Committee for Skeptical Inquiry: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:23, 31 March 2006

The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, or CSICOP, is an organization formed to encourage open minded, critical investigation of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims from a responsible, scientific point of view. It is a nonprofit organization, founded in 1976 by Paul Kurtz. Its practical goals and philosophical position of scientific skepticism are closely shared by the Skeptics Society, the James Randi Educational Foundation, and many smaller U.S. regional skeptics' organizations, as well as by national skeptics' organizations overseas. (Many of the U.S. regional and overseas skeptics' groups are formally associated with CSICOP.)

Activities

According to CSICOP's charter, the organization exists to pursue six major goals:

Maintain a network of people interested in critically examining paranormal, fringe science, and other claims, and in contributing to consumer education.
Prepare bibliographies of published materials that carefully examine such claims.
Encourage research by objective and impartial inquiry in areas where it is needed.
Convene conferences and meetings.
Publish articles that examine claims of the paranormal.
Do not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examine them objectively and carefully.

CSICOP has conducted investigations into many paranormal claims, ranging from Bigfoot and UFO sightings to self-proclaimed psychics, pseudoscience, astrology, alternative medicines, and religious cults. Notable members of CSICOP have included TV science program host Bill Nye, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Milbourne Christopher, Martin Gardner, James Randi, and many others.

CSICOP's examinations of claims of paranormal phenomena apply accepted scientific and academic methodologies to topics that most scientific organizations ignore as fringe science or pseudoscience. Noting that many paranormal claims, if true, would have major scientific importance, CSICOP attempts to approach such claims in the manner recommended by CSICOP Fellow Carl Sagan:

"At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes — an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense." (Source: The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan, 1996.)

Most commentators accept that critical scrutiny of claims of the paranormal is appropriate and valuable; differences between skeptics and proponents of the paranormal often arise over the issue of acceptable standards of evidence.

An axiom common to CSICOP members is that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." This is analogous to the standard required by U.S. criminal courts, in which the claimant must prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Since paranormal claims are potentially revolutionary scientific discoveries that fly in the face of an established body of scientific knowledge, nothing less than the strictest standards of scientific scrutiny should be accepted as convincing. This might involve, for example, well-designed, double-blind, strictly controlled scientific experiments published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, followed by successful independent replication by other scientists.

Paranormal proponents often advocate a less stringent standard of evidence. Arguing for a preponderance of evidence standard analogous to that required by U.S. civil courts, paranormal proponents may offer as proof of paranormal phenomena such evidence as eyewitness testimonies, historical quotations, informal experiments, and inference. These lines of evidence are typically published in popular sources, and not subject to formal criticism or peer-review.

An issue of particular concern to CSICOP members is instances of paranormal claims or pseudoscience that endanger people's health and well-being. The use of alternative medicine treatments, to the exclusion of scientifically supported treatments for a life-threatening illness is one example of this. Investigations by CSICOP and others, including consumer watchdog groups, law enforcement agencies, and government regulatory bodies, have shown that the industries surrounding paranormal phenomena, alternative medicine and pseudo-scientific products can be enormously profitable. CSICOP alleges that this profitability has enabled the various pro-paranormal factions to dedicate large resources to advertising, lobbying efforts and other forms of advocacy, to the detriment of the public's well-being.

A related focus of CSICOP is the improvement of scientific literacy. Not only do they consider this the best defense against being victimized by paranormal and pseudoscience frauds, it is also a growing need in a world that is increasingly affected by science and technology.

CSICOP is a member organisation of the International Humanist and Ethical Union and endorses the Amsterdam Declaration 2002.

Skeptical Inquirer

CSICOP publishes the journal Skeptical Inquirer, containing articles on its inquiries and those of like-minded individuals. The Skeptical Inquirer was founded by Marcello Truzzi, under the name The Zetetic and retitled after a few months under the editorship of Kendrick Frazier, former editor of Science News. There have been several collections of articles from the Skeptical Inquirer, most edited by Frazier:

Paranormal Borderlands of Science (1981). edited by Kendrick Frazier, Prometheus Books; ISBN 0-87975-148-7.

Science Confronts the Paranormal (1986). edited by Kendrick Frazier, Prometheus Books; ISBN 0-87975-314-5.

The Hundredth Monkey: And Other Paradigms of the Paranormal (1991). edited by Kendrick Frazier, Prometheus Books; ISBN 0-87975-655-1

The Outer Edge: Classic Investigations of the Paranormal (1996). edited by Joe Nickell, Barry Karr, and Tom Genoni, CSICOP.

The UFO Invasion: The Roswell Incident, Alien Abductions, and Government Coverups (1997). edited by Kendrick Frazier, Prometheus Books; ISBN 1-57392-131-9

Encounters With the Paranormal: Science, Knowledge, and Belief (1998). edited by Kendrick Frazier, Prometheus Books; ISBN 1-57392-203-X.

Bizarre Cases: From the Files of The Skeptical Inquirer (2000). edited by Benjamin Radford, CSICOP

Center for Inquiry

A transnational non-profit umbrella organization called the Center for Inquiry encompasses both CSICOP and the Council for Secular Humanism, as well as other organizations such as the Center for Inquiry - On Campus national youth group and the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. While these organizations share headquarters and some staff, their mandates are kept distinct: while CSICOP generally addresses questions of religion only in cases in which testable scientifics assertions have been made (such as weeping statues or faith healing), the Council for Secular Humanism is an organization explicitly devoted to Humanism and secularism. Activities of the Council for Secular Humanism include campaigning for the separation of church and state and the publication of the bi-monthly journal Free Inquiry.

Other Details

There is an asteroid named in honor of CSICOP called (6630) Skepticus.

CSICOP is headquartered in Amherst, New York, a suburb of Buffalo.

Criticisms of CSICOP can be found at Pathological skepticism.

Partial list of CSICOP fellows (past and present)

Criticisms and responses

CSICOP's investigations into paranormal phenomena, pseudoscience, and fringe groups that encourage these practices have won it some criticism in return. Some critics have accused CSICOP members of arrogance and pseudoskepticism, or complained that their aggressive debunking discourages scientific research into the paranormal^[1]. Especially common is the claim that CSICOP has an a priori conviction that paranormal phenomena do not exist and that this allegedly pre-formed opinion is not amenable to contrary evidence. With qualifications, Sagan conceded this criticism as accurate in some cases,

"Have I ever heard a skeptic wax superior and contempuous? Certainly. I've even sometimes heard, to my retrospective dismay, that unpleasant tone in my own voice. There are human imperfections on both sides of this issue. Even when it's applied sensitively, scientific skepticism may come across as arrogant, dogmatic, heartless, and dismissive of the feelings and deeply held beliefs of others... CSICOP is imperfect. [...] But from my point of view CSICOP serves an important social function — as a well-known organization to which media can apply when they wish to hear the other side of the story, especially when some amazing claim of pseudoscience is judged newsworthy." (Source: The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan, 1996.)

On the question of dogmatism or a priori convictions, CSICOP points out that dedicated paranormal research has been ongoing for many decades, both by skeptics and pro-paranormal researchers. In that time, no convincing and independently replicable evidence of the existence of any paranormal phenomena has ever been established to the standards required to persuade the scientific community. On the other hand, many cases of purported paranormal forces or events have been demonstrated to be false, either through misinterpreted data or as intentional fraud.

On at least one occasion, CSICOP was the intended target of an attack more serious than mere criticism. In 1977, a government raid on the offices of the Church of Scientology uncovered considerable evidence of a plot against CSICOP by the Church; this included plans by Scientology to discredit CSICOP by forging CIA documents. The documents seized by the FBI described a plan to spread rumors that CSICOP was actually a front group for the CIA. (Source: Toronto Globe and Mail, January 25, 1980.)

Notes and references

^ The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Volume 86, No. 1, January 1992; pp. 20, 24, 40, 46, 51

External links

[1] The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Volume 86, No. 1, January 1992; pp. 20, 24, 40, 46, 51

[1]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 </blockquote>
-Most commentators accept that critical scrutiny of claims of the paranormal is appropriate and valuable; differences between skeptics and proponents of the supposedly paranormal often arise over the issue of ''acceptable standards of evidence''.
+Most commentators accept that critical scrutiny of claims of the paranormal is appropriate and valuable; differences between skeptics and proponents of the paranormal often arise over the issue of ''acceptable standards of evidence''.
 An axiom common to CSICOP members is that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." This is analogous to the standard required by U.S. criminal courts, in which the claimant must prove their claim ''beyond a reasonable doubt''. Since paranormal claims are potentially revolutionary scientific discoveries that fly in the face of an established body of scientific knowledge, nothing less than the strictest standards of scientific scrutiny should be accepted as convincing. This might involve, for example, well-designed, double-blind, strictly controlled scientific experiments published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, followed by successful independent replication by other scientists.