Talk:Committee for Skeptical Inquiry/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mediation

Hi -- I'm volunteering to take on the mediation as requested at the mediation case page. I have done my best to absorb the extensive talk history, starting with the initial mediation. I see that jbolden1517 made statements establishing neutrality; I do have existing knowledge of CSICOP, but no particular opinion about the issues that I have seen debated on this talk page.

The most recent discussion is regarding the criticisms section: how long should it be, and what should be in it. Can we agree that this is a place to start? If so, a statement from each of you outlining what you would like to change (or avoid changing) in that section would be a good start.

My edit times are going to be mostly evenings and weekends, US central time. (I'm British, living in the US, if that matters.) I'll occasionally be able to respond at other times and will do so when I can. Mike Christie 03:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been directly involved with this article for a while, but I'll comment if asked. Bubba73 (talk), 03:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section is pretty much as I think it should be right now. I would make a few small edits and try to improve the way it is written slightly but I think the current version gives a brief overview, and then provides some clear examples, of the kind of criticisim CSICOP has faced over the years.Davkal 09:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike -- Thanks for volunteering, but there's no mediation to be done here for the time being. Although other editors have complained about the negative POV slant of Davkal's edits, none except me have been willing to engage in any significant editing or debate with him. And for now, I'm not willing either. As I've pointed out, there isn't much point in engaging in lengthy and painstaking negotiations with someone who's demonstrated that he will just break the agreements he made in those negotiations.

So, even though this article has been protected at the wrong version :-), I'm happy to just let it sit frozen in this state. Eventually some other editor will come along, see that it's badly slanted, and will want to improve it. Then there will be at least two editors to argue against Davkal's POV, and the problem will be solved.

KarlBunker 11:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The article as it stands paints a fairly accurate picture of CSICOP. Prior to my involvement the article was seriously flawed. There was originally no mention of the media in the article whatsoever when the media is actually central to CSICOP's role - this has now been rectified. The false claims about the scientific (as opposed to armchair) investigations conducted by CSICOP has been removed/amended and a truer picture of the actual activities of the organisation is to be found in the activities section. There are now no pejorative statements in the article, either about CSICOP or about psuedoscience/the paranormal except those that are clearly attributed to an individual/organisation and so clearly call for reader judgement. The criticism section is now much shorter than it was and details only those criticisms that come from highly reputable cited sources. In short, an article which used to portray a lobby-group as a scientific research body engaging in groundbreaking research into the paranormal and publishing it's negative findings to the dismay of proponents of the paranormal, now portrays them primarily as a lobby-group whose activities are media oriented and who, on occasion, have been accused of exactly what they profess to despise: psuedoscience. I still think the article needs numerous small changes but think that overall it is significantly better than what was there previously.Davkal 12:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, do you agree with KarlBunker that there is no point in mediation? Mike Christie 12:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I called for mediation and I am happy to go through it. I also think it better to deal with it now rather than simply wait for KB's call to arms on the Rational Skepticism group page to finally get some response. That is not to say that I greatly fear the prospect of two or three more KB's all arguing that the same false claims should be included because they would like them to be true. Davkal 13:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Karl, if Davkal is willing to go through mediation, would you participate? Mike Christie 12:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, no. So Davkal is free to take his editing skills to topics to which he is perhaps better suited. (And you, Mike, are released from putting up with the two of us snarking at each other.)

I was actually looking for a good picture on that page to go along with the Arthur Rogan Smith Esquire award - of which KB was to be the inaugural recipient. Davkal 14:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be noted, though, when the protection comes off the page and Karl (and whoever else he round up) comes back and simply reverts to previous versions that mediation was offered, and rejected.Davkal 14:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Davkal 14:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I was recently involved with this article and probably similar to Bubba73, I'll comment if asked. Addhoc 15:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Karl, I'd like to ask you to reconsider. I'm concerned that waiting for an ally to show up is not a recipe for a long term resolution. I think you're saying that you'd like to wait until you can outvote Davkal. Take a look at the consensus guideline; it does point out that voting shouldn't be the key to resolving editing disputes, though it also acknowledges it can be helpful. (You might also be interested in two essays Voting is evil and Voting is not evil, for some more background discussion.)

I think you've got that backwards. Davkal and have already tried negotiation and mediation and it didn't work. We are at an impasse, and the only way that impasse is going to be broken is for one or more editors to become involved. I happen to believe that any additional people who become involved are more likely to side against Davkal's edits than with them. He is welcome to believe the opposite. Either way, having one or the other of us "out-consensused" (not necessarily the same thing as "outvoted") is more likely to be a long term solution than any other possibility I can see. KarlBunker 19:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I agree that with more people we are likely to make more progress. Mike Christie 22:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are still not willing to participate, would you consider standing by while Davkal, Bubba73, Addhoc, and I work on some of the issues under discussion? If so, we could request unprotection and see how things go. Mike Christie 17:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, if any other editor becomes actively involved, then negotiating might become interesting. With no one besides Davkal, it's pointless and I'm not going to do it. I don't see either Bubba73 or Addhoc expressing a willingness to make the serious commitment of time and energy that negotiating requires, but if you can get them involved that's fine with me. I would only advise that you wait for some decisions and agreements to be arrived at on the discussion page before you call for unprotecting the article. KarlBunker 19:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, Bubba73, would you be interesting in participating in mediation on this page? If so, I'll propose a first step and we can see how far we get. Mike Christie 19:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly would be interested. Addhoc 19:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't have a greaat deal of time that I can devote to it. An RfA might be better, though. Bubba73 (talk), 21:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean "Request for arbitration"? That tends to be the last step in the dispute resolution process.

With participation from Addhoc, and (part-time) from Bubba73, I think we can proceed. I'll start a new section to talk about the first area of mediation. Mike Christie 22:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation of criticism section

I think the criticism section is a good place to start, since it has been the most recent focus of debate. I'll copy Davkal's quote from the section above into this section as a reference point:

The criticism section is pretty much as I think it should be right now. I would make a few small edits and try to improve the way it is written slightly but I think the current version gives a brief overview, and then provides some clear examples, of the kind of criticisim CSICOP has faced over the years.Davkal 09:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Could everyone else please also comment on what edits you feel should be made to these four paragraphs? And Davkal, please feel free to expand on your paragraph above.

Since Karl has asked for more than two participants, I will often wait till I have seen two responses before making a reply of my own, but I don't propose to make that a firm rule. However, I suggest that when we feel that we are getting close to a consensus on any point, we ensure that at least three of the four participants are in agreement, and we wait for concurring posts for a reasonable period. We can worry about the mechanics more later, if and when we actually get to a consensus.

I also agree with the suggestion above that we don't ask for unprotection until we have reached consensus on the first change. Mike Christie 22:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most of this section should be removed, for several reasons. One is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The Rawlings stuff doesn't have any reliable source - just Fate magazine. I think the only source for the Josephson stuff is his personal website, so that shouldn't be used. There are many other reasons, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. WP is an encyclopeda. It is not a blog. It is not a forum for pushing your POV. Bubba73 (talk), 23:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Fate magazine was the original place Rawlin's published his account. However, summaries of the criticism and just as many quotes can be found in numerous places dealing with this controversy (any details re this issue could be taken from, for example, Richard Kammann's 'true Disbelievers' published in Truzzi's Zetetic Scholar). Simlarly, while Josephson's criticisms are originally published on his homepage on the University of Cambridge website (one of the foremost academic institutions in the world), they were also covered in some detail in 'The Times' newspaper so again anything needed for the article could be found there. I have to say, though, that I think it is disingenuous to try to exclude these criticisms (that we all know took place as described) on the basis of quibbling about sources. The point of the Reliable Source rules are to ensure that things that didn't happen but which are reported in unreliable sources are not then reproduced in Wiki - in the above cases though, all we are saying is that a criticism exists and so it's very existence - even in the most unreliable source imaginable - is evidnece enough that the criticism actually does exist. And if nobody buys that, then there are also countless other examples (I think I detailed these at length on the archived talk page and don't really want to haver to go through those again) that, if necessary, could be used to make almost identical points.Davkal 10:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

