Table of Contents:
A reader comments about a troublesome subject:
I'm sure you realize that Allison Dubois is just another in a long line of so-called psychic mediums, but they're getting better at their trade and their influence is growing. What appalls me more than anything is the air of academic legitimacy these people receive as each of them is laundered through Schwartz's University of Arizona "laboratory". What the hell is wrong with the people who run the University of Arizona? I can figure out why people like Schwartz do this disservice to science and education, but the people who run the University and who allow this nonsense have an even greater responsibility to students, faculty, and community. Why do they allow people such as Laurie Campbell to have titles such as "Director of Mediumship Research Committee?" That's more troubling than any antics a psychic can devise. I've read the high-sounding text at this location: http://www.president.arizona.edu/ and remain even more troubled that the sort of foolishness Schwartz indulges in is permitted to continue, and that the good name of the University of Arizona continues to be sullied by association with the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" so-called mediumship research that goes on there. The Board of Regents and the President of the University of Arizona all ought to be ashamed of themselves. They're failing in their appointed tasks.
I forwarded this to University of Arizona's President Peter Likens, asking if I might have a response. He wrote:
Cheers ... Peter LikinsWhatever you or I may think of the research program conducted by Professor Schwartz, he is operating within the framework defined by academic freedom. Researchers who pursue false hypotheses are ultimately corrected by others who attempt to replicate their work, and find they cannot. That's the way science works, and universities provide the context for the faltering advances of science. It is not my role as president to proscribe the domain of scientific investigation of any professor, and indeed I must defend the freedom of inquiry, whether or not I support the hypotheses advanced.
Here is a letter I wrote in response to Dr. Likens:
Forgive me, Dr. Likins. What follows comes from my gut reaction to your comments; I do not wish to appear rude or unfeeling, but I can anticipate that my readers will share my reception of your words, and I hope to express their thoughts, too. As a non-academic and an amateur reading your response, I heard several clucking noises interspersed with those righteous words. To me, it sounded like a formula recited from an Ivory Tower. Let me explain.
When I read, "academic freedom," I hear a very loud cluck. No one with any sense of appropriate conduct will disagree with your respect for, and invocation of, that principle. It is a question of whether the statements of Gary Schwartz deserve that umbrella. If you will, follow along with me here on another tack, seriously, for I treat this entire discussion with utmost priority, though the example I provide here is frivolous.
We could consider the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or flying reindeer here, but instead let's take a very simple scenario that would require less technology and resources than long bedside night-vigils, the measuring of countless chimneys, or the tossing of noble beasts from cliffs. Let us suppose that Schwartz had "researched" — as a scientist representing Arizona State University — the question of whether 1,117 added to 4,000 always produces a total of 5,117. He had designed a protocol which called for obtaining 1,117 wooden chopsticks of carefully defined size, weight, and structure, and 4,000 selected and similarly well-defined ball-bearings. The experiment required thoroughly mixing these objects and then counting the total objects in that mixture.
Bear with me, please. I have points to make.
Upon counting the resulting mass of chopsticks and ball-bearings, Dr. Schwartz and his lab workers had found a total of 5,115 — a total short by two of the expected result — and had prepared and published a proper paper on their observations, a paper appropriately vetted and examined by co-signers, and bearing a suitable number of footnotes and references on the accepted characteristics of ball-bearings and wooden chopsticks.
Not only would the scientific world be astonished at such a result, and be dismayed at the obvious embarrassment that must follow for others at the university. The media, ever-eager to feed on bizarre novelty items and a chance to chuckle at those strange folks in white coats, would feature Dr. Schwartz and his lab colleagues on television, in tabloid papers, and in comedy skits.
Dr. Likins, do you seriously contend that there would ever follow reports by "others who [would] attempt to replicate their work"? Consider the claim Schwartz makes: that Arizona State University has scientifically-derived evidence proving that certain people can actually converse with those who are dead, with those whose physical bodies — including their brains and nervous systems — are either chemically mummified or reduced to ashes. We are dealing here, not with facts nor reality, but with fantasy. Can you picture a responsible, sober, scientist approaching funding agencies asking for support for such research — and being prepared to undergo the justifiable ridicule heaped on Gary Schwartz? Schwartz's immediate coterie and the disinterested-but-still-dismayed general body of scientists, will not question his actions, but there are those of us who do seriously demand that some responsibility be accepted for allowing this man to use his position to so influence the public.
No, Dr. Likens, will all due respect, that's not "the way science works," since no responsible scientist will pursue this chimera, and the Schwartz "research" will therefore stand as a reference to the deluded that your school has provided proof of their most cherished fantasy. You write that "universities provide the context for the faltering advances of science," but they certainly should not provide protection for fantasies and religious tenets.
