Every now and then I get my comeuppance, and I sometimes deserve it. From the depths of Germany, David Copperfield telephoned me to express his displeasure concerning an item I ran here recently in which I referred to his "going to the Dark Side." After reading the media reports on a show that David did in Germany, in which it was indicated that he had described his "prediction" trick involving the lottery numbers, as "not a trick," I checked with a friend who lives in Bonn, and he verified for me that the translation I had seen was correct. In my web page entry, I expressed my astonishment and my puzzlement at this, wondering why David would choose to do such a thing.

The media had quoted David as saying, "This is not a trick." Now, I'm told by David himself, that they had chosen to truncate his sentence — conveniently — to make a better story. Actually, he had said, "This is not a trick like making the Statue of Liberty disappear." I had written that when a performer is making comments for the media, it is a far different situation than when he appears on stage doing his show, and that there is a far greater responsibility involved in such a situation. David informed me that the prediction trick was done as part of his regular stage show, not as a separate media interview.

David chided me, and reminded me that I had a reputation for "getting facts right," and for not "accepting things at face value." He also reminded me that many years ago he had taken a part in "exposing Uri Geller," and that he had always advertised himself as "an illusionist," and nothing more. I had to agree that that was correct, and in making my original comments I had expressed my amazement that David would say such a thing.

I can fully understand why David Copperfield was angry at me, and this is an apology for my careless behavior. I, of all people, should have been more careful. I have been misquoted any number of times by the media all over the world, and I have had actions, opinions, and statements attributed to me many, many, times. David, I'm sorry. It won't happen again, and I have prepared formal letters to send to various organizations in the profession to explain my carelessness and my regret.

Damn, this crow really tastes bad.....

As announced earlier, we've introduced this week the new "SWIFT"format. Though my weekly contributions will still appear as they did previously, you will soon notice at the right side of the screen that you can "click" on additional items written by other persons, and we'll take this opportunity of inviting readers to send us articles, essays, and items of interest to be placed in that position. We'll consider all of them seriously, though there are no guarantees that they'll be used, of course. This way, readers will get substantially more material each week, and my job will be just a little easier.

We hope you'll enjoy the new format, and we'll welcome your opinions on it. Eventually, all the printed issues of SWIFT will be archived here, too. Please be patient. It will take a little time.

The comments we've received from readers so far, have expressed agreement with the plan to "go Internet" and we're very grateful for that. I note that Shawn Carlson's Society for Amateur Scientists (www.sas.org) has also made this decision. Thank you for your understanding, and we hope that we'll retain you as readers and as supporters of the JREF. We need you.

Last week, I expressed my preference for "Earth" over "earth," and "Moon" over "moon." Reader Kyle Corbin has written to me quoting copiously from Webster's and other sources to show me that the preferred usage of writers is not to capitalize the names of our home planet and our natural satellite. Okay, so I look like a maverick. Not a picture unknown to me.... I responded to Kyle, mentioning one of his 21 examples from literature in which lower-case was used, and I offered this:

In your example "earth spirit: the earth personified either poetically or as a deity supposed to live in or under the earth" I would accept the first, deny the second usage, but accept the third. In all the others you have given, I would capitalize. The word "earth," in my opinion, should refer to the substance, the soil, the surface of the Earth. I disagree thoroughly with Webster's usage.

I did a bit of searching in the JREF library. I was justifiably shocked. My 1896 and 1929-1945 editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica both use "earth" when referring to our planet, as well as "moon" for our natural satellite. Even David Attenborough, Bertrand Russell, and James S. Perlman, use lower-case. And, dare I say it, colleague Michael Shermer as well.....?

However, I find a substantial vindication in our newest (1998) edition of the Britannica, which begins its discussion of the subject "Earth" with this sentence: "Lying between Venus and Mars, the Earth is the third planet of the solar system in distance from the Sun," and then refers to " . . . the relationship of the Earth to the Moon." Bingo! But wait, there's more! All of Carl Sagan's books use "Earth" and "Moon," too. I'm sure that Webster's and the other authorities will soon recognize their error, and begin correcting their texts. Unless they're dead, of course.

I rest my case.

The Washington Post reported on alarming figures concerning our educational situation here in the USA. They reported that more than 80 percent of the nation's high school seniors lack proficiency in science, and the performance of 12th-graders on the National Assessment of Educational Progress science test was slightly worse than four years ago. Previously released NAEP tests in math and reading showed that only around one in five of our high school seniors are proficient in math, and just two in five are proficient in reading.