On the point of reliable sources, here is the section from WK:RS that I think clearly shows that the criticisms are acceptable given the sources: "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion. " Thus, for example, Josephson's own website is about as reliable as one can get re the fact that he holds this view - made those claims. And as long as the view is presented as a view (which it is) there seems no doubt that it can safely be included.Davkal 11:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

On the point of POV pushing, I think it adds nothing to the discussion to simply keep repeating this claim. Everyone can say to anyone who makes any claim "that's your point of view", but so what! It is my point of view that Josephson said such-and-such and that Rawlins made this-and-that claim and it also happens to be an easily verifiable fact which is, I think, the important point here. Davkal 12:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparing these two versions is instructive. Confining myself to differences in the criticisms section, I have the following comments:

1. To start with, there's the section title: "Criticism of CSICOP" when compared with "Criticisms and responses", the former suggests that there are only criticisms, and no responses to those criticisms.
2. The point that "most" of CSICOP's criticism has come from the individuals and groups it focuses its attention on has been changed to "much." The former is obviously the more correct word.
3. My objections to the Marcello Truzzi criticism I explained earlier: They are not substantive criticisms, but merely an expression of his personal opinion of "them." Furthermore this opinion is 30 years out of date.
4. The language "The controversy lasted for nearly five years before Rawlins went public with his version of events ..." is added to the discussion of the Mars effect controversy, suggesting that some titanic struggle was going on for these 5 years. In fact, the issue was mostly dead for that interval, until Rawlins decided to take his bruised ego public in Fate, a generally laughable flying saucer magazine.
5. A discussion of the source of many criticisms of CSICOP, and skeptics in general--namely that skeptics sometimes fall into a dogmatic dismissal of all fringe science claims and an arrogant and dismissive attitude toward those who hold fringe beliefs--has been removed, along with an eloquent quote from Carl Sagan on this issue. No valid reason has been given for this removal.
6. CSICOP's general-purpose defense against its critics--that paranormal beliefs have never been supported by any solid scientific research--has been removed, for no justified reason.

KarlBunker 00:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Let's start with the title: currently it is "Criticism of CSICOP"; Karl would prefer "Criticism and responses". I went and took a look at some other articles on controversial topics, and here's what I found for titles for the criticism sections:

• Jesse Jackson: "Criticism and controversies"
• Earth First!: "Books critical of Earth First!"
• Planned Parenthood: "Controversy and criticism"
• Scientology: "Controversy and criticism"

We are not forced to copy usage from other articles, but I think it's worth seeing how others have approached sections like this. My own suggestion would be "Criticism" or "Controversy and criticism"; but this does not necessarily mean there would be no responses in such a section.

Whether a criticism section should include responses is a separate question. Karl has indicated that he believes it should. I'd like to suggest a couple of guidelines for that issue: First, anything cited as a response should be verifiable -- it should be a response of the organization, or relevant individuals, and it must have a source. Second, since this section is about criticisms, the responses should not overwhelm the criticisms in word-count.

This does not address what qualifies as a valid, notable criticism; e.g. whether the Truzzi comments belong or not. I would like to leave that to the next step, and get consensus on these two points first.

To summarize, the two questions are:

• What should the title of the section be?
• Should the section include any responses to the criticism?

Mike Christie 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "CSICOP's critics" has a nice ring to it, but don't really care if it was "criticism and controversy" etc. The one I don't like is "Criticism and responses" since it seems to force one's hand in terms of what can be included. In the end though, the title is probably not that significant but it would be best, I think, to follow the general trend identified above and leave "responses" out of the title.

I think responses should be included where they help to clarify the issue at hand, but I don't think that it helps much to simply say "CSICOP have rebutted all these points" after every criticism (as the article used to) because what I think the criticism section should do is: a) state the fact that there was (a type of) critism; b) briefly detail (an example of) the actual criticism (of that type); and c) detail, if relevant, the context in which the criticism was made. Davkal 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on the above responses, I think we can change the title of the section to "Controversy and criticism". It also seems clear we can introduce responses to the criticisms if they meet appropriate criteria. Mike Christie 15:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion of what the title should be. But if there is going to be a big criticism section, then there must be responses to it. And the criticism should be from reliable sources. Bubba73 (talk), 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph

Let's move on to the first paragraph (and hold off on changing the title till we also have some consensus text to go with it). Karl supplied a diff that captures differences between a version he supports and one Davkal supports. Except for the Truzzi issue (which I'd like to deal with next), here are the two versions. See Karl's diff link for a diff display of these paragraphs.

First, Karl's version:

CSICOP's activities concerning the paranormal and fringe-science have earned it some criticism, most of it from those individuals or groups that have been the focus of CSICOP’s attention. Israeli psychic Uri Geller, for example, had until recently been in open dispute with the organisation for many years and had filed a number of lawsuits against them. Some criticism, however, has come from within the scientific community and at times from within CSICOP itself.

and here's Davkal's version:

Over the years CSICOP's activities have earned it some criticism as well the nickname the "Psi-Cops". Much of this criticism has come from those individuals or groups that have been the focus of CSICOP’s attention. Israeli psychic Uri Geller, for example, had until recently been in open dispute with the organisation for many years and had filed a number of lawsuits against them. Some criticism, however, has come from within the scientific community and at times from within CSICOP itself.

Points at issue, with my comments:

• Should "over the years" be included? I think the important point is to date the criticisms within the paragraph. If this is done the phrase is unnecessary, unless it is intended to imply more than that the criticism does not all date from one short period.
• Should a phrase such as "concerning the paranormal and fringe-science" be included? This phrase occurs in the lead-in, quoted from the CSICOP website. I believe the phrase should be included if the activities that have earned the criticism are only a subset of its full activities; otherwise I don't see that it adds anything.
• Should it say "most [of the criticism] or "much [etc.]?" The actual criticims cited are from Geller, Truzzi (though we have yet to agree if his comments should be included), Rawlins, and Josephson. It's not clear to me if Demkina criticized CSICOP along with Josephson, although I would assume she did. Geller and Josephson/Demkina could then be listed as critics from the "individuals or groups that have been the focus of CSICOP’s attention"; Truzzi (if we include him) presumably could not, and nor could Rawlins. I think Josephson's prior work might be relevant here. If he had an existing association with Demkina then he was part of the "focus of CSICOP's attention"; if not, he belongs with Rawlins and Truzzi. Overall, though, it seems that criticisms from both within and without CSICOP are cited, and the difference between "many" and "much" is not that great. I don't have a suggestion to make here; I'll wait to see what comments are made.

That's enough for the moment. Comments? Mike Christie 15:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike, I agree with your comments. Also, I would suggest pseudoscience is preferable to fringe science and that "Psi-Cops" should have a reliable source. Addhoc 16:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops; missed the "Psi-Cops" issue; I meant to comment on that too. I agree, a reference is appropriate. As to "pseudoscience", since the quote in the lead comes from the CSICOP website, I don't think we should change it in the lead. If we keep some such phrase in this paragraph in order to identify which activities of CSICOP are being criticized, it could be changed, so let's wait to see if we need the phrase at all. Mike Christie 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike -- I think you make some good points, and I have no strong feelings on any of these issues at present. KarlBunker 16:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't mind whether "over the years" stays or not.

2. I think "the Psi-cops" should stay because: a) it an interesting fact (encyclopedia and all that); and b)it's a well known nick-name so not very controversial. I ahve already provided a coupe of sources above and a quick scan of the web will show how much used this pun is.

3. I don't mind if "much" is replaced by "most". I don't think the Josephson case makes much difference to this point - as it happens he has no connection to Demkina. The reason most of the criticisms in the criticism section are of the minority kind is that these are much more serious criticsms from reputable sources. I think the fact that it is acknowldged that most (much) criticism comes from those CSICOP have focused on only needs to be said and then briefly illustrated by the Geller example for readers to get the right idea about what this amounts to. The last para as well covers this point with a good example from the scientologists.

4. I think that "fringe (pseudo) science and the paranormal" could be left out since from the criticisms themselves it is fairly apparent what it is that has been criticised. Davkal 17:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

With the above input, I'd like to propose the following for the first four sentences of the criticism section.

CSICOP's activities have earned it some criticism, as well the nickname the "Psi-Cops"<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/nicholls-prn.html| title = The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom| accessdate = 13 August | accessyear = 2006}}</ref>. Most of the criticism has come from those individuals or groups that have been the focus of CSICOP’s attention. Israeli psychic Uri Geller, for example, had until recently been in open dispute with the organisation for many years and had filed a number of lawsuits against them. Some criticism, however, has come from within the scientific community and at times from within CSICOP itself.

and include the appropriate tag in the references section to make the footnote appear.

As a follow-up note, I did a search for "psi cop" + CSICOP and got 138 hits; psi + cop + CSICOP unsurprisingly gets rather more. I think this is not a large number of hits, but the page I am proposing as a reference clearly uses the nickname without feeling any need to explain, and it seems pretty clear that it would be a widely understood nickname within any community of critics of CSICOP. So I propose we include it with that reference.

Please comment on this version of the paragraph. Please also let me know if you are comfortable with a process by which I make the agreed-on changes to the article, after each consensus is reached. That way we can ask for unprotection. Mike Christie 18:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike, the compromise version of the first paragraph looks ok. Addhoc 18:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"It's not clear to me if Demkina criticized CSICOP along with Josephson, although I would assume she did". I wouldn't assume that. The article Natasha Demkina says that she came up with exccuses for failing, but I didn't see any criticism of CSICOP, and I don't know of any. The criticisms of her test made by Josephson are based on false assumptions. I'm hesitant to include anything we know is wrong. Bubba73 (talk), 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bubba, perhaps we should deal with the Demkina case when it comes up for discussion. Davkal 07:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bubba's satement is absolutely correct. Assuming that Natasha Demkina criticized CSICOP is hardly good enough. If Mike can cite a reliable source where Demkina criticizes CSICOP, than he should do so. It's not wise to assume what may well be false - as his assumption appears to be. I'm familiar with nearly all that has been written about CSMMH-CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina. While Demkina's various excuses for failing the test have been reported, as well as her protest of the test conditions, I know of no source where she criticises the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.

As for Brian Josephson, he's widely regarded as a kook who attacks skeptics and promotes quacks and charlatans on his personal web site. That web site is a good example of why Wikipedia guidelines say personal web sites are not reputable sources for anything except self-referential comments about the author. If Wiki would allow Josephson's self-published personal attack of the researchers as a source, then it must also allow the researchers' self-published defense against Josephson's personal attack. There's are good reasons for Wikipedia's guidelines against using such self-published sources. Personal web sites are not reputable sources for any information other than self-referential comments about the author. And even here, Wiki guidelines urge caution.