Sir, you state that you must support Schwartz, to quote you, "whether or not [you] support the hypotheses advanced." It is my position that by not questioning the conclusions arrived at by Schwartz, you lend support to them. And, though you correctly state that you "must defend the freedom of inquiry," you should recognize that I have been denied that freedom, since Dr. Schwartz has reneged on his agreement with the James Randi Educational Foundation — made with us during his in-person visit here — to supply the raw data that gave rise to his fantastic conclusions. Though you of course have no obligation whatsoever to act for us in this regard, there may be others who feel that you could — and should — do so.
Dr. Schwartz could have conducted proper, definitive, useful research on the abilities of well-paid and infamous performers to convince their vulnerable victims that they are able to bring messages from the dead. In his visit to the JREF offices, he expressed his apparent delight at the practical and tight protocol I suggested for his planned examination of these "psychics," and though he made it clear — as he invariably does — that I was not equipped with his academic credentials, he not only said that he would employ that protocol, but would provide us with the raw data obtained, for our examination. That promise was never kept. Why?
We think we know why, and we believe that you should ask Dr. Gary Schwartz that question. Dr. Likins, I am frankly surprised — pleasantly so — to have received any reaction at all to my inquiry of last week. I am accustomed to facing a wall of silence from academics I challenge, thus my surprise that you have troubled to answer. I must express my thanks that you have taken the time to provide an answer; this indicates that you have some concern about the matter presented, and have reacted to your responsibilities as Dr. Gary Schwartz's superior and as a representative of Arizona State University.
Furthermore, I erred recently in saddling the State University of Arizona (Tempe) with Gary Schwartz. He holds his bizarre woo-woo court at the University of Arizona — Tucson.
Our friend Ian Rowland tells us:
Here in the UK, as you will be aware, one of the biggest-selling newspapers is the Daily Mail. They are currently running a special promotion which involves collecting tokens over a number of weeks. These can eventually be exchanged for a free 120-page personalized horoscope prepared by Jonathan Cainer.
Randi: See www.randi.org/jr/070204another.html#2, www.randi.org/jr/022004demons.html#13, www.randi.org/jr/040204orange.html#3, and www.randi.org/jr/040904that.html#3 for more on Cainer.
So, here we are, five years into the 21st century. We no longer burn witches at the stake or try to treat cerebral palsy by "casting out devils," but a major newspaper is willing to commit literally millions of pounds to a promotion based on astrology. Oh, and they mention that the discovery of a new planet has exciting implications for everyone's horoscope. This doesn't make sense even if you believe in astrology, unless the planet only started to exist once it was detected.This seems to be the Mail's main New Year marketing offensive — lending a new ambiguity to the word "offensive" — and it is being heavily hyped via television ads.
Randi: See www.randi.org/jr/032604why.html#3 for a reference to this exciting new and obviously crucial planet.
Perhaps it's time to just give up, throw in the towel and realize that this garbage just can't be beaten. It wins, we all lose.
So, we move on.... I needed to ring my bank today to check one or two details. The girl answering the phone had to ask me one or two questions just to verify my identity. First she asked me the last three digits of my home telephone number. So far, so good. Then she asked me to confirm MY STAR SIGN. Randi, you know I have a good sense of fun, and you may think I'm having a laugh or making it up. I wish I were. But no, it really happened. And this was Barclays Bank, one of the "big four" players here in the UK. So, if you want your money safely invested and looked after by the wise and the good... choose a bank that thinks astrology has some merit. At least enough merit to ask customers their star sign as opposed to, for example, just asking for "date of birth." Incidentally, I refused. I said, "I won't do that because astrology is garbage, and you should know that, but I can confirm my date of birth for you, which is..."
No, I think not, Ian, though I'm in full sympathy with your dismay. If you were able to share with us at the JREF the letters of appreciation we regularly receive, you'd think differently. Seeing the drivel that is offered us on TV and in the media, generally, and knowing just how many so-called scientists out there are freely endorsing everything from free-energy machines to quack treatments, can be discouraging, but then hearing from young people who are preparing to supplant this generation, we take hope.
We have to.
Catherine Bennett, in the Guardian newspaper — UK — appropriately comments on the failure of the psychics and astrologers to perform as expected. See www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1383999,00.html
Never loath give proper credit when a hare-brained device is found to actually work, in no matter how minor a fashion, I tell you now of reader Bill Matkovich's discovery. Writes Bill:
My attorney, who I have exposed to truth in audio, has found a relevant use for his Shakti stones. They are now being utilized to hold open a door that has a tendency to close unaided.
