I haven’t, but I might use S.I. as a source for a Staff Report. If S.I. provides cites, I would definitely go to those as well. Right now I’m writing one on whether masturbation causes the penis to shrink though, and I doubt they have anything on that.
Jill
Could you mean the “Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal”? If so, I think they’d be a great source. It seems to me they even publish a magazine.
David, you wouldn’t recall the name of that mag, would you? 
Ugly
RJK: 
Jill: FYI, Skeptic magazine had a recent issue on penis shrinking. But I think it was related to mass hysteria, not masturbation.
RJKUgly, I think that association that you mentioned is the same one.
I saw a segment on Unsolved Mysteries where that Org. investigated a haunted house. They brought in all the very latest, most sensitive electronic equipment to detect “magnetic anamolies”, I believe it was called.
I found this investigation completely unbiased, and to me, believable. They did find a major magnetic anamoly, which they didn’t care to explain. It’s the unexplainable, in present-day terms.
David, the trouble with debunking just for the sake of debunking is that, quite frequently, progress is impeded. Not to mention skeptics are just flat-out wrong, sometimes.
I’m 38 years old. I remember a day when all acupuncture was scoffed at by skeptics. Lo and behold, other scientists who decided to look into the matter found that acupuncture did, indeed, work, for a number of complaints. It had something to do with causing the brain to emit endorphins (the brain’s natural painkiller).
Also, SI investigation of spontaneous combustion was flat-out wrong, or, to be more generous, disputed. Ask me if you want to know the details. I can document this.
As much as I hate to pass up a great opportunity to catch somebody in a semi-comical stumble, I kind of doubt that CSICOP is the organization you’re thinking of.
Allow me to quote from page four of the most recent edition of a magazine I subscribe to:
“… is the official journal of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, an international organization”
And as I flip back to the cover, I see that the title of this magazine is…
Wait for it…
“Skeptical Inquirer”
In other words CSICOP publishes Skeptical Inquirer. If this were the organization you were talking about, you’d be in the position of saying how great they were, and in the same post decrying their lack of credibility and their obvious bias. But we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just misremembered the name the organization.
And again, this doesn’t sound much like CSICOP to me. Especially considering that Unsolved Mysteries is mostly Elliot Ness* doing breathless voice-overs to what could easily be explained by truant adolescents with magic makers, squirt guns, and rocks. The show is so bad I have to anchor my coffee table so it doesn’t get sucked into the TV screen every time it comes on.
That is one of the things acupuncture proponents say, but I haven’t seen it backed up by any good research yet. Well controlled studies are very difficult with acupuncture, and the verdict is far from certain that there is any benefit at all other than the placebo effect.
Ok, I’d like to see details. Let’s see that documentation.
Ugly
*Yes, I’m well aware that it’s Robert Stack, but he’ll always be the G-Man to me.
As you know from my previous staff report on penis shrinkage, http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpenis.html it’s generally believed in Southeast Asia that penises can shrink and even telescope back into the body under certain conditions. There’s a lot of fear about that (and I’m sorry if I’ve created a new thing to worry about for some of you). I can see S.I. debunking that and clearing a lot of minds out there.
Sorry to hijack the thread, though I know most of you would rather be discussing your penises anyway. To bring it a closer to the original topic, I think Skeptical Inquirer is a trustable resource. But if I found an article in there about a topic I was researching and that article included cites, I would probably go to - and quote - those.
I think that benefits to acupuncture may be discovered, but I doubt they’ll be related to why the Chinese think it works (chi, etc.)
btw, Cecil has written about acupuncture:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000324.html
and about spontaneous combustion:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/971010.html
Jeremytt said:
What, exactly, is “debunking just for the sake of debunking”? Remember, you can’t debunk something unles it’s bunk. So I really have no idea what you mean by “progress is impeded.”
Being that we’re human, yes, I would expect that we’re occasionally wrong. However, unless you know of a specific instance in relation to a Staff Report, I don’t see the point of bringing this up – unless, of course, it’s because you can’t think of an instance in relation to a Staff Report but still want to argue against Skeptical Inquirer.
Me, too. Yesterday. And today, for that matter. Scoff, scoff, scoff.
As Dr. Dean Edell noted in answering the question, How do placebos work?, “That’s why I laugh when I see a study that concludes that acupuncture works because placement of the needles caused the release of endorphins. Since the placebo effect seems to release endorphins, it may the patient’s faith that worked, not the acupuncture.”
Goferit. Though it would probably be best to do so in a new thread in Great Debates, since we’re going a bit far afield from the Staff Report in question here.
Hello, room!
RFK: you are apparantly correct about the identity of the organization I was referring to. I can’t for the life of me remember the name of the organization on Unsolved Mysteries, but its investigation did, indeed, seem fair and unbiased.
In a way, your post solidified my belief in cognitive dissonance.The name of the organization certainly didn’t produce any cognitive dissonance in me. Anything by the Skeptical Inquirer might, for reasons previously discussed.