What interested me about the Post's article was a sentence telling us that students were asked "whether the moon is closer to the Earth or the sun."

This is a nonsense sentence, but can be correctly restated two ways (I insist on capitalizing the names of astronomical bodies, forgive me):

" . . . whether the Moon is closer to the Earth, or to the Sun"
and
" . . . whether the Moon, or the Sun, is closer to the Earth."

So what's the question? The answer to the first one is, "The Earth." The second answer is, "The Moon." The answer depends on how the question was asked by the NAEP....

I inquired. The way they asked it — in multiple-choice format — it makes perfect sense:

The Earth's Moon is:
A) always much closer to the Sun than it is to the Earth
B) always much closer to the Earth than it is to the Sun
C) about the same distance from the Sun as it is from the Earth
D) sometimes closer to the Sun than it is to the Earth and sometimes closer to the Earth than it is to the Sun

Now look at how the Post reporter phrased it..... Does the Washington Post conduct grammar tests of its reporters?

(I sincerely trust that all of you got the right answer......?)

The indefatigable Bob Park, of the American Physical Society (www.aps.org), is on his warhorse — as usual. He reports that Dan Burton, the chair of the House Government Reform Committee, a responsible position that we would expect to be occupied by a well-informed person, can't understand why we don't just treat anthrax with "alternative medicine"! For Burton, this sort of thinking is nothing new; in a 1999 hearing on Alternative Medicine his lead witness was Jane Seymour, who played Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman on TV. Now, there are qualifications!

Recently, however, Stephen Straus, director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine was testifying, and it wasn't what Burton wanted to hear. Straus questioned "whether the measures that some are promoting do anything more than prey upon people's fears and distract them from taking more prudent steps to protect themselves. . . . It may not even be prudent to combine such natural products with antibiotics because of the possibility that they would interfere with proper action of the drugs," he said.

True. And something Burton — and others — might think about.

We at the JREF get many inquiries about the claimed ability known as "cloudbusting," and for some reason, we've been bombarded with inquiries about this strange notion, lately. This is the idea that a practitioner can choose a cloud in the sky, and by mental power, can make it go away. Sigh. One correspondent commented to me:

As for cloudbusting, I recall seeing the your group specifically would not test for this particular phenomenon.

Well, not any more. It's just such a silly notion, that we at the JREF can't waste time on it any more. We also don't test for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Our tests conducted in the past were simple: we asked the "buster" to tell us which cloud he'd bust, then we videotaped the sky with a wide-angle camera. When the tape was played back for anyone else, they could not determine which cloud was "busted," because they all went away, in varying sequences. There was nothing special about the chosen cloud. The error is in watching only the cloud that was chosen, and not noticing that others go away at the same rate.

Greg Camp, historian, writes us....

You might also remember that I called you a few years ago for information on people claiming to have had their fillings turn to gold. Some of these same people claimed they were being dusted upon by the divine with what they called "glory dust." Your organization was kind enough to send out word to other skeptics when I was invited to Tulsa, Oklahoma, to attend services at a charismatic church where the alleged miracles were said to take place.

After I had voiced my rather sarcastic skepticism in a national magazine for Pentecostals called "Charisma," the pastors of a Tulsa church had me out there to prove I was wrong. Well, because of your suggestions to me as to what to look for, no miracles took place which could not be explained. The "glory dust" proved to be flecks of plastic from makeup or 35mm film; the dental fillings were mostly the result of using a flashlight with a yellowish hue. When I asked for permission to check with dentists, the Church leaders steadfastly refused. My visit was briefly the basis of an intense e-mail and gossip campaign. I am happily, joyfully, out of the Bible Belt.

Greg adds:

. . . [the churches] originally called it "gold dust" until it began to be widely known even in the charismatic community that it wasn't gold at all. Kinda makes a person wonder: why would any of them then believe that God sprinkles plastic glitter on his people? I even heard of one church that claimed that they paid off their mortgage with the receipts from sold gold swept up at these carnivals....

Another reader wrote us about an article appearing in "Best Friends Magazine," a periodical for animal-lovers. She said:

What this last issue contained totally outraged me. A poorly-written article on the delights of John Edward and his marvelous talent. It seems, after years of really ignoring and not communicating with animals, the esteemed "psychic" is now talking to people's pets. Of course, he is quick to admit that this was really not his thing. Doesn't care for cats and barely tolerates dogs — but, it's sort of what people want. The hack author of the article seems truly enthralled with Edward's talents and TV program, and now is a great fan of the celebrity. At the bottom of the article is a plug for the time and place this wonderful program can be seen.

