From: Bruce Maccabee <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 20:02:06 -0400 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 22:44:20 -0400 Subject: Re: llegitimacy of CSICOP - Maccabee >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net> >To: Updates < Updates@virtuallystrange.net> >Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 07:36:18 -0600 >Subject: Illegitimacy of CSICOP >The Illegitimacy of CSICOP: >One of the most bogus scientific organizations in existence is >the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the >Paranormal. Known by its acronym, CSICOP. It is not a scientific >organization, nor does it engage in accepted scientific >methodologies in its findings or claims. <snip> >This is Part One of the proof of CSICOPs bogus claims to be a >legitimate and scientific organization. It is presented through >Robert Shaeffer's own words, which are in direct quotes and my >comments, which follow each quoted passage: >From the Collective Mind of the CSICOP Cult: <snip> (Sheaffer wrote:) >"What our group does is we concentrate on that residue. We >concentrate only on the ones which supposedly been pronounced >unexplainable. For example the National Enquirer has a blue r>ibbon panel of Ph.D. scientists, all of whom are active in the >field that are in some sense of the word, believers." (Wendy wrote:) >A CSICOP ploy to manipulate the truth. The existence of a 'blue >ribbon panel' is bogus. It does not exist. CSICOP consistently >uses this approach to attempt to degrade or character >assassinate anyone that disagrees with the cults position or >engages in research defaulted upon by mainstream science. CSICOP >defaults on its own legitimacy. >"And once a year they meet to choose what is considered to be >the best cases of the year. These are the ones that our >group will go after, because you know, these well known people >have said it has no explanation and we find that after a much >more careful investigation, we think one which is more willing >to consider negative evidence as well as just the case for that >particular incident, that all of these instances are >explainable." It seems to me that this must be very old writing by Sheaffer. There was a "blue ribbon panel" of the Nat. Enq, in the 1970's. It went out of "fashion" in the early '80's I believe, but I don't recall when. This panel did select the best case of the year and awarded hard $$$. Coyne and the helicopter boys of Oct. 1973 were winners. Perhaps Travis Walton was, too. Not sure on that. That was back in the heyday of Bob Pratt's investigations for the Enquirer. >"As far as whether there are any genuine unexplainable >cases... obviously nobody has time to look at all the reports >that have ever been made. There are just thousands of them and if >anyone says they have investigated all of them, obviously they >are way off base." >By Shaeffer's own admission the CSICOPs cult doesn't do field >investigation of cases. They only opine and call it science. >This is not a basic tenant of a legitimate scientific >organization that would consider all data, raw and formal. >CSICOP defaults on its own legitimacy. >"But, we've looked at what has been pronounced, not by ourselves >but the believers, to be the cream of the crop and we >haven't found anything in the supposed cream of the crop, that >causes us to be wrong that there is something unexplainable >here." Sheaffer says "we" and probably means himself and Klass... and perhaps Oberg, as the squad. I don't know that anyone else in CSICOP ever really took the time to analyze even one case. THey haven't found anything.... means they have deluded themselves into believing they have explained everything. <LOL>They failed miserably on the New Zealand sightings... and groped for help on JAL 1628, etc. >Notice the complete lack of data or documentation to back this >CSICOP scientific assessment? An opinion is not science, no >matter how fervently CSICOP desires it to be. CSICOP's mission i>s stated to be scientific, but without scientific integrity in t>heir claims. CSICOP defaults on its own legitimacy. >"Every one that we've had the opportunity and inclination to go >into, we've been able to come up with a prosaic explanation. We >are not seeing raw, unfiltered reports, we're seeing only the >ones which are supposedly unexplainable. Consequently, we are >finding a substantially higher percentage of hoaxes than you >would find in the basis of raw reports. Ooops. Robert ought to read 'Prosaic Explanations, the Failure of Skepticism' at http://brumac.8k.com.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp