, shares personal anecdotes and scientific observations, emphasizing the importance of accurate data and the common pitfalls of witness testimony.

UFOs and Meteorites: A Skeptical Investigation

The author begins by stating that many examples could be cited to show that people often act on insufficient information. He recounts learning that meteorites were not discussed in geology or astronomy courses when he inquired, suggesting a gap in scientific education. He posits that the lack of knowledge about tracing fireballs to their landings is a principal reason why the excitement about UFOs is so lively.

Nininger details his investigations into numerous UFO sightings, which he claims invariably turned out to be natural phenomena such as meteors, fireballs, weather balloons, birds, insects, or aircraft under unusual lighting conditions. He provides an example of a formation of UFOs flying over a city that received worldwide publicity because it was sighted by two college professors. However, he dismisses their estimates of altitude and speed as unreliable without special instrumentation. He contrasts this with a sighting by a young man of a flock of white-bellied ducks reflecting city lights, which he suggests was the same phenomenon but less publicized due to the witnesses' status.

The author explains the process by which newsmen, prioritizing scoops, might publicize reports from individuals hundreds of miles apart without adequate verification. He notes that while witnesses may be honest, their estimates of distance can be greatly in error, leading to false reports being broadcast as truth.

Nininger shares a personal experience during World War II in New Mexico, where he observed a huge flock of starlings flying in perfect formation. He describes their intricate maneuvers, comparing their movement to a Viennese Waltz, and how they eventually rested on the ground and seemed to vanish. He later found a report in Life Magazine about flying saucer sightings that included a description of this exact phenomenon, witnessed from a distance where individual birds were not distinguishable.

Another anecdote involves seeing a 'gray serpentine apparition' on a mountain slope in Colorado, which turned out to be a large flock of sheep. He emphasizes that the most confusing aspect of the UFO problem is that judgments are often made based on sightings from a single location, rather than multiple, independent observations.

He recounts a case in Artesia, New Mexico, where two welders reported seeing a small plane fall burning. After investigating, Nininger suggested it might have been a meteor. This led to a wider inquiry, with reports coming from various parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and even Mexico, describing similar phenomena, including rattling windows and thunder-like noise.

Nininger stresses the importance of corroborating reports from widely different areas. He shares an experience from 1931 where a man claimed to have seen a meteorite hit 200 miles away from where Nininger was investigating a fireball. Despite the distance, Nininger believed the man was referring to the same event, explaining that the dust kicked up was meteoritic dust, not soil, and the meteorite had ceased burning high in the atmosphere.

He describes another incident involving Glenn Huss, who reported seeing a meteorite fall near Cottonwood, Arizona. Their investigation led them to believe the meteorite landed in rugged, uninhabited country in Mexico. Nininger also recounts a superintendent of schools pointing out a spot where he saw a 'great fireball' strike, which Nininger identified as a meteorite he had collected pieces of over 300 miles away.

In 1933, a daylight meteor or fireball was observed north of Denver, prompting Nininger and his wife to investigate. They gathered witness accounts, and eventually, they collected 30 meteorites from an elliptical area 10 miles in length.

Nininger reiterates that the general public often fails to reliably estimate the distance to objects in the air. He gives the example of people witnessing grasshoppers and mistaking them for UFOs, until an old man who had experienced a similar event in 1919 explained what they were seeing.

He also mentions seeing a 'silvery disk' that turned out to be a weather balloon or the planet Venus. In 1941, his son Robert witnessed a large fireball in Colorado that broke into sparks. A ranch lady described it as 'a million sparks coming down.'

Nininger concludes an incident involving a pilot reporting a burning plane near Casper, Wyoming, as a case of misidentification. The pilot who reported the burning plane was 270 miles away from where the fireball actually ended, highlighting how sympathy and a desire to help can lead to inaccurate reports and wasted search efforts.

He cites several instances where pilots misidentified meteors, leading to incorrect reports of plane crashes or collisions. He emphasizes that no single discipline seems to train individuals in the procedure of determining where an observed meteorite falls.

Eyeless Vision and Dermo-Optical Perception

The latter part of the document shifts focus to the phenomenon of 'eyeless vision' or dermo-optical perception. Nininger suggests that if people were taught the facts about meteors and fireballs, there would be less fuss about flying saucers and UFOs, implying that a lack of knowledge in one area can lead to serious consequences, as exemplified by a case in 1957 where a Lt. Commander reported a fiery object in a collision course, causing forest fires. This incident reportedly confused NORAD investigators.

The document includes a "Suggested Further Readings" section with references to articles by H.H. Nininger, C.C. Wylie, and William Hartmann, related to data reliability in meteor work and perception. It also features a bibliography titled "Fingertip Sight" by Leonard Zusne, listing numerous scientific articles and books on topics such as dermo-optical perception, tactile vision, and psychical sciences, primarily from the 1960s and 1970s, with some earlier entries.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document are the critical examination of eyewitness testimony, particularly concerning aerial phenomena, the identification of natural phenomena as explanations for UFO sightings, and the exploration of unusual perceptual abilities like 'eyeless vision'. The author's stance is clearly skeptical of sensational UFO claims, advocating for rigorous scientific investigation and a reliance on verifiable data over anecdotal evidence. He consistently points to meteorites and other natural events as the most plausible explanations for many reported sightings. The inclusion of the bibliography on 'eyeless vision' suggests an interest in exploring the boundaries of human perception, even while maintaining a critical approach to extraordinary claims.

Title: Zetetic Scholar
Issue: 10
Volume: 10
Date: 1982
Publisher: R.A. McConnell
Country: USA
Language: English
ISSN: 0740-8472

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, edited by R.A. McConnell, is primarily dedicated to an in-depth examination of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and its sponsors, framed by the "STARBABY" controversy. The cover prominently features the title "GUARDIANS OF ORTHODOXY: The Sponsors of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal," highlighting the issue's focus on the individuals and organizations associated with CSICOP.

The STARBABY Controversy and CSICOP Sponsors

The central theme revolves around a letter sent by R.A. McConnell in September 1981 to 75 of CSICOP's listed sponsors. This inquiry sought to understand their continued association with the organization in light of the "STARBABY" report, which had been published in Fate magazine in October 1981 and detailed Dennis Rawlins' experiences as a member of CSICOP's Executive Council. McConnell's letter aimed to encourage a thorough ventilation of the affair and to understand the people lending their names to the CSICOP enterprise.

McConnell received 39 replies (52% of those who received the letter). These replies were categorized based on criticism expressed, judgmental action underway, and substantive action planned. Notably, 12 sponsors indicated satisfaction with CSICOP, and 17 planned to continue their sponsorship, forming what is described as the "hard core of support." The issue suggests that the heterogeneity of CSICOP's sponsors, with diverse personalities and beliefs, might be incompatible with an organization operating through democratic assembly.

McConnell expresses his view that CSICOP is interested in "saleable advocacy" rather than scientific truth. He criticizes the organization for its "pretence to scientific authority" and the lack of control sponsors have over its management. He draws a parallel between CSICOP's opposition to astrology and the Creationists' opposition to evolution, suggesting both employ "semanti-magical methods" to resolve scientific controversies, though he notes Creationists are honorable men while CSICOP "deceives the public."

Research on Dermo-Optical Perception and Fingertip Vision

Beyond the CSICOP analysis, the issue includes extensive bibliographical references to research on dermo-optical perception and "eyeless vision" or "fingertip vision." This section lists numerous articles and publications from the 1960s and 1970s, primarily in Russian and English, detailing experiments and discussions on the ability of individuals to perceive colors or objects through touch.

Key researchers and publications cited include:

• Novomeiskii, A. S.: Several entries focus on the "dermo-optical sense" and its role in cognition, including studies on its nature, changes in sensitivity under different illumination, and localization of color boundaries based on residual radiation. His work is cited from journals like *Voprosy Filozofii*, *Voprosy Psikhologii*, and publications from the Sverdlovsk Pedinstitut.
• Nyuberg, N. D.: His work on "Finger-sight" and "clairvoyance," published in *Priroda* and *Proceedings of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology*, is referenced.
• Platonov, K.: The phenomenon of Roza Kuleshova is mentioned in *Nauka i Zhizn'.*
• Plumb, R. K.: Articles in the *New York Times* and *Science Digest* about a woman who tells colors by touch and "sixth sense" are cited.
• Rhine, J. B.: Reports on Pat Marquis's "nose-peeking" in an eyeless vision test are mentioned from *Parapsychology Bulletin*.
• Romains, J.: His work on "Vision extra-rétinienne" (Eyeless sight) from 1919 is referenced, along with his later experiments in the *Journal of Parapsychology*.
• Rosenfeld, A.: An article in *Life* about seeing colors with fingers is cited.
• Snyakin, P. G.: Research on the development of ocular and dermal photoreception is mentioned from *Byulleten' Eksperimental'noi Biologii i Meditsiny*.
• Steinberg, D. D.: His work on light sensed through skin receptors is cited from the *American Journal of Psychology*.
• Steven, D. M.: Research on the dermal light sense is referenced from *Biological Review*.
• Svoren', R.: An article on "Fingertip sight" from *Izvestiya* is included.
• Tarbell, H.: Work on "X-ray eyes and blindfold effects" from *The Course in Magic* is cited.
• Teplov, L.: Publications on "eyeless sight" from *Nedelya* and *Literaturnaya Gazeta* are listed.
• Trisvyatskaya, V.: An article about seeing with fingers from *Fate* is referenced.
• Weintraub, D. J.: His work on Dermo-optical perception is cited from *Science*.
• Zavala, A., Van Cott, H. P., Orr, D. B., & Small, V. H.: Research on human dermo-optical perception differentiating colors of objects and projected light is cited from *Perceptual and Motor Skills*.
• Zubin, J.: A cautionary report on Dermooptical perception is cited from *Science*.

These references collectively span a period from the late 1930s to the late 1960s, with a significant concentration in the 1960s, indicating a period of active research and discussion on these phenomena.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of organizations that claim scientific authority, particularly CSICOP, and the exploration of phenomena that challenge conventional sensory perception, such as dermo-optical perception and fingertip vision. The editorial stance, as articulated by R.A. McConnell, is one of skepticism towards organizations that prioritize advocacy over rigorous scientific inquiry and a critical approach to phenomena that blur the lines of established scientific understanding. McConnell emphasizes the importance of intellectual honesty and transparency, particularly within organizations that claim to uphold scientific principles. The issue also touches upon the broader societal issue of trust in scientists and the potential for "anti-rationalism" and "intellectual dishonesty" within society.

Title: Zetetic Scholar
Issue: #10
Volume: 1982
Date: 1982
Publisher: Zetetic Scholar
Country: USA
Language: English
ISSN: 0272-2210
Cover Headline: THE TRUE DISBELIEVERS: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality (Part 1)

Article: The True Disbelievers: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality (Part 1)

This article, the first part of a two-part analysis by Richard Kammann, critiques the handling of the 'Mars Effect' controversy by prominent members of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), specifically Paul Kurtz, George Abell, and Marvin Zelen. Kammann argues that these skeptics, in their efforts to debunk the Mars Effect—a claim linking planetary positions at birth to success in professions, particularly sports championships—resorted to "a remarkable line of illogic and defensiveness" and employed "demonstrably false statistical arguments."

Background of the Mars Effect

The Mars Effect was discovered by French chronobiologists Michel and Francoise Gauquelin, who found that European sports champions were disproportionately born when Mars was in specific sectors of the sky. Their data suggested a statistically significant correlation, which they reported in publications like *The Humanist*. The claim posits that the position of Mars at birth influences athletic performance.

CSICOP's Response and Kammann's Critique

Kammann details how CSICOP, an organization dedicated to investigating paranormal claims, engaged with the Mars Effect data. He focuses on the "Zelen Challenge," initiated by Marvin Zelen, which aimed to establish a baseline for Mars positions in ordinary people to compare against the champions' data. The Gauquelins provided data for this challenge, and Kammann asserts that Zelen, Kurtz, and Abell subsequently committed "6 statistical errors" in their analysis, which was published in *The Humanist* in November/December 1977.

Kammann systematically breaks down the alleged errors made by the trio:

1. Flawed Challenge Design: Zelen's challenge used a small sample size (100 or 200 champions) which was statistically insufficient to detect the Mars Effect reliably, a point the Gauquelins mathematically proved.
2. Sample Splitting and Misinterpretation: When analyzing a corrected version of the Zelen challenge data (a subsample of 303 champions with a control group of 16,756 non-athletes), the Gauquelins found a Mars Effect of 21.8%, consistent with their original findings. However, the CSICOP trio allegedly engaged in "sample-splitting" by dividing the data into geographical regions (Paris, France-minus-Paris, Belgium) and then claiming "disparities" or "irregularities" based on statistically insignificant differences in these small subsets. Kammann argues that this method is incorrect and that no significant differences were found when proper statistical comparisons were made.
3. Removal of Female Data: The trio removed the data of 9 female champions and their control counterparts, claiming it was to balance the sexes. Kammann contends this was a "vanishing trick" that altered significance levels (e.g., slipping France-minus-Paris from .06 to .09) and was done to make the results appear "not significant."
4. The "One Champion" Argument: The trio used a nonsensical argument that the entire result depended on a single champion, which Kammann dismisses as a "didactic device" to mislead non-statistical readers.
5. Ignoring the Full Sample: The CSICOP trio allegedly overlooked or downplayed the significance of the original, larger sample of 2,088 champions, which Rawlins had estimated had odds of 1 in 10 million against being due to chance. Later, Abell and Kurtz acknowledged this "2,088 error" but claimed it was covered by the Gauquelins' paper, which Kammann states was not the case.

Chronology and Characters

The article includes a "Cast of Characters" listing key individuals and their affiliations, such as Paul Kurtz (Chairman, CSICOP), George Abell (Professor of Astronomy, UCLA), Marvin Zelen (Professor of Biostatistics), Dennis Rawlins (astronomer and writer), and Michel and Francoise Gauquelin (chronobiologists). A "Brief Chronology" outlines the timeline of the controversy from 1976 to 1982, detailing publications, challenges, and disputes, including Dennis Rawlins raising issues about CSICOP's errors and CSICOP's subsequent campaign against Rawlins' character.

Kammann's Hypothesis and Conclusion

Kammann proposes a "comprehensive innocence theory," suggesting that the errors might stem from "blind prejudice" and a self-perpetuating mechanism where initial expectations bias observers to confirm their beliefs and discount contrary evidence. He notes that despite extensive criticism from researchers like the Gauquelins, Elizabeth Scott, Dennis Rawlins, and Ray Hyman, the trio persisted in repeating their flawed arguments. Kammann concludes that while he has skeptical reservations about the Mars Effect itself, the primary issue is the "demonstrably false statistical arguments" used by the skeptics and the persistence of these errors.

The Mars Effect Itself

Kammann acknowledges that the scientific proposition of the Mars Effect is suspect due to the infinitesimal nature of natural forces from Mars compared to terrestrial influences. He also notes that the effect does not appear in merely good athletes but only in top champions, lacking biological or psychological precedent. However, he points out that the Mars Effect has been replicated once by the Belgian Para Committee and not replicated on U.S. champions by Rawlins, Abell, and Zelen, leaving it with a "residual prima facie case as a valid scientific anomaly."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The article strongly advocates for rational debate and trustworthy evidence in combating superstition and pseudoscience. It criticizes the methods employed by CSICOP members, framing their actions as a defense of their skeptical stance that led to logical and statistical errors. The editorial stance is critical of the specific arguments used by the skeptics in this case, emphasizing the importance of sound methodology and honest debate in scientific inquiry, even when dealing with controversial claims. The magazine, *Zetetic Scholar*, appears to be a platform for critical examination of claims, including those made by skeptics themselves.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as issue #10 from 1982, focuses heavily on the "Mars Effect" controversy, presenting a detailed critique of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and its handling of the scientific debate. The issue includes multiple articles and responses, primarily from the perspective of an author critical of CSICOP's methods and integrity.

The Mars Effect Controversy and CSICOP's Role

The central theme is the dispute surrounding the "Mars Effect," a phenomenon claimed by scientist Michel Gauquelin, which suggests a correlation between the position of Mars at birth and success in certain professions, particularly sports. The articles detail how CSICOP, an organization dedicated to skepticism, has engaged with this claim. The author expresses admiration for CSICOP's goals but objects to their "mode of argument," particularly their "specific debunking of popular fantasies."

The author alleges that CSICOP members Paul Kurtz, George Abell, and Marvin Zelen offered "fallacious statistics" to deny the Mars Effect. They are accused of focusing on a small section of data, excluding favorable results for females, and using incorrect statistical tests. When these methods failed to eliminate the effect, the trio allegedly argued that the data was faulty, blaming Michel Gauquelin for incompetence or cheating.

Dennis Rawlins and the "sTarbaby" Incident

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to the "sTarbaby" exposé by Dennis Rawlins, a former CSICOP Councilor. Rawlins' article, published in Fate magazine, is described as detailing a "scandalous demonstration of irrationality by three of their most prominent members, including the Chairman, Paul Kurtz." The author initially found Rawlins' claims hard to believe, given the stature of CSICOP members like Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, The Amazing Randi, and Kendrick Frazier. However, after extensive research, the author concludes that CSICOP has "progressively trapped itself" in an "anti-Rawlins propaganda campaign" and has engaged in "suppression of his evidence, and into stonewalling against other critics."

Rawlins' initial attempts to educate Kurtz on statistical reasoning in 1978 seemed promising, but the situation escalated when Kurtz announced a CSICOP press conference to present Rawlins' results that contradicted the trio's findings. Rawlins' complaints were ignored, and a promised debate with Zelen and Abell evaporated. The author suggests that CSICOP's actions were driven by a desire to protect its public relations image and the indispensability of its leader, Paul Kurtz.

CSICOP's Response and Defense

The issue details CSICOP's various responses to Rawlins' criticisms and the Mars Effect controversy. After Rawlins' "sTarbaby" article, CSICOP circulated old letters to portray Rawlins as a "habitual troublemaker" and later issued privately authored white papers. The article "The Status of the Mars Effect" by Abell, Kurtz, and Zelen is described as re-hashing the same statistical errors Rawlins had protested. Councilor Philip Klass wrote "Crybaby," which the author characterizes as an "ad hominem attack on Rawlins' motives and personality" rather than a refutation of the cover-up charge.

The author submitted a 28-page report, "Personal Assessment of the Mars Controversy," concluding that the scientific errors were gross, Kurtz was not guilty of a cover-up due to lack of understanding, but CSICOP was guilty of a cover-up by not taking Rawlins seriously. This report was not widely circulated among Fellows.

CSICOP's own journal, The Skeptical Inquirer, republished the Zelen-Kurtz-Abell analysis, overriding criticisms from statistician Ray Hyman. Rawlins claimed editor Ken Frazier censored his full protest. Despite these internal conflicts and criticisms, CSICOP continued to endorse the controversial papers.

Gauquelin's Response to the Belgian Committee Para

Another section of the issue presents "A REPLY" from Michel Gauquelin responding to a statement by the Belgian Committee PARA. Gauquelin criticizes the committee's response as "remarkably vague" and accuses its president, astronomer Dommanget, of refusing to comply with his requests for clarification on statistical methods and counter-experiments. Gauquelin asserts that his requests were "perfectly decent and scientifically crucial" and that the committee's response was "highly misleading."

Gauquelin argues that the "common adopted methodology" claimed by the committee is a facade, stating that the controversy lies in the mathematical formula used. He points to a 1962 letter from Jean Dath, former president of the Committee Para, which apparently verified his results and methodology. Gauquelin questions why Dommanget has never published his own expected Mars frequencies, suggesting that their "mathematical model" is a form of "pseudo-science created to hide the Mars effect."

Scientific Errors and Cover-up Allegations

The author reiterates the scientific errors in the Zelen-Kurtz-Abell analysis, noting that even George Abell acknowledged some errors in later explanations. Ray Hyman, while concurring on errors, framed them as ordinary "slip-ups in the process of science." However, the author contends that CSICOP's actions, including the republication of flawed analyses and the dismissal of critics, constitute a cover-up.

The issue highlights the difficulty in getting accurate information out, with CSICOP controlling the "information flow." The author expresses concern that if the Fellows and Scientific Consultants of CSICOP do not intervene, the situation will not be rectified.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are scientific integrity, the methodology of debunking paranormal claims, the role of skepticism in science, and allegations of institutional cover-ups. The editorial stance is clearly critical of CSICOP's practices, portraying the organization as prioritizing public relations and defending its members over objective scientific inquiry. The author champions the work of Michel Gauquelin and Dennis Rawlins, presenting them as victims of CSICOP's biased and unscientific approach to the Mars Effect controversy.

Title: Zetetic Scholar
Issue: #13
Volume: 1982
Date: 1982
Publisher: Zetetic Scholar
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, dated 1982, delves deeply into the controversial "Mars Effect" phenomenon, primarily through a series of articles and letters that engage with the research of Michel Gauquelin and the critiques leveled against it by various scientific bodies and individuals.

The Counter-Experiments Which Vanished

The issue begins by discussing the limitations of purely mathematical models in addressing the Mars Effect and proposes counter-experiments with control groups as a viable alternative. The Zelen test is highlighted as one such experiment. The article criticizes the Belgian Committee Para for carrying out crucial counter-experiments that vindicated Gauquelin's methodology but failing to publish these results. President Dommanget of the Committee Para is noted for his apparent loss of memory regarding these experiments.

Design of the Counter-Experiment

The Zelen test, designed to assess demographic or astronomical bias, involved shuffling the hours of birth among champions while keeping their birth dates and places. This ensured that the control group had the same demographic and astronomical conditions as the original group. The Committee Para reportedly repeated this test nine times, each time shifting birth hours. The article notes that the Committee Para's 1976 report was silent on these results, and Dommanget's private correspondence also indicated a lack of public disclosure.

Results of the Counter-Experiment

Table 1, presented from an unpublished 1970 preliminary report by Dath & Dommanget, details the results of these counter-experiments. The data shows distributions of Mars at birth for champions (f0) and for nine counter-experiments (f1 to f9), as well as a combined value (f1,9). The statistical analysis (chi-square and probability) indicates that the differences between the actual distribution (f0) and the counter-experiment distributions (f1-f9) are significant, with many reaching the .001 level. The comparison between f0 and f1,9 is significant at .007. The author concludes that the Mars Effect, as replicated by the Committee Para, cannot be considered an artifact or a demographic error.

Explanations and Comments

The term "Classement alphabetique" is explained as "alphabetical order." The table's columns are detailed: cl represents sectors of Mars, f0 is the actual distribution of Mars at birth of champions, and f1 to f9 are distributions for the nine counter-experiments. The combined value f1,9 represents the average of the nine frequencies. The significant chi-square and probability values suggest that the Mars Effect is not due to artifact or demographic error.

Conclusion

Michel Gauquelin asserts that the evidence fully demonstrates that the Committee Para successfully replicated the Mars Effect on a new sample of athletes and that their own counter-experiments theoretically confirmed his methodology, showing the effect is not an artifact. He dismisses the Committee Para's "mathematical model" as a "trick" that allows skeptics to claim the effect hasn't been replicated independently. He characterizes the behavior of the Belgian Committee Para and its president as an example of "pathological science."

Postscript by the Editor

Marcello Truzzi, the editor of Zetetic Scholar, adds a postscript detailing correspondence with Dr. J. Dommanget of the Belgian Para Committee. Dommanget stated that the committee would no longer answer papers by Gauquelin, believing he refused to show errors in their analysis. Dommanget proposed a full English translation of both methodologies to clarify differences. Truzzi also recounts attempts to arrange a meeting between Dommanget and Gauquelin, mediated by Piet Hein Hoebens, to clarify methodologies, but these were rejected by Dommanget, who cited Gauquelin's "attitude" as a reason.

A Proposal by Michel Gauquelin

Gauquelin addresses criticisms from Paul Kurtz and George Abell, stating that seven years after being asked to provide data for review by a "group of scientists" led by Abell, his work has not been properly checked. He offers to pay for any scientifically trained individuals or groups to conduct a thorough "cross examination" of his research, including access to his laboratory and all data. He emphasizes that his work on the Mars Effect is only a small part of his thirty years of research, which also includes extensive studies on heredity and character traits, all of which are available for checking.

Personal Reflections on the Mars Effect Controversy

Marcello Truzzi offers his personal reflections on the Mars Effect controversy, clarifying his role as a mediator and acknowledging that some may perceive him as an advocate due to his past associations and involvement. He outlines two key elements of the controversy: the scientific validity of the Mars Effect and the manner in which critics have challenged it.

Mistaken Escalation: The "Mars Effect" Claim

Truzzi argues that the term "Mars Effect" is a misnomer, as the controversy centers on a correlation, not a proven causal relationship. He criticizes both Gauquelin and his critics for treating the correlation as causal, which lends support to astrology. He contends that Gauquelin has merely demonstrated a "Mars Correlation," which is an anomaly but not necessarily evidence of planetary influence. The escalation of this claim to an "effect" is seen as a tactic by critics to increase the burden of proof on Gauquelin and to make their own challenge more significant.

The Status of the Claim

Truzzi summarizes the evidence, indicating that a Mars Correlation was validly found by Gauquelin and replicated in several studies, including those by the Committee Para (CP) and Kurtz-Zelen-Abell (KZA). He addresses criticisms regarding the validity of Gauquelin's data, stating that the data is published and original records are available. He argues that critics claiming Gauquelin's work is spurious have the burden of proof, which has not been met. He notes that even critics like George Abell and Richard Kammann have admitted difficulty understanding the reasoning of some critics.

The CP's Study

The Belgian CP replicated Gauquelin's experiment but questioned the theoretical chance expectation level used. Truzzi points out that the CP accepted Gauquelin's data base and that the data was transmitted directly to the CP. He argues that the CP's interpretation is likely wrong, especially in light of the KZA test, which used an empirical control group and found a Mars Effect at the level theoretically expected by Gauquelin. Thus, the CP test, when viewed alongside the KZA test, corroborates Gauquelin's interpretation.

The CSICOP Connection

The KZA (Kurtz-Zelen-Abell) conducted two studies. Truzzi notes that the initial reaction to charges against these studies was to dismiss them. He highlights that the KZA test, using an empirical control group, found a Mars Effect, contradicting the CP's conclusions and supporting Gauquelin's findings.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific validity of the Mars Effect, the methodology used to study it, and the nature of scientific controversy. The editorial stance of Zetetic Scholar is presented as open and fair-minded, seeking to encourage public dialogue between all viewpoints. The issue critically examines the actions of scientific bodies like the Committee Para and CSICOP, questioning their methods and motivations in challenging Gauquelin's research. There is a strong emphasis on the distinction between correlation and causation, and a critique of how critics have escalated Gauquelin's findings to create a more sensational and easily debunked claim. The issue champions scientific openness and the availability of data for scrutiny, as exemplified by Gauquelin's proposal for a thorough cross-examination of his work.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, Volume 21, Issue 13, published in 1982, focuses heavily on the controversy surrounding the "Mars Effect" and the role of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) in handling the research and its criticisms.

The Mars Effect Controversy and CSICOP's Role

The article begins by detailing the author's perspective on CSICOP's handling of the Mars Effect studies. It states that CSICOP's Councilors initially claimed that the studies were not CSICOP studies but rather conducted by individual members. However, the author refutes this, pointing out that CSICOP sponsored the U.S. test, paid for it, and publicly took credit for it. The criticism has primarily come from ex-Fellows of CSICOP who wished to address these "faults" to the general membership. The author accuses CSICOP's leadership of consistently trying to deflect criticism by making it appear that critics were attacking CSICOP itself, rather than their bungling. This has led to an "indifference" among most CSICOP Fellows, which Kendrick Frazier has cited as a reason for not publishing further material on the controversy in THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. The author interprets CSICOP's recent announcement that it would no longer conduct or endorse research as an admission that they had indeed sponsored the second KZA study (the U.S. test) and that this was a mistake.

The article then addresses the connection between the first KZA study and CSICOP, noting that while it was published in THE HUMANIST and not THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, there was no clear distinction between the American Humanist Association (AHA) and CSICOP in its early days. The AHA funded CSICOP's initiation, and Paul Kurtz was both the editor of THE HUMANIST and the chairman of CSICOP, with funding being "totally intertwined." CSICOP only became a separate organization after the first test was initiated, largely because Paul Kurtz left his editorial position. The author finds the claim of no serious connection between CSICOP and the original KZA test to be "remarkable post hoc reasoning."

The author asserts that, regardless of the exact relationship, CSICOP has generally allowed the public to believe the Mars Effect studies were competent and that criticisms have been met. This silence has been interpreted as consent, which the author believes was intentional. The author concludes that CSICOP's leadership has engaged in "stonewalling their critics' charges while also resorting to ad hominem attacks (especially against Rawlins)" and has become guilty of the "very pathological science that they were set up to attack." Instead of exemplifying a rational approach, CSICOP has prioritized protecting orthodoxy and its own reputation over finding the truth, becoming "the Inquisitors that some feared they might."

Despite these criticisms, the author acknowledges that CSICOP has done "some valuable work" and does not suggest that most errors were intentional. The author believes honorable men made mistakes, possibly with good intentions, and got carried away, leading them to "rationalize or ignore the errors." The issue notes that several Fellows and Technical Consultants resigned due to the Council's behavior, while the majority remained apathetic or supportive.

What's Next?

The issue discusses potential future developments. CSICOP has recently altered its Executive Council, and George Abell has circulated a private memo acknowledging errors charged by Kammann. The author urges for a public document jointly signed by Abell, Kurtz, and Zelen to "clear the air." A new test of the Mars Correlation is being initiated by French critics, who will gather all data and follow Gauquelin's guidelines. The author expresses hope that if positive results are found, Gauquelin will not be blamed, and if negative, that their records will be made available to skeptics, similar to Gauquelin's openness.

The article suggests that the "sloppiness of the critics in handling the Mars Effect claim has led to Gauquelin's being considered somewhat of a martyr by some." A similar counter-reaction followed the scientific response to Immanuel Velikovsky. The author emphasizes that science needs good science as an antidote to bad science and encourages tackling the Mars Effect problem with good science. If the Mars Effect is real, it should be rejoiced as a new discovery.

The Mars Effect controversy remains unresolved. The author urges advocates on all sides to present their arguments and evidence in public forums, noting that much of the controversy has occurred in semi-private communications. The author has offered space in ZS for CSICOP's leadership to reply to charges and has urged Fellows to participate in the dialogue.

Postscript (11/28/82)

A postscript clarifies that the U.S. test, if accepted at face value, does not demonstrate the Mars Effect. It highlights serious methodological problems with the study due to controversy over its data sources and selection processes. The author refers readers to Patrick Curry's article for an independent evaluation, finding his criticisms reasonable and convincing. Information has reached the author that KZA is preparing a reply to critics, which may be published soon.

Bibliography

The issue includes a "Random Bibliography on the Occult and the Paranormal," listing numerous articles, books, and dissertations from various journals and publishers, covering a wide range of topics related to paranormal claims, skepticism, and scientific inquiry. This bibliography spans pages 82 through 88.

Coming in the Next Issue of ZS

The next issue will feature a dialogue on recommendations for parapsychology, a discussion between John Palmer and James E. Alcock on the scientific status of parapsychology, an article titled "Confessions of a Fortean Skeptic" by Jerome Clark, a bibliography on psychics and crime, and Ron Westrum's response to commentators on cryptoscience. It also includes a call to renew subscriptions.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are scientific methodology, the nature of skepticism, the handling of controversial research, and the importance of openness and rational dialogue in science. The editorial stance appears to be critical of CSICOP's organizational practices and its handling of the Mars Effect controversy, advocating for a more transparent and scientifically rigorous approach to paranormal claims. The author champions the principles of good science and intellectual honesty, even when dealing with potentially paradigm-shifting discoveries.

This document is an article titled "CRYPTO-SCIENCE AND SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE ABOUT ANOMALIES" by Ron Westrum, published in The Zetetic Scholar, issue 15, in 1982. The article explores the nature of research into phenomena not yet accepted by mainstream science, often labeled 'cryptosciences' or 'pseudoscience.'

The Nature of Cryptosciences

Ron Westrum defines cryptosciences as the study of 'things that might be there' – phenomena like UFOs, ghosts, bigfoot, and spontaneous human combustion, for which there is evidence but not scientific acknowledgment. The aim of cryptoscience is to collect and analyze information to either bring these anomalies into the domain of science or explain why evidence for them appears to exist.

Westrum notes that individuals engaged in cryptoscience are often poorly received by the scientific community, being lumped with astrologers and psychics as 'pseudoscients.' He confronts the common definition of pseudoscience as 'the incompetent study of what is not real.'

Defining Competence and Reality

Westrum clarifies his terms: 'competence' refers to the proper use of inquiry, experiment, and reasoning that reflects the state of the art in science, acknowledging that 'scientific method' is flexible. 'Reality,' he posits, is a state of affairs agreed upon by a given social group, constructed through mutual interaction and maintained by social institutions. Events that do not fit this framework are considered 'unreal.'

A Day in the Life of a UFOlogist

Westrum shares personal experiences as a UFO field investigator. He describes the difficulty in finding a hypnotist for an 'abduction' case investigation, highlighting the need for interdisciplinary cooperation and the lack of legitimacy for such work within established fields like psychology. He notes that while he might possess the intuition, he lacks the professional credentials and resources to conduct rigorous research, often having to rely on 'borrowed' time and funds.

He contrasts the practical challenges of UFO research with the theoretical logic of science. The work is time-consuming, often done after hours, and severely underfunded. A physical trace case investigation, for example, might cost $25,000 but rarely receives more than $100.

Stigma and Career Impact

Westrum, a social scientist, acknowledges that his interest in UFOs is unlikely to advance his career. He grapples with the possibility of wasting his time on 'phantoms' and the potential for his work to be dismissed as 'nonsense' or 'crazy.' He contrasts his situation with that of average UFO investigators who lack even his modest resources and often sacrifice personal lives and careers.

The article posits that UFO research remains a spare-time, avocational activity because society, including science, does not believe UFOs exist, making time spent on them seem wasted. Scientists interested in UFOs are discouraged by ridicule, and funding is scarce. Ambitious researchers tend to avoid such topics, preferring more accepted fields like exobiology or SETI.

Anomalies and the Social Sense of Reality

Westrum argues that the study of anomalous events is a taboo activity because it challenges society's constructed sense of reality. He references Ludwik Fleck's observations on how accepted systems of ideas resist contradictory evidence, leading to phenomena being kept secret, unseen, or explained away. This resistance is not necessarily due to the danger of the idea itself but its subversive implications for the established order.