Well, "pet psychics" are nothing new. They've been in business since the late 1800's, pretending to bring back Fido's wet licks and Felix's purrs — along with highly erudite observations that were not expressed before the canine/feline coil was cast off. It's bad enough that the suckers can believe Uncle Steve can return through a game of 200 Questions, with assurances that he's okay now that he's dead, but for anyone to accept that pets can — or would want to — come back, too, is pretty hard to believe. Or am I just a dreadful old curmudgeon?

And, as we might expect from these vendors of pure pet pap, the animals have messages of deep import, like, "I always loved that fireplug in the park," or "I miss having you serve me Pureed Parrot in the champagne glass."

Last week, three companies claiming to have technologies to fight bio-terrorism were found to be "exploiting the public's fears," the Securities and Exchange Commission said, and must stop. These companies agreed to comply with the orders without admitting to or denying allegations of fraud. No fines or other sanctions were imposed.

The SEC said two of the companies, Disease Sciences Inc., of Boca Raton, FL, and Classica Group Inc., of Lakewood, N.J., had falsely claimed in news releases to have technologies that could kill anthrax in mail and packages. Neither company had such a technology. The SEC also said that the third company, R-Tec Technologies Inc., of Flanders, N.J., claimed it had developed and patented the first mechanically-operated system to protect people from biological and chemical attacks. An attorney for R-Tec said the company had fully cooperated with the SEC in the investigation.

What is this? These companies clearly lied, put out false advertising to sell products they didn't have or that didn't work, and just because they didn't burn their files and flee to Cuba, but "cooperated" with an official federal investigation, there were no sanctions imposed? Can anyone suggest to me just why these people weren't arrested, charged, and tried, and either fined or sent to jail if found guilty? They did better than if they had outstanding parking tickets! These are vultures, feeding off the fear and naivety of people who are looking for quick solutions. When will we get some justice?

A reader from Australia wrote to tell me about the bent-spoon artist shown here last week:

Kat Black (Anya Ubermole), is an Australian performance/outsider artist type. I don't think anything she does is meant seriously. The fork-you.com web site is one of the sites she uses to promote her web design talents.

Well, I wrote to Kat:

Hi Kat! I ran a piece on my web page this week that mentions you. Several persons responded telling me you're a performance artist in Australia — one of my favorite places....! You commented, re cutlery-bending:

"I admit it's a bit weird — not in itself, but in the fact that so many people say it's impossible when it seems that just about anyone can do it without too much effort. You wonder how it could have stayed marginalised and controversial when it's so easy to do. . . . If you want to tell me it's impossible, I'm making it all up, I'm deluded, or anything of that kind, save your precious lil fingers, cos I don't give a hoot and I don't feel the need to prove anything to you."

Fair enough, Kat. But that's NOT what I wanted to say. Bending spoons and forks is so easy and simple to do, that I often wonder why people think it's so difficult and/or controversial. I teach kids to do it, regularly. Certainly no more psychic power is needed than is needed to break wine-glasses — which is also simple and easy, but doesn't seem to be as popular, for some reason.

Kat didn't take the whole thing very gracefully. She declared herself insulted and demeaned, she rejected my apologies (something about beware of people who apologize) and in general seems unhappy with me. Too bad, but I tried.

For further reference, Kat's personal homepage is at http://www.kattyb.com

Until I can locate the several very interesting articles that we will run alongside my weekly commentary in the new SWIFT format, I'll drop in the following piece. I've been occupied with a Japanese film crew in here this week, and haven't had the time to be too creative. Please accept this:

Daring to Tell It Like It Is: A Non-Scientist in the Laboratory.
by James Randi

This is a re-working of an article I published twenty years ago, but I've merely changed a few references in light of what we now know, thus it does not deal with more recent developments in pseudoscience. You will see that though there are different — and obviously more — reports of bad science and outright deception now available to us, there were ample examples two decades ago. But let me explain how I dare to declare on the failings of those few scientists who have failed to see through flummery and have invented theoretical frameworks to account for and legitimize it.

Some of my remarks here are directed toward conventional scientists, who generally refrain from commenting critically on the wild ideas of a few of their colleagues because it is bad manners, or who refrain from communicating their opinions of the paranormal to the public because it is beneath their dignity. But my peculiar experience gives me far more insight into recognizing chicanery than most scientists possess. I've also interacted extensively with scientists and observed them carefully. I am perhaps thus particularly well-qualified to offer what I hope is highly constructive criticism. I'm not "smarter" than the scientists; I only have a more advantageous point of view in certain respects.

Since I first discovered the world of the paranormal at the age of thirteen, I have not ceased being amazed at the prodigious powers of rationalization exhibited by those who pursue this highly elusive quarry. Even at that age, I was somehow immune to the imaginative excuses that I found were thrown about freely whenever a failure became evident, or the results were not quite what the miracle-mongers could have wished. I was not at all deceived, for example, by the sleight-of-mind that I found being peddled at "The Assembly of Inspired Thought" in my home town of Toronto, yet only recently I found exactly the same brand and quality of quackery being practiced in that very spot. Barnum was being quite conservative in his estimate of the public's gullibility — even though he never made the "sucker" comment so widely attributed to him.

I recall very clearly how, in that perfumed and creaking temple of spiritualism, the Assembly, that first revealed to me the perfidy of the opportunistic, all bad guesses were dismissed as the result of "negative thoughts" or the actions of one of "114 mischievous entities." Incorrect predictions were dubbed the product of "interventions,"' and healings that did not succeed were proof that "the spirits know better than we." All this claptrap was accepted easily by the regulars there, who had been carefully coached in the art of acceptance over many months of attendance at the Assembly. Sunday after Sunday, disappointments were swallowed, and Pollyannaish prognostications and promises were carried away like trophies to be admired — until they crumbled away in the light of reality.

The small group of friends and a few magicians who had embarked on this curious pursuit of miracles with me, came to recognize most of the maneuvers that I still find in my present investigations of everything from table-tippers and dowsers to spoon benders and prophets. Most of the chicanery is accomplished by psychological means; only a fraction involves actual physical manipulation or hardware. And it is this basic fact that has led a few misguided scientists through the looking-glass and into the study of things that are far beyond their ability to handle rationally. They look for the hardware and for the logic behind it all, and often there is none to be found.

Indeed, a scientist will invariably apply the latest instrumentation and most sophisticated statistical methods to analysis of what he/she sees as unexplainable, when a small measure of common sense and astute skeptical observation would serve infinitely better for the purpose. When the stage magician appears to buzz-saw an assistant in two pieces, then restores her to her former state, what amount of scanning with infra-red lasers, how much mathematical analysis, what accuracy of blood-pressure measurement, will solve the modus? How easily and willingly scientists are misdirected by the performer — when and if they make the flawed assumption that their education is complete and adequate to solve such riddles.

Let me clear up two prominent misconceptions that defenders of the paranormal constantly throw in the way of intelligent dialogue. The first is the claim that I and fellow investigators, able to duplicate by simple trickery the apparent miracles we examine, also claim that this provides proof that the many miracles of "psychics" are also done this way. Not at all. It is not proof, but it is a strong indication. What it does establish is the fact that, contrary to most claims that are first made, these miracles can be duplicated. Second, I hear cries of outrage that we are claiming that such things as ESP, UFOS, and apparitions cannot exist. To make such a claim would be illogical, irrational, and improper, and besides, one cannot prove some negatives of this nature. We only say that there is insufficient good-quality evidence to accept such matters as true. Surely these two stances are reasonable?

Scientists, far from being the hardest audience for the professional charlatan, are often the easiest. A scientist thinks logically and in a straight line; his profession requires him to do so. That's the way science works. When the scientist has gathered what he believes to be the facts, he wants to put them into proper form and publish them. This is a form of ceremonial behavior that is found in the species without exception. An organized "paper" is prepared and sent until it falls on the right desk. It is published and is thereafter often accepted as fact even though the information therein may have been the result of data supplied by a professional deceiver providing the scientist with what appeared to be legitimate information evaluated by "straight-line" thinking.

We demand repeatability of science: experiments or demonstrations of some claim must be replicable by other competent workers in the discipline, using essentially the same tools and working under the same conditions. But this requirement has failings that the parapsychologists have flaunted gleefully. Consider such a phenomenon as a meteorite. True, we can produce and exhibit a stonelike or metallic lump that we claim fell from the open sky. Examination will show it to be very unlike the vast majority of other terrestrial minerals, possessing specific peculiarities. But we obviously cannot demand repeatability of visual observation of a meteorite's descent to Earth in order to prove the claim that they do indeed come from the sky. It is simply not possible to stand at any one spot at any given time and expect a meteor to flash overhead and descend into a waiting specimen-collector.

In regular psychology, too, there are variations in human behavior that are just not obtainable on demand, and conclusions are often reached from a great number of observations of similar and related situations that bear on the sought-after set of attendant conditions. Thus, in quite legitimate science we can easily find examples where repeatability is not only waived as a requirement but is almost impossible to obtain. In investigating the claims of the paranormal, we must admit that the "sporadic" occurrence — such as a once-only, startlingly accurate prediction of an unlikely event — cannot be properly looked into, although, even there, careful investigation may well reveal the selective or prejudiced nature of the reconstruction. But by the same standards, we must maintain that since such an event is not examinable as it occurs, we are not required to accept it, either. In addition, we must consider how many predictions are made, every minute, all over the world, that have no success whatsoever. Think bell-shaped curve.....

The parapsychologists have claimed that many of their experiments can be replicated, and we must pursue these. Of course, it is impractical to refuse to recognize any scientific claim until and unless it has been replicated independently by others in that area of science. The word of an authority can safely be accepted on the basis of his/her prior work and established reputation, but failure to achieve replication should bring with it serious doubt about the value of the conclusions previously accepted, and probably a return trip to the old drawing board. Mistakes in science should be quite acceptable as part of the learning process; ignoring mistakes to save the feelings and reputations of the persons involved simply cannot be condoned. And, making errors is part of the process of learning and of moving forward.

But that don't-speak-badly-of-the-professor attitude is very much with us. Even now, as the dust settles over the matter of Sir Cyril Burt, whose extensive and well-accepted work on hereditary influences as studied among twins, was found to be considerably reinforced by his imagination and his spirit of invention, there are scientists who blush at a discussion of the exposure. Visiting King's College in London years ago, I myself heard amused mumblings about the fudged Burt results that were even at that time very strongly suspected, yet no one there took the responsibility of making an issue of it. Here was a highly pertinent study by a now-deceased authority, the basis for many learned studies by hard-working biologists throughout the world, yet no move was contemplated to brand it for what it was. It fell to the lot of a visiting American scientist, shortly after my visit there, to blow the lid off the issue, and I am sure that gentleman has been viewed askance by some in the UK, ever since.

The classic N-rays fiasco is another case in point. When one René Blondlot, a French scientist from Nancy full of honors and appointments, startled the world of physics in 1903 by announcing the discovery of a variety of previously-unsuspected radiation exhibiting what appeared to be impossible properties, others immediately claimed that they, too, could detect the new rays. Reports and papers tumbled in to scientific journals, and while most scientists far away from France, where the marvelous discovery had been made, reported failure after failure in replicating these results, dozens of Europeans confirmed the impossible.

In all fairness, there was an understandable predisposition to such acceptance, since X-rays, which also exhibited some incredible, previously unsuspected, properties and had just been discovered in Germany, were by then firmly established. But the N-rays case illustrates one important point: though the matter was soon shown conclusively to be a huge mistake, Blondlot's colleagues around the globe tended to merely let it slip out of history, and apparently learned very little from the example. Visiting the city of Nancy some years ago and speaking on the subject of parascience, I gently introduced this example of scientific stumbling, and though I stood in the very city that gave the name to N-rays, not one of my audience had ever heard of them, nor of Blondlot's involvement in the matter. And several there were professors from the University of Nancy!

Should we go about in lynch parties, holding aloft in flames the cadavers of mistaken scientists? Hardly. But the system that we depend upon for our present existence and for our future safety should be ready to declare itself in error when the occasion demands, without embarrassment, and free of guilt. We learn from errors.

Rationalization, too, is an accomplished art among believers and is particularly well developed among some scientists involved in paranormal research. They have a bigger vocabulary than most of us, and many more obscure ways of explaining things, by which means they can process the uncomfortable facts they encounter when pursuing the paranormal chimera. Scientist Werner Karl Heisenberg wrote that an observed phenomenon is interfered with by the very process of observation; this has become known as the Heisenberg Principle, and is applied to very small particles and forces. The parapsychologists borrow upon this accepted observation, and taking it out of context. then suggest that paranormal demonstrations are best performed when not being too closely observed. Professor John G. Taylor of Kings College, London, a British mathematician, even named this the "shyness effect, meaning that wonders preferred to happen when out of sight. As a magician, I also prefer not be observed, and the miracles I can produce under that circumstance, are prodigious.

When the "psychic surgeons" of the Philippines got suddenly popular by seeming to remove deadly tumors from their patients merely by stroking bare fingers across their abdomens and producing messes of gooey material accompanied by copious blood flows — without making any incision — some brave souls dared to bring back samples of blood and some of the material that was removed. Forensic tests showed that the blood was bovine or avian, and the "tumors" were pig entrails or chicken livers. Were the parapsychologists dismayed by this evidence? Not at all. They marveled that the mysterious powers possessed by these miracle-workers had not only penetrated the dermis of the unfortunate sufferers, but had converted the deadly growths into innocuous and harmless substances! When the "surgeons"' claimed to have removed metal pins from bones that had been implanted by legitimate surgeons with less flamboyant methods, X-rays proved the lie to all but those who were desperate or foolish enough to accept the flimflam. Said the naifs, the psychic surgeons had in reality only extracted the "essence" of the metal parts. The mind boggles at such insanity.

How, then, did the Filipino charlatans perform their wonders? I myself have demonstrated the "operation" at my lectures, perhaps a hundred or more times, without ever being caught at the trick. It is quite convincing to laymen and to the scientists, no matter how well they are prepared to observe. But it is perfectly transparent to any magician! It involves a simple gimmick that may be purchased from a magic-supply store for about a dollar, and with a modicum of practice, it becomes simple for anyone to perform the trick.

It is interesting to note that the many excellent film documentaries that have been made on the subject of psychic surgery, declaring the process to be fakery, also failed to discover the method. True, it was ascribed to "sleight-of-hand," but that hardly satisfied the viewer or explained the technique. In at least one notable case (a MacLeer-CTV film documentary made in Canada) the gimmick showed up on camera and was identifiable in freeze-frame, but was not noticed by the editors. Yet the producers did not think to call in a conjuror before releasing the work. Only afterward, when I approached them with the solution, did they realize how easy that would have been, and how effective. They even troubled to go back on the air with an addition to the original material.

In studies of the paranormal, the regular scientific community has been extremely lax in declaring itself. Those very few scientists who have announced what they believe to be great discoveries in basic science related to what are otherwise known as psychic, supernatural, or occult matters, having in most cases earned respect and authority in other fields, remain, in the public's eye at least, spokesmen for science in general. Their words are hung upon by the press, who nurture their theories from mere repetition alone. Responsible scientists sit in the background, mildly horrified by what they observe, yet unwilling to protest except among themselves, and even then in hushed tones.

Several exceptions stand out. In 1978, a long-suspect set of parapsychological observations was carefully examined by a believer and then exposed as pure fake. A prominent worker with the British Society for Psychical Research, Betty Markwick, examining the work of the famous Dr. S. G. Soal on what has become known as the Shackleton experiments, suspected that all was not right with this most definitive and positive investigation of ESP abilities in one "gifted" subject. She looked into the raw data and to her shock discovered that not only had the learned Dr. Soal changed a lot of data entries, to improve the performance after the fact (1's were often doctored into 4's, for instance, to make the numbers correspond with the subject's guesses), but when he had selected "at random" his target digits, he had inserted a few extra digits from time to time — and these inserts were winners. By two clever and thoroughly dishonest means, he had weighted the otherwise insignificant experimental results to make them positive in favor of ESP. I would ask for a round of applause for the researcher who, in spite of her stated belief in such matters, and her faith in Dr. Soal himself, nonetheless did a staggering amount of honest research which disproved Soal's work.

I note, in passing, that the UK Society for Psychical Research for a long time resisted publishing these results, but were finally pressured into it. And the comic note of the affair, which easily proves my contention that rationalization of negative results is an inbred characteristic of parascientists, is that one paranormal researcher named J. G. Pratt told readers of the journal in which this exposé appeared, that it was not at all probable that Soal had cheated. Instead, Pratt said, he found it easier to postulate that in inserting the extra "winning" digits, Soal had unconsciously exhibited "precognition," knowing by ESP, in advance, what the subject was about to call in response to the target! I wonder if Dr. Pratt is in the market for a bridge? I have the Brooklyn model for sale . . .

UK Professor John Taylor, long a staunch supporter of parascience, wrote extensively on the subject. He was one of Uri Geller's disciples and chided his colleagues for standing by conventional scientific standards when confronted with the miracles of spoon bending and teleportation as exhibited by the young Israeli conjuror. Taylor has since reversed himself on these matters and once again joined the ranks of conventional scientists. Finding no explanation in electromagnetic theory for the "psychokinetic" wonders he witnessed, Professor Taylor now tells us that there is no place in science for such claims of miracles. But, I assure him, a place can be made, and an explanation given, by the conjurors. To them, it's more of the same old thing.

A word should be said about the courage required for such reversals. It is a brave scientist, indeed, who says either, "I was wrong" or "I don't know," after having declared himself to the contrary. Another aspect of bravery in the academic world is exemplified by those who decide to override the established mores of their profession and agitate loudly for rationality in situations where there may be embarrassment for their colleagues who have made rash, untenable claims. It's one of those things that simply "isn't done," and the vociferous are frowned into submission or reminded by pointed memos that their first obligation is to uphold the traditions of their craft. Obviously, those who have chosen (or been forced) to recant are properly given every consideration in being brought back into the academic body, fully restored in stature. In fact, I would personally be more apt to trust one who has made errors and learned by the experience, than one who has never erred at all.

When the US "Humanist Magazine" printed "Objections to Astrology" in 1975, bearing the signatures of 192 leading scientists — nineteen of them Nobel Prize winners — it literally made front-page news around the world. It was a breakthrough in which responsible investigators actually stood up to be counted in defense of rationality and against a demonstrable pseudoscience that had earned wide public acceptance, largely through lack of authoritative denials. In the text itself, Professor Bart J. Bok, an angry astronomer, complained that he had urged the Council of the American Astronomical Society to issue a statement telling the world that in their opinion there was no scientific basis for a belief in astrology. He was turned down both times that he tried to get action from them. The reason echoed down through decades past from other similar requests made before scientific councils: it is beneath the dignity of scientists to recognize that irrational beliefs are prevalent. The argument did not gain stature from its antiquity; that only made it musty and tired. And wrong.

Dignity be damned. Science assumes responsibility for our lives — with our approval. Its authority springs from the public's funding of it, and tolerance for it. Science thus owes that public an honest and immediate response to needs. One of those needs is an authoritative and clearly stated opinion on the cults, pseudoscientific notions, and various forms of augury which are presented to us all as accomplished and verified disciplines. But this seems too mundane a pursuit for the learned to trouble with.

There's another, very compelling, reason for such reluctance to make statements. We live in a highly litigious society, where any offensive comment — regardless of whether or not it's true — can result in damaging litigation. And, as I all too well know, you need not lose a case in order to be laid low by the costs of defending yourself. The US legal system is seriously deficient in the direction of protecting the innocent against such actions.

Recently I was presented with an excellent example of the rationalization that theologians as well as scientists often employ, to the amusement of the layman and the probable embarrassment of their peers. I had addressed the Utah State University in Ogden and fallen into conversation with some of the staff about Mormon matters. As a result of that exchange, I was given what turned out to be one of the most remarkable revelations of my life, embodied in an "explanation" given by a professor of religious history, Dr. Hugh Nibley of Brigham Young University. This scholar was brought up short by finding that scraps of Egyptian papyrus that one of the founding fathers of the religion — Joseph Smith — had emphatically declared to be actually written by the prophet Abraham, and which thus constituted one of that religion's most basic holy books, the Book of Abraham, turned out to be based on quite mundane extracts from well-known texts of instruction for the departed citizens of the long-dead kingdom of the Nile. Such texts, known as The Book of the Dead, were commonly interred with mummies.

But the Mormon founder hadn't stopped there. Using other scraps of papyrus, he had produced an Ancient Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, which delighted the believers no end. All this was before the real translation of Egyptian hieroglyphs had truly begun, and that knowledge was not readily available, so it was quite safe for anyone to produce a "translation" of the strange sign writing of Egypt and have it accepted by the unsophisticated. And it was produced, and eagerly accepted.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York had borrowed the papyrus book, and in 1967 they returned to the church the original writings which the founder had "translated" for his Book of Abraham. When submitted to their experts for a modern translation, the documents proved that not only had the founding father done an extremely "free" translation, but he had done so with many fragments wrongly inserted in place from other documents — upside-down in some cases — and in a mixture of period, style, and content. It was a total fiasco. But such discoveries did not dampen the professor's enthusiasm and determination to keep intact the myth that this most important document was a real "revelation." He easily explained away the fabrication by telling the faithful that the founder's interpretation was an "inspired" one, rather than a literal one, and averred now that his Ancient Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (which was certainly in trouble because there was no Egyptian alphabet as such) need not be taken "literally." The columns of hieroglyphics therein which faced similar columns of English words and sounds were not meant to be taken as corresponding to one another, said the scholar.

The spirit of extreme charity must be invoked to accept such rationalizations, and the mind must be emptied of all logic to do so. There is no question of it: Joseph Smith was totally incapable of translating the Egyptian language. He needed a mysterious discovery to produce the Book of Abraham, and he invented a totally fanciful translation of some common papyrus scraps to perpetrate his deception. Now that it has been uncovered, those scientists who will not ever throw out the theory have turned to throwing out the facts. It is rationalization in a very obvious and infantile form. But in my opinion, it is far outdone by some modern parapsychologists.

Can the skeptics properly attack religious beliefs, however? Yes, in limited situations. Largely, religious beliefs and claims are matters of blind faith: no scientific basis can properly be used to judge or evaluate them. Nor do their proponents require scientific proof of any kind. Their preferred belief structure is dictated by need, not reason. There are religions that claim resurrection, others that claim reincarnation. Some aver that chanting magic formulas leads to divinity, others that shades of the departed may be conjured up in dark rooms. One even tells its followers that they may relive former lives, back into antediluvian periods. It is not within the parameters of science to investigate most of these claims — unless the adherents claim that science may be invoked to support their tenets.

At least one semi-religious group unequivocally lays itself open to investigation when it makes just such claims. The Transcendental Meditators of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi still publish vast amounts of carefully-selected data that they present as proof that their discipline will allow followers to soar about the sky like Peter Pans. They also tell inquirers that their people have learned to become invisible and to walk through solid brick walls. These claims are topped off by assertions that an accomplished TMer attains the blessed state of omniscience — that he or she knows all, past, present, and future. How astonishing to us skeptics sound these claims, for it would seem we should have evidence by now, of at least one of these wonderful abilities. With a claimed forty thousand registrants in the TM Levitation Course at any given time, the Maharishi failed to produce one demonstration, though his literature tells us that these miracles have been registered on TV monitors in laboratory tests. May we see any tapes or films of these experiments? Requests to witness such events are ignored, though there are videos of folks bouncing about on mattresses like giant wounded amphibians, hardly what anyone would call, "flying."

To look back with 20/20 hindsight, it would have been better if some of the scientific experts, hearing of an obscure San Francisco religious leader who not only performed "psychic surgery," but also claimed he'd literally raised the dead, had troubled to cry "Fake!" rather than sitting by quietly. But they didn't want to interfere with his freedom of religion. The rest of that story was told in Guyana when nearly a thousand unfortunate people who had been duped by the man, drank cyanide, convinced that Jim Jones had a direct line to the gods. But the constitutional rights of every one of them were protected....

Science and the media owe to the inquiring public that supports them, an explanation and revelation of pseudo-religious and pseudo-scientific claims. Though it suits the majority of scientists to remain silent on these matters, and the newspapers, magazines, radio and TV outlets, and book publishers, are well aware of the desire of the public to have Things-That-Go-Bump-In-The-Night as realities rather than hear rational explanations for these phenomena, there is an obligation on both science and the media that is largely unfulfilled at present. The evidence of that failure is all around us.

In one public library, in Vancouver, Canada, I counted 102 titles on the open shelves dealing with positive attitudes toward ESP, witchcraft, UFOS, and allied claptrap. And there was not one book there on those shelves that expressed a counterview — though many such are available.

The CBS-TV network featured the "In Search of . . ." series with actor Leonard Nimoy, former Science Officer of "Star Trek." The series totally misrepresented various subjects ranging from the Curse of King Tut to the Bermuda Triangle, not dealing with the facts. Instead, it played up the fiction. A disclaimer preceded each program, stating that "This series presents information based in part on theory and conjecture. The producer's purpose is to suggest some possible explanations but not necessarily the only ones to the mysteries we will examine." How noble. And forgettable.

The TV series "Project UFO" told viewers that the shows were based on information from the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book, and presented as a clincher at the end of each episode a full-color shot of the official Air Force Seal overlaid with the words "The United States Air Force, after twenty-two years of investigation, concluded that none of the unidentified flying objects reported and evaluated posed a threat to our national security." That statement remained on the screen for precisely 2.4 seconds! It was impossible to read it in that time, of course, and worse still, this was only a fraction of the actual conclusion of Project Blue Book. The USAF also said, in the same concluding document, that there was no evidence that the "UFOS" indicated any superior technology, or even that they were extraterrestrial in nature. CBS chose not to tell us about that. . . .

The reversals by prominent formerly-deluded scientists, the increasing availability, if not popularity, of information such as that presented here and by "Skeptic Magazine" and "The Skeptical Inquirer," and so many others, along with the obvious dissatisfaction of academics as a whole with the irrationalities of parascience and pseudoscience will, I am confident, result in a demand for the truth. But even as I write, I am well aware that there are yet-unborn rascals who will liven up the annals of science in the future, and hordes of scientists-to-be who will hurry down the Yellow Brick Road to plead for recognition in the streets of the Emerald City. It is an idiocy that will repeat itself so long as human naivety exists and someone is available to exploit it.

But back to the fray. My winged horse awaits. . . .

Until next week.....