Have you all read NOT NECESSARILY THE NEW AGE, a set of essays by the SI team? I found it very interesting, and in certain cases, absolutely believable(the segment on Shirley MacLaine, especially). But I finished the book with a very strong conviction. There seem to be 2 distinct groups of people in the Skeptic movement. Keep in mind, folks, these are only my insights.
I would assign one group the name “truth seekers” This would include Carl Sagan, Susan Blackmore, and lessly, Susan Sontag. (I’ve pondered this–are women by nature less rigid-minded?) To PARAPHRASE Carl Sagan,“We must not debunk just for the sake of debunking…that would make us seem extremist…we must examine an idea on its intrinsic worth”…Amen, Mr. Sagan…If only the rest of the community were like you.
The other group I might term the “debunkers”…this group would include, IMHO, Martin Gardner and James Randi. These people seem to have the mindset “It’s bullshit. Let’s bebunk it, no matter what”…
I was surprised and astounded by the blanket statements, selective reasoning, and allround disingeniousness of Martin Gardner’s essays. And as for MR. Randi, he was allegedly indicted for fraud, in some tests involving Uri Geller. 'Nuff said.
Have any of you ever lived overseas? You’ll find a much different mindset in Europe. Most people there seem to be of the Carl Sagan variety. Here, most skeptics seem to be in the second group.
I want to go on the record by saying that, in most cases, I am a confirmed disbeliever. But I do believe there are certain aspects of the human mind that can’t currently be explained. What upsets me aboun American skeptics isn’t their POSITION on a topic, but their RIGIDMINDEDNESS of certain of their members (Randi, are you listening??) The rigidmindedness of these people isn’t one lick different from the rigidmindedness of the Christian right. That kind of attitude infuriates me. Shouldn’t we just look for the truth, no matter what it is?
David, the argument against SI’s investigation of spontaneous combustion is too long to print here. If you really want to know, I will repost. This post is already too long. Unless your belief system is unusually rigid, I believe I can convince you.
One other point…If your ideas about acupuncture are correct, I accept them without fuss. But whether or not it’s the acupuncture that causes the endorphin release, or the placebo effect…does it really matter? The acupunture in both cases is a factor in the endorphin release…
Also, progress is severly impeded sometimes by skeptics. It was the skeptics who said we’d never go to the moon, never fly, and never be able to split an atom.
See ya soon. I enjoy lively debate.
RJK UGLY by the way, I caught you in a possible contradiction. If the society on Unsolved Mysteries is Committee…etc, would it be believable to you?
Would you believe it because it was SI who did the investigation, or disbelive it, because it was on Unsolved Mysteries?? 
Off the record, though, I think I have simply misremembered the name.
Jeremytt said:
No, not “'Nuff said” at all. Explain. 'Cus I think you’re totally mistaken.
As I said, post in Great Debates. I await your convincing arguments.
Yes, it “really matters.” If it’s the placebo effect, that’s what we should be studying. If it’s because somebody is sticking pins in you, then that is what should be studied.
Wrong. These are not the same type of “skeptics.” Skeptics don’t say “never.” This is one of the most oft-repeated and also the most ridiculous of all arguments against skeptics. If that’s the best you can come up with as arguments that skeptics impede progress, you might as well call it a day now.
I don’t know about RJK, but I would neither believe it because of who it was nor disbelieve it because of where it was. I would look into it further (after all, being on any TV show isn’t going to give you the same amount of information as a full write-up explaining what was done).
See, this seems to be the biggest point you’re not getting. You keep wanting to jump to conclusions based on who does something or where it’s done. You keep assuming that others do the same. This is not the case.
I think that we have now moved this discussion away from the Ganzfeld experiments, and on to the question of whether the words “skeptic” or “skeptical” have positive or negative implications.
That discussion belongs in Great Debates, not here. I shan’t move this topic, but I think we’ve strayed into another arena, and I suggest opening the topic there.
'Nuff said, indeed.
Go away. We don’t need yet another damned fool pushing an agenda and telling lies to do it.
I must admit I am both shocked and amazed at the combatative tone of the posts in this room.
It was not my intention to start a nuclear war. I assumed (apparently wrongly) that we were all looking for a common goal–the truth.
Rather, the tone in this room seems to be just to fight. Gentlemen, I am not interested in that. If you want to hear the argument against SI’s investigation on SC, I will give it to you. But I am not interested in fighting. I’m 38, not in junior high school.
On that note, I bid you a fond good evening.
A final aside–you all haven’t heard about MR Randi?? That really does surprise me. I thought it was common knowledge. I didn’t make it up.
I’ll reiterate my idea just once more, then drop it. Because of very negative connotations of the word “skeptic” I believe it’s a mistake to quote SI, because it won’t be believed. That’s all.
I’m not going to stoop to anymore fighting. It’s “low-rent”.Goodbye, room
David, I forgot to address one of your posts…may I quote?
The people who won’t believe me when I’m quoting SI won’t believe me when I debunk them no matter what sources I use.
Do you really think that the True Believers will suddenly say, “Oh, well, if it was in Discover magazine, then I guess I was
wrong…”? Hell, no!