He provides examples like meteorites, UFOs, and the battered child syndrome, where anomalous events are met with disbelief and ridicule. The case of the Coelacanth's discovery illustrates how even with irrefutable evidence, a discoverer might face doubt and questioning of their sanity. Similarly, observations by entire communities, like those on the Yakima Indian Reservation, are often dismissed as illusions or frauds.

Westrum highlights the phrase 'obviously wrong fact' and notes that 20th-century attitudes are not far removed from 18th-century ones in their dismissal of the physically impossible. The implicit reasons for an observation being deemed 'impossible' are often unfamiliarity or poorly constructed proofs.

The Taboo of Anomalous Research

The article explains that the social intelligence about anomalous events is suppressed because of barriers to their emergence. The 'deviant reality' of anomalous events does not confront the standard reality, making the anomalous appear more deviant than it might be. This separation impoverishes both perspectives and forces those who explore anomalous phenomena into a separate world, often treated as pariahs.

Conclusion

Westrum draws two main conclusions. First, marginal areas of science will likely be pursued with sub-standard resources and by sub-standard practitioners due to pressure for assured success. Competent individuals entering these fields risk their careers. Second, cryptoscientific observations are difficult to obtain because interest in them is stigmatized. Improving social intelligence about such events requires conscious efforts to improve reporting channels, similar to how meteorite falls eventually gained acceptance.

He speculates that a society with greater openness and tolerance would find less use for the term 'pseudoscience,' replacing it with 'amateur science.' Cryptosciences, needing non-scientist observers, could be a starting point for this shift, echoing H.H. Nininger's work with meteorites and suggesting a connection to democratic principles.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes include the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, the social construction of reality, the challenges of investigating anomalous phenomena, and the role of stigma and ridicule in scientific inquiry. The editorial stance is critical of the scientific community's intolerance towards unconventional research and advocates for greater openness and a more inclusive definition of scientific inquiry, potentially embracing 'amateur science.'

This issue of the *Zetetic Scholar*, identified as issue number 10 and published in 1982, delves into the complex relationship between unconventional research, scientific skepticism, and the social dynamics of the scientific establishment. The central piece is Ron Westrum's article, "Crypto-Science and Social Intelligence About Anomalies," which is extensively discussed and commented upon by several notable figures in related fields.

Ron Westrum's "Crypto-Science and Social Intelligence About Anomalies"

Westrum's article, as described by the commentators, presents a realistic portrayal of the challenges faced by researchers investigating anomalous phenomena. He defines "crypto-science" as the endeavor to collect and analyze information about anomalies such as UFOs, ghosts, and bigfoot. The goal is twofold: to integrate these phenomena into the scientific domain if they exist, or to explain the evidence for them if they do not. The article suggests that such researchers often face attacks, misrepresentation, and ridicule.

Commentary by Roy P. Mackal

Roy P. Mackal, Scientific Director of the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau and co-founder of the International Society of Cryptozoology, expresses strong agreement with Westrum's analysis. Mackal attests to the validity of Westrum's observations from his personal experience, particularly regarding the subtle aspects of investigating anomalous events. He hopes that open-minded skeptics will read the article and adopt a more objective stance towards the investigation of such phenomena.

Commentary by Robert Rosenthal

Robert Rosenthal comments on Westrum's article, finding it informative and stimulating. He highlights the parallels between "cryptoscience" and "taboo science," suggesting that while the scientific study of religion might not be "crypto" (i.e., its existence is not doubted), it can be "taboo" (i.e., socially sensitive). Rosenthal proposes disentangling the reactions experienced by cryptoscientists, distinguishing between studying things that may not exist (cryptoness) and studying things they "should not study" (tabooness). He presents a table illustrating nine research areas arranged by levels of tabooness and cryptoness, with UFO Abductions, Telepathy, and Precognition falling into the high cryptoness and high tabooness categories. The table shows that topics like UFOs have a high rank of cryptoness (unlikely to exist) but a moderate rank of tabooness (ranked 8 out of 20). The commentary notes a substantial rank correlation (.78) between cryptoness and tabooness among 20 topics.

Commentary by H. J. Eysenck

H. J. Eysenck agrees with Westrum's depiction of the researcher's plight but argues that the fate of being attacked or neglected is not exclusive to "crypto-sciences." He contends that any research or belief that goes counter to the "Zeitgeist" (the prevailing intellectual climate) is subject to similar treatment. Eysenck uses the example of the environmentalist explanation for individual differences in behavior, which he argues contradicts genetic evidence and is promoted by those lacking expertise in polygenic genetics. He contrasts this with the treatment of advocates of crypto-science, suggesting that while they may be attacked, those who challenge established orthodoxies in mainstream science, like his own work on smoking and lung cancer or Arthur Jensen's work on intelligence, can face even more severe personal threats and attacks.

Eysenck concludes that the opposition to the Zeitgeist, rather than the "crypto-science" aspect itself, is the critical factor. He suggests that Westrum's article should be extended to examine how the Zeitgeist is created and why scientists become detached from objectivity and subservient to it.

Commentary by Patrick Grim

Patrick Grim addresses the argument that sociological explanations for why anomalous claims are considered dubious should lead to greater tolerance for UFOlogists and similar researchers. Grim finds this argument to be a "non sequitur." He argues that a sociological explanation for the rejection of a claim (like extraterrestrial visitation) is possible regardless of whether the claim is true or false. Therefore, the existence of such explanations does not logically compel the scientific establishment to be softer or more tolerant towards UFOlogists. Grim emphasizes that the only legitimate argument for such tolerance would be a normative argument about justifiable scientific procedure, not a general sociological scenario.

Grim also discusses Westrum's concept of "cryptosciences," agreeing that it is a substantial contribution. However, he points out a fundamental difficulty: determining the appropriate investigative methods and analysis depends crucially on whether the anomaly in question actually exists. For instance, if extraterrestrials visit, the relevant fields are biology and astronomy; if they do not, it's sociology and psychology. Grim finds the notion of a single, unified discipline straddling these radically different fields problematic, suggesting that until the nature of anomalies is better understood, studying them effectively will remain elusive.

References and Cited Works

The issue includes numerous citations to books and articles relevant to the discussions on science, pseudoscience, sociology of science, and UFO phenomena. Key references include works by Latour and Woolgar, Michael Polanyi, John Ziman, Harry M. Collins, Ray Fowler, John Keel, Budd Hopkins, Ludwik Fleck, J.A. Hynek, James McDonald, and others. Specific articles and books cited cover topics ranging from the philosophy of science and the nature of scientific discovery to documented UFO cases and the psychology of belief.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, the social and psychological factors influencing scientific acceptance and rejection, and the challenges faced by researchers in unconventional fields. The *Zetetic Scholar* appears to adopt a stance that encourages rigorous inquiry into anomalous phenomena while also critically examining the methodologies and biases within both the scientific establishment and the communities investigating these anomalies. The issue champions a nuanced approach, advocating for objective study rather than outright dismissal or uncritical acceptance.

This issue of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 4, Number 2, published in 1990, features a series of commentaries on an article by Ron Westrum concerning the sociology of crypto-science and its relationship with orthodox science. The issue delves into the societal barriers, professional legitimacy, and the inherent nature of scientific inquiry versus crypto-scientific investigation.

Comments by Henry H. Bauer

Henry H. Bauer begins by acknowledging the value of Westrum's case studies but focuses on areas of disagreement, particularly concerning the nature of barriers to crypto-scientific work. Bauer argues that the difficulties are not solely imposed by society but stem from the fundamental differences between science and crypto-science. He posits that excellent work in crypto-science is possible and presents a welcome opportunity for disinterested intellectual endeavor. Bauer disputes Westrum's hope that citizen participation would lead to healthy 'amateur science,' stating that science is inherently elitist due to the premium placed on intelligence and training. He uses the example of the Loch Ness Monster to illustrate that even with publicity, local interest remains low, suggesting that the value of crypto-scientific activities is primarily for those with an intellectual bent.

Bauer further contends that the difficulties in pursuing crypto-science are real but not insurmountable. He distinguishes between the objective of carrying on investigations and the objective of convincing others of their worth, suggesting Westrum focuses too much on the latter. Bauer highlights the achievements in cryptozoology by figures like Heuvelmans and the work at Loch Ness by Dinsdale and Rines, who used state-of-the-art equipment. He suggests Westrum's pessimism might stem from focusing on ufology as an exemplar, rather than areas like acupuncture or biological effects of electromagnetism, where amateurs and maverick scientists have gained some acceptance. Bauer notes that while society accepts what it is willing to accept, this is not a fixed dichotomy. He also points out that American society is pluralist, allowing for support of work like Rhine's on ESP, even if not publicly funded.

Bauer addresses the personal dilemma of ufologists, suggesting that the uncertainty of the matter, rather than cowardice, inhibits commitment. He emphasizes that convinced individuals will pursue their quests regardless of societal opinion. He also cautions against overgeneralizing and lumping all unexplained matters together, a tactic he attributes to debunkers. Bauer advocates for a 'third way' of pursuing crypto-science: focusing on the intellectual pleasure of the quest itself, fostering a community for reporting and analysis, and setting an example of determined pursuit without aggression. He believes this approach offers advantages over the pressures of career-building in mainstream science.

Comments by Susan Smith-Cunnien and Gary Alan Fine

Susan Smith-Cunnien and Gary Alan Fine analyze Westrum's work through the lens of the sociology of science and occupations. They suggest that examining 'deviant science' helps understand 'normal science' and that the distinction between the two often lies in work conditions, resources, and professional legitimacy rather than fundamental differences in aims or methods. They quote Westrum's definition of cryptosciences as dealing with phenomena not acknowledged by science but for which other evidence, such as testimony, exists.

Smith-Cunnien and Fine identify a reification of the 'scientific establishment' as 'science' and note that 'other evidence' is contrasted with scientific acknowledgment, implying that evidence is defined by scientists' attitudes. They see Westrum's contribution as raising issues in the sociology of work and occupations, specifically how the structure of an occupation relates to its position in the hierarchy. They propose expanding Westrum's analysis to include diversity and change, drawing parallels with emerging professions and social movements. They suggest that crypto-scientists compete for resources and power within the knowledge-generating industry, and that the status quo is maintained unless there is undeniable evidence of a new phenomenon.

They introduce the 'resource mobilization perspective,' which views social movements as driven by the mobilization of resources rather than just strain or discontent. They liken cryptoscience to a social movement and orthodox science to a countermovement, with organizations supporting each. Environmental conditions, such as increased discretionary resources, can foster the rise of movements. They also highlight the role of 'outsiders' or 'conscience adherents' who may support one enterprise over another. The influence of clients on the success or failure of emerging occupations is also discussed, suggesting that the lay audience of science might play a significant role in the relationship between crypto-science and orthodox science.

Comments by Andrew Neher

Andrew Neher finds Ron Westrum's article stimulating but offers critiques on several points. He agrees that the stigmatization of crypto-scientific pursuits is primarily within the scientific community, while 'pop-science' and non-scientific communities often embrace them. Neher questions Westrum's assertion that the scientific community largely controls the definition of what is real, given the popularity of crypto-writers. He also suggests that Westrum underestimates the plight of the orthodox scientist faced with anomalous claims, for whom 'fraud' is a natural and correct initial response due to the prevalence of fraud in crypto-science.

Neher argues that the primary task of cryptoscientists should be the study of anomalous events, rather than trying to curry favor with the orthodox or expelling fakers. He believes cryptoscientists should show more recognition of the nonsense within their field and be less defensive. Neher also questions Westrum's view that scientists interested in extraterrestrial intelligence will only pursue it through approved methods like radio-telescopes, suggesting that radio-telescopes might be a sensible approach for definitive answers.

Neher frames the central question as whether science is too conservative in its attitude towards extraordinary claims, which he breaks down into two parts: funding and acceptance. He acknowledges Westrum's point about scientific skepticism regarding meteorites but emphasizes the need for a balanced perspective. Neher introduces the concept of Type I and Type II errors in statistical reasoning, arguing that science must strike a balance between accepting too little proof (Type II errors) and too much (Type I errors). He suggests that Westrum's critique implies science commits too many errors of both kinds, which is logically impossible. Neher concludes that the question is not simply about conservatism but about striking a proper balance between unavoidable sources of error.

Comments by Daniel Cohen

Daniel Cohen agrees with Westrum's point about the self-fulfilling prophecy of incompetent investigation charges and finds the hope for ordinary citizen involvement in science to be a 'subversive' and positive democratic ideal. However, as a popular science writer, Cohen takes exception to some of Westrum's comments. He argues that popular publications and media often pressure writers to present 'absolute crap' as authentic crypto-science, rather than upholding orthodoxy and ridiculing new ideas. This, he believes, leads many scientists to dismiss the field without differentiating between genuine investigation and sensationalism.

Cohen asserts that crypto-science has suffered more harm from self-serving publicists than from skeptical 'secular arms.' He contends that Westrum shows insufficient understanding of the orthodox scientist's position, who, when faced with an anomalous claim and lacking time or interest, will naturally suspect fraud, especially given the high incidence of fraud in crypto-science. Cohen concludes that the problem is not solely orthodox blindness but also the field's own record of fraud. He suggests that cryptoscientists should focus on studying anomalous events and acknowledge the nonsense within their own field, rather than being overly defensive.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the nature of science, the challenges faced by fringe or 'crypto-scientific' fields, and the sociology of knowledge production. The commentators engage with Ron Westrum's article, offering diverse perspectives on whether the difficulties in crypto-science are primarily societal or inherent to the disciplines themselves. There's a consistent exploration of the tension between scientific conservatism and the acceptance of novel or anomalous claims, the role of evidence and proof, and the influence of public perception and professional legitimacy. The issue highlights the complexities of defining and validating knowledge, particularly in areas that fall outside mainstream scientific consensus. The editorial stance, as reflected in the selection of commentaries, appears to encourage a nuanced and critical examination of these issues, acknowledging both the potential value of unconventional research and the challenges of rigorous investigation and public acceptance.

This issue of The Zetetic Scholar, identified as Issue 10, delves into the complex relationship between 'crypto-science' (the study of anomalous phenomena) and the established scientific community. The core of the discussion revolves around a paper by Ron Westrum, which posits that the scientific establishment often declares anomalous phenomena 'unreal' and covers them up due to prejudice and intolerance. The issue presents a series of comments from various scholars, offering diverse perspectives on Westrum's arguments.

Comments by Sonja Grover

Sonja Grover agrees with Westrum that the scientific community can be resistant to ideas that challenge established boundaries of reality. She concurs that definitions of science focused solely on 'the real' can hinder the modification of knowledge claims. Grover suggests that much of what is termed 'pseudo-science' might be better viewed as 'amateur science' if the scientific community were more open. However, she disagrees with Westrum's assertion that anomalous events are primarily discounted because they involve anomalous data. Instead, Grover argues that pseudosciences are often labeled as such because their theoretical assumptions are not explicit, their implications are unclear, or the reliability of their findings is questionable due to inadequate methodologies. She believes pseudosciences do not generate anomalous data within their own conceptual framework, leading to static and vague theoretical assumptions.

Comments by William R. Corliss

William R. Corliss maps the roadblocks erected by the social system of science to preserve itself. He notes that science, like any social system, is maintained by people who dislike 'boat-rocking.' While science claims to be open to new ideas, Corliss observes that this mechanism functions poorly, especially for revolutionary subjects. He suggests that while some frustrated individuals with bold theories might hope for eventual recognition, this is not guaranteed. Corliss uses the examples of meteorites and continental drift being eventually accepted, but expresses skepticism about UFOs, ESP, and other fringe theories gaining similar acceptance. He attributes this resistance not solely to the scientific community but to human nature, stating that scientists, like anomalists, are often intolerant of facts and theories that challenge their worldview.

Corliss also discusses the dilemma of a two-party, adversary system in science to pressure the establishment. He mentions the Society for Scientific Exploration and the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research as steps in this direction, but notes that such groups may still harbor 'residual' intolerance. He also raises the possibility that the cosmos itself may be incomprehensible to humans. Corliss proposes 'computerized scientific nihilism' (CSN) as a potential solution, where computers analyze data without theories, but acknowledges that even computers are based on human logic and intolerance.

Comments by Norman Dixon

Norman Dixon summarizes the context of Westrum's paper on 'crypto-sciences,' outlining four groups of people regarding anomalous phenomena: those who believe in them, those who study them scientifically, and those who publicly deny their existence. Dixon finds it paradoxical that scientists, who pride themselves on rationality, often behave with less reason and more emotion than the 'pseudo-scientists' they criticize. He offers four considerations: (1) today's anomalies may be tomorrow's facts, so ignoring them limits discovery; (2) reports of inexplicable phenomena are natural events worthy of study; (3) the proposition that 'crypto-scientists are incompetent' is either trivial or based on the unproven assumption that anomalous phenomena are non-existent; and (4) the means of science are often prioritized over its ends, with a desire to confirm existing beliefs rather than discover new truths.

Dixon notes that closed-minded bigotry can extend to 'real' scientists, citing the example of J.L.B. Smith's discovery of the Coelacanth, which was met with disbelief and questions about his sanity.

Comments by Piet Hein Hoebens

Piet Hein Hoebens finds Westrum's argument about the scientific establishment's suppression of anomalous phenomena to be an overstatement. While acknowledging that some irrationality exists in the orthodox response to deviant claims, Hoebens argues that the establishment does not reject anomalies outright. He points to William Corliss's extensive collection of anomalous reports from mainstream scientific sources as evidence that anomalies are often noticed and documented. Hoebens uses the Coelacanth example to show that while Smith initially doubted his findings, the creature was eventually accepted. He criticizes Westrum's view that 'science' and 'reality' are merely social agreements, arguing that this overlooks qualitative differences between competing models and objective aspects of reality, such as the law of gravitation.

Hoebens distinguishes between 'Coelacanth-type' anomalies (physical evidence available for examination) and 'paranormal-type' anomalies (reports of occurrences). He believes the scientific establishment does not reject the former but may ignore them if there's no clear path to understanding. For the latter, scientists are reluctant to invest time in anecdotal accounts, assuming they are irrelevant until backed by physical evidence. Hoebens suggests that the odds are against scientists finding breakthroughs by studying psychics or UFO witnesses, and that funding such research might be an inefficient use of resources.

Comments by C.L. Hardin

C.L. Hardin presents dialogues from 'E.T.' and 'Through the Looking-Glass' to frame the discussion on reality and language. He critiques the use of 'true for' and 'reality' by some social scientists, arguing it blurs the distinction between fact and belief. Hardin contends that the existence of God, for example, does not depend on belief but on whether the statement is true. He advocates for using terms like 'representation of reality' instead of 'reality' to avoid ambiguity. Hardin argues that while the sociology of science may question epistemological efficacy, Westrum's quarrel is with social attitudes rather than the methods of natural science. He suggests that 'deviant science' might be a more appropriate term than 'pseudoscience' for inquiries that do not result in true assertions or a correct ontology, emphasizing the importance of the manner of investigation and quality of evidence.

Hardin also discusses the resistance to deviant science, suggesting it is an efficient use of resources due to the high 'garbage density' in such research. He notes that historical claims of marvels make one wary of new ones. He emphasizes that scientific institutions are resistant but not impervious to change, relying on both standard practitioners and a tolerated minority of dissidents. However, he cautions that dissident views do not necessarily require equal attention or funding, and that institutions can stifle dissidence by co-opting it.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the definition and boundaries of science, the nature of anomalous phenomena, and the role of the scientific establishment. There is a clear tension between those who advocate for a more open and inclusive approach to investigating anomalies (like Westrum and to some extent Grover) and those who emphasize the need for rigorous methodology and evidence, cautioning against the proliferation of unsubstantiated claims (like Corliss, Dixon, Hoebens, and Hardin). The issue highlights the human element in science – prejudice, intolerance, and the desire to maintain existing worldviews – as significant factors influencing the reception of new or unusual ideas. The editorial stance appears to be one that encourages critical examination of both established science and fringe claims, recognizing the complexities and potential biases inherent in both.

This issue of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 3, Number 2, published in 1989, focuses on the concept of 'cryptosciences' through an article by Ron Westrum and subsequent comments from several scholars.

Comments by Stanley Krippner

Krippner begins by commending Ron Westrum's article for its insights into the 'cryptosciences.' He highlights Westrum's observation that these fields are often understaffed and underfunded, referring to them as 'poverty sciences.' Krippner notes that while this situation can lead to shoddy research, it's also important for understanding necessary improvements. He points out that long-range planning in psi research is hampered by uncertain funding, and high-level conceptualization is difficult for researchers with other professional duties. Krippner agrees with Westrum's use of the term 'amateur science' for novices and even some professionals who study psi in their spare time, contrasting it with 'pseudoscientist' which implies an inability to progress. He emphasizes the value of Westrum's sociological perspective, which views scientific 'reality' as a social construct, akin to changing beauty contest winners. Krippner draws a parallel to the 1700s when people reporting meteorites remained silent due to ridicule. He also notes that psychology is sometimes considered second-rate by 'hard sciences,' and within psychology, some view other branches similarly to how astronomers view astrology. Krippner suggests that 'cryptosciences' study 'things that might be there,' much like meteorites and coelacanths were once considered by 'cryptoscientists' until proven. He cautions that the term 'cryptosciences' needs careful examination to avoid prejudice, as fields like particle physics studying anti-matter, black holes, and quarks are not labeled 'cryptosciences' despite their reality not being fully demonstrated. Krippner concludes that the distinction between 'science' and 'cryptoscience' is not methodological but sociological, based on societal biases against certain topics.

Comments by Trevor Pinch

Pinch discusses the sociology of scientific knowledge, agreeing that the acceptance or rejection of knowledge claims can be understood with little reference to the natural world. He finds Westrum's explanation of how different 'world views' or 'realities' are maintained particularly illuminating, noting that deviant experiences are often relegated to a separate world. Pinch highlights Westrum's point that a scientist's competence is redefined as incompetent when they enter the 'crypto-science' world. He cites the failed ESP research by institutions like SRI and Hal Puthoff as evidence that prior beliefs and dominant conceptions of scientific reality shape attitudes, making scientific evidence insufficient to change minds. Pinch agrees with Westrum's sociological analysis but questions the speculation that public participation could enhance the openness of the scientific community. He argues that if Westrum's analysis is correct, the future of crypto-sciences is bleak, facing institutional rejection. He believes public involvement might even diminish crypto-science's legitimacy, as popularizing is often detested by mainstream science. Pinch concludes that parapsychology, while perhaps an 'amateur science,' remains a rejected science.

Comments by Gerd H. Hövelmann

Hövelmann finds most of Westrum's arguments suitable for describing the problems of 'cryptosciences' and agrees with many points. He elaborates on Westrum's insight that 'reality' is 'that state of affairs which a given social group agrees is the case,' considering this the only sensible definition. He argues that the concept of an objective reality independent of human discernment leads to logical inconsistencies. Hövelmann asserts that what is 'real' for a group is a linguistically constructed system of sentences, not an objective property. He criticizes Westrum for oversimplification regarding the assessment of competence, suggesting that Westrum himself, as a sociologist, would apply 'normal scientist' criteria to 'cryptoscientific' research, making it impossible to leave one's scientific attitude behind. He quotes Westrum stating his work is within the basic logic of science, reinforcing his point.

Hövelmann also addresses Westrum's emphasis on the suppressive role of social intelligence processes and the psychological problems faced by those making anomalous observations. He doubts Westrum's speculation that encouraging public participation would solve the science/pseudoscience demarcation problem, noting that fields like parapsychology already have an over-representation of lay researchers with untestable metaphysical ideas.

Finally, Hövelmann points out an aspect disregarded by Westrum: the relevance of 'cryptoscientific' research. He argues that new knowledge should be appreciated for its relevance to human actions and vital interests. He believes that if society deems time spent on UFOs as wasted, UFOlogists must demonstrate its relevance. Hövelmann invokes Charles S. Peirce's pragmatic maxim, emphasizing the need to ask about the immediate use of thinking about a subject. He disagrees with Westrum's assertion that the value of 'cryptoscientific' activities is obvious, stating it must be demonstrated.

Comments by Brian Inglis

Inglis suggests a distinction between three types of phenomena identified with parascience. First, phenomena like the Lock Ness Monster, bigfeet, and similar creatures, which, if found, could be integrated into the orthodox scheme. Second, UFOs and meteorites, which may eventually be brought into an orthodox scientific framework, but whose reality is currently uncertain. Third, psi phenomena such as ESP, psychokinesis, divination, automatic writing, and crystal-gazing. Inglis notes that Westrum omits psi phenomena except for ghosts. He argues that psi phenomena present a threat to psychology, which is not yet ready to accommodate them, unlike physics. Inglis questions whether parapsychologists should focus on converting scientists or the public, noting the historical success of public opinion in the table-turning era of the 1850s and the current majority acceptance of ESP. He references Eusebe Salverte's concession that evidence regains value if improbability is proven apparent, suggesting ESP and PK are close to acceptance, regardless of scientists' views.

Comments by Roy Wallis

Wallis acknowledges he may not have fully grasped Westrum's drift but understands his concern to be that society avoids topics contrary to prevailing conceptions of reality, stigmatizes those who pursue them as 'pseudo-scientists,' refuses funding, and consequently, the best scientists avoid such activities, closing off potentially valuable knowledge and subverting democracy.

Wallis questions this perspective, stating that in the occult milieu, ideas are plentiful but money is scarce, necessitating resource allocation based on expert opinion. He notes that scientists, like everyone, seek careers that promise returns, but science is relatively liberal, allowing 'moonlighting' and 'creative accounting.' He concedes that mechanisms exist for sanctioning deviants but are less rigorous than in the occult milieu. Wallis points out that meteorites and coelacanths are now accepted, suggesting UFOs might be too if sufficient evidence emerges. Wallis's biggest problem with Westrum's article is that it perpetuates the very attitudes it deplores by distinguishing between 'science' and 'crypto-science.' He argues that this distinction assumes science studies what is real, while 'pseudoscience' or 'cryptoscience' studies things that aren't real or only might be.

Comments by Willis W. Harman

Harman suggests that terms like 'pseudoscience' and 'cryptoscience' are unhelpful. He advocates for humility in scientific exploration, arguing that all exploration, regardless of intent, risks being labeled 'pseudoscience,' and the study of unexplained phenomena could be temporarily 'cryptoscience.' He uses the example of Neo-Darwinism, initially studied 'cryptoscientifically,' which later turned out to be dubious. Conversely, he notes that a significant fraction of educated adults have had 'out-of-body' experiences, but studying them is stigmatized as 'pseudoscience' because it violates current physical possibility concepts. Harman states that scientists are vulnerable to self-deception, resistance, and denial, and humility in truth-seeking activities reduces name-calling. He references Kierkegaard, suggesting two ways to be fooled: believing what isn't true and refusing to believe what is true, emphasizing that all are vulnerable to both.

An editor's note directs readers to a paper by Willis W. Harman titled "Human Consciousness Research: Problems and Promises of an Emerging Science."

Comments by J. Richard Greenwell

Greenwell finds Westrum's paper insightful and relates it to the phenomenon of conformity. He explains that conformity drives society and civilization but can also lead to diminishing returns in science. He views science as a multi-varied activity within peer groups, where conformity becomes pronounced, though diluted by numerous sub-disciplines. Greenwell uses the example of an invertebrate physiologist and a geomorphologist, who may have only a superficial understanding of each other's fields, illustrating a limited 'interdisciplinary' relationship. He contrasts this with a closer 'intradisciplinary' relationship within earth sciences, where specialists are more likely to critique each other's methods. At the highest level, within a single sub-discipline, individuals are highly competitive and conform rigidly to norms, gradually 'punishing' non-conforming behavior and anomalous data.

Greenwell describes a 'grace period' for nonconforming individuals, after which their behavior, not the information, is judged. He attests that this enforced conformity is real, citing scientists who have suffered professionally for their 'cryptoscientific' work, even when their 'legitimate' work is superior, and others who cannot afford to pursue such research. He notes that conformity operates more strongly with larger numbers of individuals, leading to 'closing ranks' at professional meetings. 'Cryptosciences' with data must validate themselves without help from parent disciplines. Greenwell also points out that legitimate fields are often recognized due to historical circumstance, like psychiatry's earlier arrival and medical establishment support compared to clinical psychology. He speculates that some 'cryptosciences' are not investigated today due to forgotten circumstances from the past. He concludes that disciplinary conformity is likely to persist, but it may be necessary to keep science running, even if some areas are delayed.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the social construction of scientific reality and the mechanisms by which certain fields of inquiry are labeled as 'science,' 'pseudoscience,' or 'cryptoscience.' The commentators, while largely agreeing with Ron Westrum's premise, offer diverse perspectives on the implications of these labels, the role of funding, the nature of scientific competence, and the influence of conformity within scientific communities. There is a general consensus that the distinction is more sociological than methodological. The journal's stance appears to be one of exploring these 'fringe' or 'deviant' areas of inquiry and critically examining the processes by which they are integrated or excluded from mainstream science, encouraging a more open and humble approach to truth-seeking.

This issue of the Zetetic Scholar, dated 1982, presents a collection of commentaries and bibliographical entries related to the study of paranormal phenomena, pseudoscience, and the sociology of science. The primary focus is on the demarcation between science and non-science, particularly in the context of ufology and parapsychology.

Commentary by Morris Goran

Goran begins by noting that the issue's subject matter, initially presented as 'crypto-sciences' encompassing spontaneous human combustion, ghosts, Loch Ness monsters, and Bigfoot, ultimately focuses on ufology. He expresses appreciation for Westrum's candor in identifying as a ufologist. Goran is unsympathetic to those who 'invade the territory' of amateur scientists, arguing that the term 'amateur scientist' has historically been applied to unpaid naturalists dealing with traditional science, not those studying anomalies. He contends that changing the title from 'cryptoscientist' to 'amateur scientist' does not alter the fundamental issues. Pursuers of anomalies do so voluntarily, facing similar challenges to artists, philosophers, and hobbyists: neglected obligations, lack of recognition, and insufficient funding.

Goran critiques the tendency of 'cryptoscientists' to compare themselves to figures like Galileo and Semmelweis, implying a future vindication. He suggests a more apt comparison is to individuals like Isaac Newton, Alfred Russel Wallace, and Sir William Crookes, who were accomplished in their fields but also engaged in pseudoscience (e.g., Newton's alchemy). Goran notes that Westrum's professional work appears linked to his UFO interests. He addresses Westrum's concern about UFO study being labeled pseudoscience, suggesting that the label itself has served a conservative social role. Goran proposes that proponents of UFO study could engage with organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or alternatively, adopt terms like 'crypto matter' to avoid the claim of being science and to distance themselves from disciplines accused of contributing to negative societal impacts.

Commentary by Gerald L. Eberlein

Eberlein analyzes Westrum's definition of pseudoscience and its application to 'crypto-science.' He identifies three primary problems with demarcating science from crypto-science:

1. Understanding Crypto-science: If crypto-science is defined as research into hidden phenomena or anomalies, it becomes difficult to distinguish from normal science, which also seeks to uncover hidden facts and anomalies. Eberlein suggests 'parascience' as a less pejorative alternative to 'pseudoscience.'
2. Scientific Consensus vs. Sound Research: While consensus is necessary for a scientific situation, it is not sufficient for sound research. Eberlein emphasizes the need for intersubjectivity and the cognitive interaction between the scientist and nature/society. He also points out that Westrum seems to overlook the distinction between normal and revolutionary science, where the latter involves challenging accepted paradigms.
3. Amateur Science and Non-Scientist Observers: Westrum's inclusion of 'amateur science' and 'non-scientist observers' raises doubts about the requirement of competence. Eberlein argues that a clear differentiation between 'scientist' and 'non-scientist observer' is practically and philosophically difficult, as theoretical elements are implicit in observations, and trained scientific imagination is as crucial as theoretical background.

Commentary by Roger W. Wescott

Wescott's commentary, titled "Caution, Courage, and Temerity in the World of Science," emphasizes that science is a social system, not just an autonomous product of intellect. He notes that acceptance within the scientific community often requires adherence to the current intellectual consensus or paradigm. Wescott discusses the psychological need for acceptance in science, which can sometimes lead to contradictions with professed ideals like open-mindedness. He identifies denial as a common response to new theories or investigations that challenge existing paradigms.

Denial in science can manifest as refusing to accept new data, inferences, or the reliability of the proponent. Wescott uses a hypothetical defense scenario to illustrate this. He also addresses the subtle denial of fear of ostracism among scholars, suggesting that this denial itself might be motivated by fear of revealing the ignoble motivations of scientists or losing interest in their work if the pettiness of the scientific community is fully recognized.

Wescott agrees with Westrum on the psychology and sociology of science but finds the concepts of 'existence' and 'impossibility' problematic. He argues that existence is a characteristic of objects, not events, and that one can legitimately deny existence to phenomena like lightning or spontaneous human combustion, reclassifying them as occurrences. Regarding impossibility, he states that it cannot be demonstrated, unlike possibility, which requires only one instance of occurrence. He introduces the principle of "the improbability of impossibility."

Wescott commends scientists with the social and political courage to study anomalies, but also advocates for purely intellectual courage, which involves pursuing new ideas despite inner doubts. He differentiates between social/political courage (public, against external pressure) and intellectual courage (private, against inner doubts). He concludes by stating that while courage varies, scholarly courage and zest for cognitive adventure are as important as objectivity and respect for evidence.

Chinese Parapsychology: A Bibliography

Compiled by Marcello Truzzi, this section provides an extensive bibliography of English-language items related to Chinese parapsychology. It is divided into "Background Materials" and "General Articles," followed by "Translated Research" and "Relevant Other Sources."

The "Background Materials" list includes books and articles covering psychology in contemporary China, scientific developments, and social currents. The "General Articles" section lists various publications from sources like The FRNM Bulletin, San Francisco Examiner, China Reconstructs, and Fate, discussing topics such as "Visiting Speakers at the FRNM," "Peking Can't See ESP," and "China Opens the Door to the Paranormal."

"Translated Research" focuses on articles from Nature Journal and the Human Body Exceptional Function Newsletter, detailing investigations into "Exceptional Human Functions," "Special Sensing Mechanisms," and "Non-Visual Recognition of Images." The "Relevant Other Sources" section points to journals like Acta Psychologica Sinica and Xinli Kexue Tongxun Xuebao.