USEFUL INVENTION FROM LONG AGO
One of the delights I enjoy when looking through the superb book collection of a major JREF sponsor and friend, is to come upon or have pointed out to me — as this one was — a delicious item that just begs to be communicated. From the first edition of "The Whetstone of Witte," 1557, by "Robert Recorde — Phisician," we find the invention of something we've all used, though now in a truncated form of the original intention:
And to avoide the tediouse repetition of these woordes: is equalle to: I will sette as I doe often in woorke use, a paire of paralleles, or Gemowe [twin] lines of one lengthe, thus: ==========, bicause noe 2 thynges, can be moare equalle.
Recorde, sadly, died a debtor in King's Bench Prison.
An alarming letter has arrived from a friend living in China. A teacher in Shanghai, he reports to us his observations as he moves about in the Far East:
In recent trips through Seoul and various cities in Japan, I have become alarmed by the rise in popularity of the ridiculous "blood-typing" phenomenon — now spreading into China.
Randi: The writer refers here to the quack notion, long popular in Korea, that has become especially emphasized by recent media attention. The claim is that a person's blood type indicates their character. Remember, here in the USA, years ago, we thought it was skin color? Bearing the brunt of the attention of this blood nonsense are those with type "B" blood. The popular song "Type B Men" by Kim Hyun-Jung was released earlier this year, and a movie entitled, "My Boyfriend is Type B" is said to be in production and will be released in February. There is even a book out telling women whether they should date with "flirty" type "B" men. It's all in good fun until it starts to be taken seriously, and in Korea, it is. In a recent online survey that asked some 88,000 respondents whether they feel that personality by blood type is accurate, 88 percent responded positively by saying, "yes, to some degree" or "somewhat." My correspondent continues:
It has grown to the point that it rates a prime-time slot on national TV in Japan. Inspired by the incredible absurdity of this mother-of-all pseudo-sciences and alarmed by the commercial industry it has evolved, I have begun writing an essay about it in both English and Chinese as well as Japanese with the hope that I can reach a few of the more open-minded youth out there who feel they are drowning in a sea of superstitious insanity. Would you like to read it when I am finished? I am in the brush-up and fact/source checking phase at the moment.
Randi: we may have the good fortune of seeing that essay right here on our web page....
Oh my, it really seems like one step forward and two steps back in looking at our past efforts, but I remain energized when thinking of those bright young minds at Shanghai Medical University (for instance) who are thirsty for truth and reality. When I continue my lectures there next Autumn, I will have a whole new batch of eye-opening stories for them all — even for the many TCM doctors in the classes (Traditional Chinese Medicine). You know well that Asia in general has tremendous problems in this regard, so you know we stay busy. It is even becoming a frequent argument to get the atropine and other medications I need for my heart — having to insist to the point of near speechless frustration that I need the "real McCoy" and not the "fennel root" or dried fish eyes (insert other vague and equally ineffective dried plant and animal parts here) my local chemist insists on hyping to me now and then (I assume the profit margins are significantly better than those from selling Bayer or Pfizer products, etc.). This is an alarming and dangerous practice, especially as the evermore financially successful cranks now employ well-produced TV ads and huge billboards and posters employing popular movie actors. There is even an entire new batch of machines — all using various whizbang dials, meters and probes in shiny new boxes that are selling like hotcakes, yet employing nothing more than buzzers, electromagnets and high-frequency oscillators to tickle the skin — akin to similar wacky devices produced in the 1930s.
Hmmm. Thirsty for truth and reality? I think China needs another visit by the JREF.
I recently referred here to the Russians as, "Soviets." That term was taken directly from the news item I saw, and was obviously incorrect. There are no more Soviets....!
This web page reaches our readers while we're busy in Las Vegas with The Amaz!ng Meeting 3, so it's rather short. The JREF staff labored mightily to catch up with the unexpected — but very welcome! — registration excess, as I type this, at 540 and climbing. We can only wonder at how large next year's Meeting will be....
Our thanks go out to Michael Shermer and the Skeptics Society, who provided their mailing list for us to use in advertising this year, and co-operated closely with us in many respects, as always. We're heading for an even closer connection between the JREF and Michael's group, to strengthen both of us so that we can better respond to the challenges that grow in number and importance, every day. On an international basis, as can be seen above re China, we find the threat of irrationality and superstition threatening our security — whether it's fanatics who sacrifice their lives to enter their chosen variety of paradise, or academics who abandon their knowledge of science in favor of preferred notions of magic that they purport to examine in the lab.
Thank you all for making the JREF possible.