David, you are 100%, absolutely correct about that. That’s exactly my point. When you tell someone something that conflicts with their belief system, it won’t be accepted.
The “true believers” are rigid-minded, arent’t they? Isn’t it frustrating to debate with one? The Christian right also has rigid-minded people, as we ALL know. Human beings being human beings, it also stands to reason there are rigid-minded people in the skeptic movement.
I don’t remember exactly where I read about Randi’s brush with fraud, but I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is. I don’t know exactly how to research this. Do you have an idea? I’ll do the legwork for you.
David, do we have to fight?
I am going to do some research concerning the SC. My argument hasn’t much to do with SC, but rather, flaws in the research the SI team made.
See ya.
Jeremytt, you should not be surprised at the overall hostility of everyone here, since you haven’t actually given any substantitive examples of when CSICOP (which Randi is a founding member of) dismissed a claim which had any evidence to it, or debunked without offering solid evidence for their debunking.
As for the fraud charges.
Yes, Randi was indicted by the combatitive Mr. Geller. Uri engages in Scientology type tactics and has routinely brought charges against magicians and scientists who debunk him - Gerard Majax and Victor Stenger, for example. You conveniently fail to mention, however, is that Mr. Geller lost his suit, and currently owes Randi money (just as he owes in many of these other suits he lost).
Jeremytt, simply state clearly what errors in investigation you feel these organizations have made, and perhaps people will take your fairly well-written, but so far unsubstantitive and inflamatory, posts more seriously.
Kyber:
Thank you for your last post. I didn’t know that Randi had won his suit. So on that note, I apologize, room. It wasn’t any attempt to deceive; I simply hadn’t read the follow-up to Geller’s suit. I’ll be the very first person to admit it when I’m vrong. It’s the only way we can learn from our mistakes!
It stung quite a bit to be called a “liar” and a “damned fool” by John Kennedy, when I was neither. His attitude mirrors my ideas about rigidmindedness in some of the skeptic movement’s members. Rather than dismissing someone’s ideas out of hand, and calling them a liar, isn’t it more accurate intellectually to investigate it first, to see if it’s true?
What I’m referring to about SI’s investigation is a well-considered opinion. I had read a book called THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ROMANOVS. Which has nothing to do about SC, but everything you’ll ever want to know about anthropology.
(I mush qualify this first. I’m not sure about the title) I’ll have to go to the library to find out for sure.
Anyway, the SI’s basic premise is that bodies can burn “at far lower temperatures”.
This seems to be wrong, or at least, disputed. Concerning the tsar’s bones, the author of the book interviewed probably the most eminent anthropologist in the US. I’ve forgotten his name, but I believe he works at the University of Florida in
Tallahassee…
Anyway, he says,“It’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a human body to burn at normal fire temperatures. In fact, what happens is that, the bodies usually char on the outside, preventing further burning.” I’m quoting from memory, here. But you get the idea.
With this in mind, it appeaars that SI’s investigation on SC is at least disputed…
Administrator, I realize this is straying far from the tenor of the room. I’m planning to open a new thread shortly called, “Is Skepticism Dangerous”??
Thanks for listening. (By the way, Kyber, thank you for letting me know that my posts were inflammatory. I hadn’t realized it!) I’m sorry if I offended anyone.
Yay! Much better! I can see everyone getting along fairly well with some facts to bite into!
Alright, I’m about to head off from work, but it seems you are moving into Spontaneous Human Combustion.
The skeptic naturally points out that most (all?) cases of SHC have involved overweight people, often smokers, alone.
The fat is theorized to provide the fuel for a slow burn.
To simulate this, being short on humans, a pig carcass was used. It burned quite nicely, so until we can check up on the anthropologist, I think the focus should be on what was wrong with their experiment.
Cecil covers the subject, includes SI view.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_205b.html
The Skeptic’s Dictionary details the pig experiment.
http://www.skepdic.com/shc.html
Spontaneous (non-human) combustion.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/971010.html
No, the Amazing Randi was not indicted. That’s a lie – or, in Kyberneticist’s case, a gross error; K, old thing, if you have truly been living in the land of automata so long that you do not know the basic distinction between a civil suit and a criminal prosecution, it’s time to put the mouse down, back away from the computer, and catch some old L.A. Law reruns.
UG has frequently sued the Amazing Randi for libel. He kites the suit around from state to state and country to country in an attempt to bludgeon AR into silence, because his lies generate more income than AR’s truth. He has always (at least as of the last I heard) lost, but AR still gets stuck with legal bills that he can’t afford. It’s a standard technique used by those who have money to silence those who have not, and perhaps the single most contemptible abuse in the whole rotten US legal system.
By the way, J – you’ve just given the Amazing Randi grounds to sue you for libel.
Sorry, I have no clue as to what indicted meant. I simply assumed Jeremytt was referring to the 1993-… Geller lawsuits, and responded with what I knew. Geller lost and forced to pay damages.
My absolute and complete lack of knowledge of all things legal (and lack of any desire to learn) is why I don’t even bother with IANAL. I just don’t give legal advice.