The Paradigm Police
In an imperfect world, we all suffer from a gap between how we see ourselves
and how others see us: between what we'd like to be and what we are. But in 30
years of journalism I haven't found a more striking gulf between self-image and
performance than CSICOP -- the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims
of the Paranormal.
Everything about CSICOP purports to be scientific -- objective, fair,
independent, investigative, rational. In reality, CSICOP is the home of the Paradigm
Police, a kind of Pseudoscience-Central that deals in fundamentalist prejudice, opinion and bias, informed by a
single, central hidden agenda -- to debunk at any cost any phenomenon, evidence
or theory that touches on the list of taboo subjects that CSICOP has drawn up as
forbidden.
The contradictions start even with CSICOP's name. Any rational person would
expect an organisation that calls itself a Committee for Scientific Investigation
to actually involve itself in carrying out scientific investigations, but CSICOP
conducts no such investigations, it merely makes ex cathedra
pronouncements telling the public what it should and shouldn’t believe,
without troubling itself about conducting experiments.
When it was first formed in 1976, CSICOP did attempt a foray into scientific
investigation, which turned into a farcical scandal. It decided to target the
statistical work of French mathematician Michel Gauquelin whose work appeared to
suggest there might be something in astrology after all.
Within a short time however, CSICOP officer Dennis Rawlins, who was acting as
the study's statistician and was the only astronomer on CSICOP's council, announced he was quitting and accused CSICOP of
blatantly fiddling the figures to prove Gauquelin wrong. (Click here for full
story).
Since then, CSICOP has quietly dropped any pretence of being an investigating
body and acts instead as the spiritual home of scientific fundamentalism -- a
church with many priests but few congregations.
CSICOP's founder and president is Dr Paul Kurtz, formerly a professor
with New
York State University. Perhaps surprisingly, Dr Kurtz is not a
scientist but a
philosopher. In a memorable TV interview, on the subject of 'aliens', he said, "If we
are going to admit aliens, what are we going to admit next? Fairies? Elves?
Where do we draw the line?"
In this spontaneous comment Dr Kurtz has unconsciously disclosed his entire
philosophy of science. For him, science is not without boundaries, up for
exploration and discovery without fear or favour. Science is closed like a
classified or restricted area to which ideas and people are "admitted"
by duly authorised guardians, and once inside must stick to the authorised
boundaries.
It is the guardians who "draw the line" around the boundaries of
science. And Dr Kurtz clearly considers himself to be one of these guardians
because he says "Where do we draw the line"?
Fairies, Elves, Aliens, Cold Fusion, Psychokinesis, ESP, acupressure,
acupuncture, hypnotherapy, homeopathy, and dozens of other subjects are not
acceptable subjects for investigation by science, or even by the media, not
because the evidence says so, but because Dr Kurtz and his colleagues say so.
The fundamental rationale of Dr Kurtz's brainchild organisation is the same as
his personal world view: The public must not be given facts and arguments
and left to make up their own mind. Science must be left to those, like Dr
Kurtz,
who are qualified to judge what is true and what is false. CSICOP sees its
function as being to educate an ignorant public in what is scientifically acceptable.
Of course it is fair to add that while all this may be anti-scientific and
against the spirit of academic freedom it is a perfectly legitimate position to
adopt and Dr Kurtz and his colleagues are perfectly entitled to think and speak
as they wish. So why is CSICOP cause for concern?
The reason is that CSICOP has not merely contented itself with engaging in
debate against what it sees as crackpot science, its members have taken active
steps designed to silence their opponents and deny them access to media outlets.
CSICOP has formed what it calls the "Council for Media Integrity". This sounds like a worthy idea, and CSICOP claims its only aim is to
provide a counter to what it regards as one-sided reporting -- again a
reasonable idea. Until, that is, you learn what some CSICOP
members actually do.
CSICOP's media relations officer, Matthew Nisbet, is quiteabout the
Council for Media Integrity's real purpose. It is, he says, to "turn
the heat up on the entertainment industry and media."
stag kiev
Whenever a major TV network carries a programme whose content CSICOP
disapproves, the organisation alerts members by email, encouraging them to
bombard the network and the programme's producers will vociferous complaints,
insisting that such content should not be broadcast. Not unnaturally, some
producers and network executives feel it wiser to give in to this kind of
pressure from prominent academics and avoid such subjects in future.
More insidiously, CSICOP members have also complained vociferously to the
commercial companies who sponsor the programmes in question by buying
advertising time. CSICOP members have threatened to organise boycotts of the
products of such sponsor companies if they fail to agree not to sponsor such
programmes again -- a powerful commercial threat that sounds alarmingly like
intellectual blackmail.
A prime example of this behaviour by senior academics was that of the NBC
broadcast of the film Mysterious Origins of Man,
challenging the conventional wisdom on Darwinism. CSICOP members not only
complained bitterly to NBC, they also circulated a list of sponsors and
advertisers with contact names for lobbying.
Is there an alternative to CSICOP?
Happily there is, and it's a simple alternative.
1. Insist on consulting primary sources of evidence for yourself --
don't take anyone's word on what the facts are.
2. Make up your own mind what the facts say -- don't let anyone tell
you what the facts mean.