Debunking Biorhythms: A Supplement

Authored by Ivan W. Kelly, this supplement provides a comprehensive list of references that critically examine the validity of biorhythm theory. The cited articles cover various aspects, including the prediction of death, suicide behavior, skill performance, post-operative recuperative time, athletic performance, and general aviation accidents. The bibliography includes studies from journals such as The Journal of Psychology, Human Behavior, Journal of School Health, Perceptual and Motor Skills, The Skeptical Inquirer, Journal of Applied Psychology, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Chemistry, Byte, and Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.

On "Patterns of Belief in Religious, Psychic and Other Paranormal Phenomena"

Authored by Charles Sullivan, this piece critically analyzes a study by Sobal & Emmons (1982) on paranormal beliefs. Sullivan argues that Sobal & Emmons' analysis of correlations between beliefs is invalid because the correlations are dependent on the overall frequency of each belief in their sample. He explains that Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients (phi coefficients) are severely affected by wide variations in belief frequency. For example, the maximum possible correlation between two beliefs is restricted if their frequencies are dissimilar.

Sullivan illustrates this with Table 1, showing maximum possible phi coefficients. He contends that Sobal & Emmons' emphasis on high correlations for beliefs like angels with devils and life after death is misleading, as the maximum possible correlation for angels with other variables is limited. He further critiques the subsequent factor analysis, suggesting that the overall frequency of beliefs artefactualy contributes to the extracted factors (religious, psychic, other beings). Sullivan concludes that the grouping of beliefs by frequency corresponds to the extracted factors, implying that even if a single general factor existed, the analysis method could yield these three distinct factors. He also notes that religious beliefs appear independent of other paranormal beliefs, citing an unpublished study that suggested a general superstitious belief factor and an orthogonal religious factor.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of Zetetic Scholar consistently engages with the critical examination of claims related to paranormal phenomena and the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. The commentaries by Goran, Eberlein, and Wescott highlight the social, psychological, and methodological challenges in defining and studying anomalous phenomena. The bibliographies on Chinese parapsychology and the debunking of biorhythms underscore the journal's commitment to rigorous scientific inquiry and the critical evaluation of evidence. The overall stance appears to be one of skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims, advocating for clear definitions, sound methodology, and intellectual courage in scientific exploration.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, Volume 9, Number 10, published in 1982, delves into complex topics related to paranormal beliefs and ufology. It features a series of articles, replies, and letters that engage in critical discussion and debate.

Articles and Discussions

Paranormal Beliefs and Methodology

The issue opens with a reply from J. Sobal and C.F. Emmons to comments made by Charles Sullivan regarding their 1982 paper on patterns of paranormal belief. Sobal and Emmons defend their use of dichotomous variables in correlational analysis, acknowledging the statistical imprecision but arguing for its contribution to theory development. They explain that sociologists, unlike psychologists who use experimentally based data, often work with data at a lower level of measurement and that the use of "dummy" variables is common in survey analysis. They also address Sullivan's point about maximum possible correlations, noting that the distinction between belief in paranormal phenomena and the dimensions underlying belief can be conceptually made but is related in practice. They highlight that Sullivan's analysis, which considers only one "other being" belief (spirits in haunted houses), does not adequately rule out a third dimension involving belief in "other beings." They also point out differences in their oblique factor analysis compared to Sullivan's orthogonal approach.

Occultism, Secularization, and Societal Impact

Christopher C. Scott, in a letter to the editor, discusses Dr. Truzzi's remark that CSICOP's position on "irrationality" and "pseudoscience" subverting civilization is "naive." Scott argues that history supports CSICOP's view, citing scholars who believe that the interest in occultism and cults reflects anomie and has a virulent radical potential. He provides examples such as the influence of popular occult beliefs in the rise of Nazism, the role of mesmerism in the French Revolution, and Renaissance occultists. He also references works by Yates, Jobe, Billington, Tiryakian, and Webb, which examine the influence of occult beliefs on radical social beliefs and movements. Scott concludes that CSICOP's position on the socially negative potential of pseudoscience is not without foundation, citing Cooter's contention that pseudoscience is a label applied to areas deemed threatening to society.

M. Truzzi replies to Scott, clarifying that his argument pertains to the contemporary flirtation with occultism as a breaking away from traditional supernaturalism, serving as a halfway house to eventual full naturalism. He objects to equating occultisms with "irrationality" and "pseudoscience," distinguishing them from antisciences and pseudosciences. Truzzi argues that superficial correlations, like that of Nazism with German occult views, should not be translated as causation. He also points to the occult boom in England during the same period and cites Moore's argument that spiritualism was a secularization of orthodox religion. Truzzi notes that surveys by Wuthnow, Bainbridge, and Stark indicate cult members often come from orthodox religions, suggesting the main threat of occultism is to religious orthodoxy.

Defining UFOs

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to the challenges of defining "UFO." J. Richard Greenwell discusses Michael Martin's attempt to produce a scientific definition, noting that efforts were made previously by the Provisional International Committee for UFO Research (PICUR) at the 1979 International UFO Congress, which included scientists and was attended by Dr. J. Allen Hynek. Greenwell acknowledges the failure of these discussions but emphasizes the fundamental difficulty in defining UFOs due to the broad range of sciences involved and science's aversion to open-ended definitions. He questions the value of a strict definition, suggesting it might limit inquiry. Greenwell shares his own definition from his 1981 book, "UFO: A stimulus, visual or otherwise, that provides the percipient with information about an unidentified phenomenon which appears to him to be in, or originate from, the atmosphere or beyond."

Greenwell then presents the case of Ken Edwards in Risley, Cheshire, in March 1978. Edwards reported a white luminous mass that emitted a beam of light and disappeared, resulting in burns and damage to his van. Edwards later developed cancer and died, though he never connected it to the experience. Greenwell argues that such cases, while not fitting rigid UFO definitions, share parameters with other UFO reports and that analytical comparison of internal characteristics is crucial.

Jenny Randles expresses skepticism about the pursuit of a definitive UFO definition, finding Martin's proposed definition potentially unsatisfactory for working ufologists. She suggests a definition that is both relative and provisional: "By UFO is understood a phenomenon which causes a percipient to report what seems to be a physical object, flying or capable of flight, but which neither he nor anyone else has yet been able to satisfactorily identify, as regards either its nature, origin or purpose, with any known object."

Hilary Evans also comments on the difficulty of defining UFOs, agreeing with the need for a relative and provisional definition. She proposes a definition similar to Randles', emphasizing the percipient's report of a physical object that cannot be satisfactorily identified.

Roberto Farabone discusses the term "knowledge" in Italian, differentiating between "branche del sapere" (branches of knowledge) and "branche del noto" (branches of what is well known). He suggests that the field of UFO research is complex and requires researchers with intellectual capacity, knowledge, instruments, and full-time dedication, lamenting the proliferation of "silly theories" by amateurs.

References

The issue includes extensive reference lists for the articles and letters, citing works by Guilford, Sobal & Emmons, Blalock, Christoffersson, Muthen, Nie et al., Suits, Sullivan, Billington, Cooter, Darnton, Jobe, Kurtz, Lustig, Moore, Tiryakian, Webb, Hendry, Sandon, and Hynek.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the methodological rigor in studying paranormal beliefs, the societal implications of occultism and pseudoscience, and the persistent challenge of defining what constitutes a UFO. The journal's stance appears to be one of critical inquiry, encouraging rigorous research and open debate on these complex subjects, while acknowledging the limitations of current scientific understanding and methodologies in these fields.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar (Issue #10, 1982) is primarily a collection of book reviews, offering critical analyses of works related to anomalous phenomena, the philosophy of science, and historical mysteries. The publication is identified as Zetetic Scholar #10 (1982) and includes page numbers indicating its place within a larger volume.

Book Reviews

Science et Antiscience

Reviewed by Gregory R. McGuire, this colloquium, presented by the International Movement of Catholic Intellectuals, explores the "antiscientific" enterprise. McGuire notes the book's confusion between "antiscience" as an attitude versus a scientific enterprise, discussing how political ecology movements are presented alongside protoscientific or pseudoscientific activities. The review highlights J. Ladrière's discourse on the motivations and characteristics of antiscientific movements, S.L. Jaki's exploration of the historical and philosophical roots of the debate between marginal and orthodox science, and J. Courcier's work on the epistemological base of language and logic in demarcating antiscientific research. Foucault's theories on the development of language and how classification leads to exclusion are also noted as significant.

Loch Ness Monster

Reviewed by Henry H. Bauer, Tim Dinsdale's fourth edition of "Loch Ness Monster" is deemed indispensable for zetetic scholars. Dinsdale, a leading field investigator, has spent over two decades studying the phenomenon. The book includes new material and is valuable for both Loch Ness enthusiasts and those concerned with investigating any anomalous phenomenon. Bauer emphasizes Dinsdale's meticulous approach, including filming a control sequence for his 1960 film of a hump in the water, and his decision to relinquish a career in aeronautics to pursue his research. The review praises Dinsdale's eschewing of public controversy and his focus on amassing sound evidence. Appendix D, a reappraisal of classic evidence, is highlighted for its critical examination of data without threatening the overall case.

Ball and Bead Lightning

Reviewed by W.N. Charman, James Dale Barry's "Ball and Bead Lightning" examines atmospheric phenomena that have intrigued people for centuries. Ball lightning is described as mobile, luminous spheres, while bead lightning is the residue of a lightning stroke. Barry's book reviews the properties ascribed to these phenomena and critically examines the evidence for their existence. The review notes that while bead lightning is less controversial, many photographs of it are questionable. For ball lightning, Barry concludes that while many eyewitness reports exist, the balls do not necessarily have a high energy content. The book is praised for its exhaustive discussion of photographic evidence and its chapter on the reality of ball lightning, concluding that a hard core of reliable material remains. It also describes efforts to simulate ball lightning in the laboratory. The book is considered a useful introduction to the field, though systematic study is difficult due to the unpredictable nature of the phenomenon.

Science and Unreason

Reviewed by Gordon Hammerle, "Science and Unreason" by Daisie and Michael Radner attempts to describe the philosophy of science and differentiate it from "pseudoscience." The book categorizes beliefs from the International Flat Earth Research Society to parapsychology as pseudoscience, and discusses borderline cases like continental drift. The review critiques the authors' "marks of pseudoscience" approach, suggesting it is an oversimplification compared to Fred Gruenberger's method of assigning point values. The book's strength lies in its wide variety of examples, but it is noted for its relatively few references and a tendency to lump fringe areas together. The writing style is described as dry, with an effort to avoid sexist language that sometimes distracts. The book successfully differentiates the reasoning of the scientific fringe from traditional science, concluding that those who do not conform are merely cranks.

UFO Abduction Books

Reviewed by Ron Westrum, three books on UFO abductions are discussed: "The Andreasson Affair" by Ray Fowler, "The Tujunga Canyon Contacts" by Ann Druffel and D. Scott Rogo, and "Missing Time" by Budd Hopkins. Westrum suggests that psychologists should focus more on abduction experiences. The typical scenario involves a UFO sighting, an amnesic period, and later recall under hypnosis, often involving a quasi-medical examination. The review notes the uniformity of "technical" details in these experiences and the association with repressed stressful experiences, comparing it to how a clinical psychologist would approach a rape or car accident. However, the content of the experience is described as UFO-related, making it difficult for psychologists. The books are praised for their detailed investigations and human chronicles of abductees and investigators. Hopkins' book is highlighted as comprehensive, raising questions about the frequency of abductions and whether they are contagious. The review expresses hope that the psychological community will pay more attention to these phenomena.

The Prophecies and Enigmas of Nostradamus

Reviewed by James Randi, this book presents a careful translation of Nostradamus's verses by Liberte E. LeVert. The review notes the challenges in interpreting Nostradamus's work due to printers' errors and ambiguity. LeVert's work aims to provide a true interpretation, pointing out places where printers or editors might have altered the text. The review suggests that Nostradamus, in some cases, was describing events of his own time rather than making predictions. The quatrain often cited as foretelling the Great Fire of London in 1666 is argued to likely refer to the year 1555, relating to Bloody Mary's persecution of Protestants.

Books Briefly Noted

This section provides short annotations for numerous other books, covering a wide range of topics including haunted houses, human navigation, prehistory, regional folklore, magic and cinema, out-of-body experiences, fertility rites, scientific fraud, placebo effects, systemic approaches to health, parapsychology, apparitions, reincarnation, the social construction of extraordinary science, lightning and luminous phenomena, interspecies communication, mathematics, witchcraft, healing abilities, Hungarian folk beliefs, space-time and medicine, Chinese ghosts and ESP, astrology, paranormal mysteries, philosophy of science, Gnosticism, mesmerism, afterlife beliefs, dowsing, and the writings of T.C. Lethbridge.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the investigation of anomalous phenomena, the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, and the critical evaluation of evidence and methodology. The reviews consistently emphasize the importance of rigorous research, meticulous data collection, and the philosophical underpinnings of scientific inquiry. There is a clear interest in phenomena that challenge conventional scientific paradigms, such as UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, and unexplained atmospheric events. The editorial stance appears to favor critical skepticism, encouraging thorough investigation while cautioning against unsubstantiated claims and simplistic explanations. The publication seems dedicated to exploring the fringes of accepted knowledge and providing a platform for detailed analysis and debate within the field of anomalous research.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as #10 and dated 1982, is published by the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research (CSAR). The publication primarily consists of extensive book reviews covering a broad spectrum of topics related to anomalies, parapsychology, ufology, and the philosophy of science.

Book Reviews

The issue presents a detailed review of numerous books published around 1981 and 1982. These reviews offer critical assessments, summaries of content, and commentary on their relevance to the study of anomalous phenomena.

Notable books reviewed include:

• "MIND IN SCIENCE" by Richard L. Gregory: A history from myth to modernity, recommended for its readability and learned approach.
• "PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND THE OCCULT" edited by Patrick Grim: An introductory text examining the demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience using examples like astrology, parapsychology, and ufology.
• "ORGANON OF MEDICINE" by Samuel Hahnemann: A translation of the classic work on homeopathy.
• "PSYCHIC CRIMINOLOGY" by Whitney S. Hibbard and Raymond W. Worring: A disappointing work, deemed credulous and uncritical.
• "SOCIAL RELATIONS AND HUMAN ATTRIBUTES" by Paul Hirst and Penny Woolley: Relevant for its section on witchcraft and rationality.
• "THE NECK OF THE GIRAFFE: WHERE DARWIN WENT WRONG" by Francis Hitching: A lucid book presenting problems with natural selection and evolutionary theory, commending Creationists for their questions but not their answers.
• "FAIRIES AT WORK AND AT PLAY" by Geoffrey Hodson: A charming but serious book only for believers in fairies.
• "THE POSSIBLE HUMAN" by Jean Houston: A course in extending physical, mental, and creative abilities, containing exercises that some found silly.
• "EVOLUTION FROM SPACE" by Fred Hoyle: Described as Hoyle's most controversial writings.
• "ALTERED STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND PSI" by Edward F. Kelly and Ralph G. Locke: A historical survey and research prospectus for parapsychology.
• "NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION, INTERACTION, AND GESTURE" edited by Adam Kendon: A collection of semiotics papers relevant to cueing behavior and communication subtleties.
• "ABUSING SCIENCE: THE CASE AGAINST CREATIONISM" by Philip Kitcher: A defense of evolution against creationism, aiming to help students critically analyze creationist arguments.
• "THE MATHEMATICAL GARDNER" edited by David A. Klarner: A collection of essays for Martin Gardner, including pieces on "Supernatural Numbers."
• "THE MANUFACTURE OF KNOWLEDGE" by Karin D. Knorr-Cetina: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science, significant for protosciences.
• "THE CATALOGUE OF UFO PERIODICALS" compiled by Tom Lind: A remarkable compilation of UFO publication information.
• "A COLLECTION OF NEAR-DEATH RESEARCH READINGS" edited by Craig R. Lundahl: A collection of essays on near-death experiences.
• "THE CASE FOR LIFE AFTER DEATH" by Elizabeth E. McAdams and Raymond Bayless: A clearly written but not critically rigorous work on parapsychology.
• "ENCOUNTERS WITH THE PAST" by Peter Moss and Joe Keeton: A popular book on past-life regression via hypnosis.
• "MIRACLES AND MAGIC" by Raymond Mullin: A survey of miracle literature, concentrating on the medieval period.
• "MEMORY OBSERVED: REMEMBERING IN NATURAL CONTEXTS" edited by Ulric Neiser: A scholarly collection emphasizing the need to study memory in natural settings, relevant to anomaly research.
• "THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE" by W.H. Newton-Smith: A defense of the rational character of science against criticisms.
• "STOLEN LIGHTNING: THE SOCIAL THEORY OF MAGIC" by Daniel Lawrence O'Keefe: A remarkable and encyclopedic survey of the sociology-anthropology of magic.
• "THE BOOK OF CALENDARS" edited by Frank Parise: A compendium of world calendars.
• "THE CULT EXPERIENCE" by Andrew J. Pavlos: A balanced book on the social psychology of religious cults.
• "SUPERSTITION" by F.E. Planer: A critical overview of prediction, spirits, and magical practices, considered superficial and opinionated.
• "THIS HOUSE IS HAUNTED: THE INVESTIGATION OF THE ENFIELD POLTERGEIST" by Guy Lyon Playfair: An interesting but unconvincing account of a poltergeist.
• "FLIM FLAM PSYCHICS, ESP, UNICORNS AND OTHER DELUSIONS" by James Randi: A new edition of a book necessitated by publishers' bias against paranormal books.
• "THE TRUTH ABOUT URI GELLER" by James Randi: A revised and enlarged edition of his book on Uri Geller.
• "J.B. RHINE: ON THE FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE" edited by K. Ramakrishna Rao: A festschrift for J.B. Rhine, including appreciations and critical statements.
• "POLICE PSYCHOLOGY: COLLECTED PAPERS" by Martin Reiser: Papers dealing with the use of psychics by police agencies, showing negative but revealing results.
• "SORRAT: A HISTORY OF THE NEIHARDT PSYCHOKINESIS EXPERIMENTS" by John Thomas Richards: A description of macro-PK claims that made little positive impression.
• "TO STRETCH A PLANK: A SURVEY OF PSYCHOKINESIS" by Diana Robinson: A general review of psychokinesis literature, uncritical but entertaining.
• "DARWINISM DEFENDED" by Michael Ruse: A defense of Darwinist thought, with a strong attack on Creationists.
• "THE PLAY OF MUSEMENT" edited by Thomas A. Sebeok: A collection of essays on signs, from "Star Wars" to Zoosemiotics.
• "A NEW SCIENCE OF LIFE: THE HYPOTHESIS OF FORMATIVE CAUSATION" by Rupert Sheldrake: A controversial theory of "morphogenic fields" undergoing empirical testing.
• "ENCYCLOPEDIA OF OCCULTISM & PARAPSYCHOLOGY SUPPLEMENT" edited by Leslie Shepard: A hardbound volume integrating supplemental information.
• "THE LADY OR THE TIGER? AND OTHER LOGIC PUZZLES" by Raymond Smullyan: A collection of puzzles involving logic and strange characteristics.
• "GHOSTS AND GOOSEBUMPS" compiled by Jack Solomon and Olivia: A folklore collection of ghost stories and superstitions from Alabama.
• "GOD: THE CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION" edited by Frederick Sontag and M. Darrol Bryant: A collection of papers from a conference on ecumenical research.
• "BRITISH FAIRY ORIGINS" by Lewis Spence: A reissue of a 1946 work on British mysteries.
• "THE SUPERNATURAL OMNIBUS" edited by Montague Summers: A collection of stories of apparitions, witchcraft, and other supernatural phenomena.
• "SITE AND SURVEY DOWSING" edited by Clive Thompson: An anthology of articles from the Journal of the British Society of Dowsers.
• "WATER DIVINING AND OTHER DOWSING: A PRACTICAL GUIDE" by Ralph Whitlock: A practical guide to dowsing, making extravagant claims.
• "THE HOLOGRAPHIC PARADIGM AND OTHER PARADOXES" edited by Ken Wilber: Papers integrating religion and science with quantum physics, speculative but not always empirically validated.
• "THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS" edited by Bryan Wilson: A collection of papers on new religious movements.
• "FRANKENSTEIN'S CASTLE: THE RIGHT BRAIN: DOOR TO WISDOM" by Colin Wilson: A discourse on harnessing the right brain, incorporating literary and philosophical material.
• "POLTERGEIST: A STUDY IN DESTRUCTIVE HAUNTING" by Colin Wilson: A book proposing disembodied spirits as the cause of poltergeist phenomena, containing factual errors.
• "THE DIRECTORY OF POSSIBILITIES" edited by Colin Wilson and John Grant: A compendium of short articles on anomalous and improbable topics.
• "ALL IN THE MIND" by Ian Wilson: A critical work on reincarnation, taking a skeptical approach to regression materials.
• "PUZZLES, PROBLEMS AND ENIGMAS" by John Ziman: Essays on the sociology of science, including "Some Pathologies of the Scientific Life."
• "THROUGH THE TIME BARRIER: A STUDY OF PRECOGNITION AND MODERN PHYSICS" by Danah Zohar: An impressive book on precognition, acknowledging the lack of controlled experimental data.
• "ANOMALISTIC PSYCHOLOGY" by Leonard Zusne and Warren H. Jones: An important textbook taking a critical but fair-minded approach to paranormal phenomena.

Center for Scientific Anomalies Research (CSAR) Report

The issue includes a report on the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research (CSAR), detailing its formation, which was announced in previous issues (ZS#8 and ZS#9). Readers interested in CSAR's functions are directed to write to the organization for information.

The CSAR Directory of Consultants is underway, with about 100 experts accepted and plans to obtain another 100. This directory aims to create a public network of experts in anomaly research. Membership openings for CSAR itself will be postponed.

CSAR is currently sponsoring four projects:

1. The Psychic Sleuths Project: Examines the use of alleged psychics by law enforcement agencies.
2. The Anomaly Project: Deals with a UFO poll of industrial scientists and engineers.
3. The Chinese Parapsychology Monitor: For which CSAR received funding to send its Director to China.
4. The Soviet-U.S. Military Psi Research Monitor: A compilation of materials related to governments' parapsychology efforts.

The report lists the Director of CSAR as Marcello Truzzi and the Associate Director as Ron Westrum. It also provides lists of Science Consultants and Senior Consultants to CSAR, as well as Resource Consultants.

The goals of CSAR are outlined as advancing interdisciplinary scientific study of anomalies, acting as a clearinghouse, publishing a journal (Zetetic Scholar), a newsletter (The CSAR Bulletin), research reports, and bibliographies, promoting information dissemination, creating a public network of experts, sponsoring conferences, and improving communication between critics and proponents of anomaly research.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of claims related to the paranormal, pseudoscience, and anomalies. The editorial stance, as reflected in the book reviews and the CSAR report, appears to be one of encouraging rigorous scientific inquiry, critical evaluation of evidence, and open communication within the field of anomaly research. There is a clear emphasis on distinguishing between scientific and pseudoscientific approaches, as seen in reviews of books on creationism, ufology, and parapsychology. The inclusion of CSAR and its projects highlights a commitment to fostering a structured and interdisciplinary approach to the study of anomalies.