And no, Josephson had no association with Natahsa Demkina. He never studied her, never met her, and never even communicated with her prior to writing his attack on the CSMMH-CSICOP researchers. His only interest in the case appears to have been his animosity towards the skeptics and his interest in promoting supernatural beliefs.Askolnick 15:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposed paragraph looks OK to me. Bubba73 (talk), 01:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay with me too. KarlBunker 02:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I too have no objection to the paragraph as currently written.Davkal 07:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks OK to me also. Askolnick 15:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Askolnick demonstrates almost everything that is wrong with the way CSICOP conducts itself. He characterises Josephson's criticism as a personal attack - it is not, or it is not all - the section included in this article is a criticism of the experiment. He then engages in an obvious personal attack - "jospephson is widely regarded as a kook", which is supposeed to end the matter - but all Jospehson has criticised here is the way the experiment was conducted, a criticism that has been supported by Keith Rennolls (Professor of statistics at Greenwich University) who said that Josephson's criticism were scientifically accurate, that the experiment was "woefully inadequate in many ways" and that Wiseman's response showed "a totla lack of understanding of how scientific data should be interoreted statistically". We should also bear in mind the purpose of the criticism section - it is not to engage in endless debate about who, if anyone, was right - rather it is to note the fact there have been criticisms from such-and-such sources - a lengthy response from those involved in this debacle (Asklonick for example) is quite unnecessary here - far more relevant would be a quote from the any of numerous scientists unaffiliated with either CSICOP or CSMMH who must surely have leapt to the defence of their beleagered colleges. Davkal 07:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, why do you continue to mischaracterize so much? Josephson's self-published article IS an attack piece. You appear to agree with his opinion. But agreeing with him should not hide the fact that what he self-published on his web site (since no scientific or respected lay publication would likely publish it) is an ad hominem attack wrapped in false and misleading claims of being a statistical analysis. A statistical analysis does not call other researchers dishonest frauds and propagandists. BTW, Rennolls had not read our reports. He made those comments solely on the basis of reading Josephson's attack piece. As a result, his comments were inappropriate and wrong. I would like to point out that Rennolls never submitted a critical analysis of the reports published in Skeptical Inquirer. I suspect he thought differently after finding out how the test was actually designed and conducted, which is quite different from Josephson's attack piece.

You also mischaracterize the situation by saying we are "beleagered." If we were criticized in a science or medical journal - or even a reputable news medium - I might feel a tad beleagered. But being attacked and vilified on Victor Zammit's and Brian Josephson's personal web sites is, in my opinion, being honored, not being beleagered. I admit that no scientists "leapt to our defense," because we were NEVER attacked in any science forum. I know of quite a few unafiliated scientists who would come to our defense, if our reports were ever attacked in an actual science forum. Askolnick 03:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you published the "findings" from your "experiments" in peer reviewed scientific journals then such arguments would not get started in the first place. But the odds of the Demkina nonsense passing peer review are a tad longer than Natasha's 50-1 shot I fear. Also, given that you were one of the main architects of what many (not just Josephson, Sheldrake, Rennolls, Playfair etc. etc. etc.) regard as a fraudulent piece of nonsense masquerading as science, forgive me if I don't treat everything you claim to be the case as unquestionable truth.Davkal 04:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish you had a better understanding of science and scientific publication. Virtually all respected peer-review science journals have a rule barring publication of previously reported findings. And since the results of the Demkina test had to be reported first in the Discovery Channell program (which paid the transportation and other test costs), the researchers published their findings in Skeptical Inquirer, a well-respected publication that enjoys a much better reputation that any crank's self-published web site. Your statement that Rennolls regards the test as fraudulent is false.

You appear to be ducking the question. I asked you to provide evidence that the Demkina test researchers are being "beleagered" in ANY science forum. Personal web sites of pro-paranormal cranks and crackpots don't count. In what science forum has the Demkina test been criticized as "fraudulent" and "pseudoscience," as you continue to claim? Such opinons are found in pro-paranormal bulletin boards and crackpot web sites. They belong there, not here in Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires reputable sources. Excuse me and the other editors here for not allowing tabloid journalism and tabloid science to seep into Wikipedia. Askolnick 15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmn hmmn, snooze yawn wrong, wrong, snooze, I didn't make any such claim, snooze yawn, yes yes I see, hmmn snooze, I didn't actually say that, yawn, wrong.Davkal 15:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll put in a request for unprotection and make the change. Once I've done that I'll post a note aboutt Truzzi; might be a little while till I can get to that today. Mike Christie 10:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Per request here and WP:RFPP -- Samir धर्म 10:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Truzzi

Next let's look at the rest of that first paragraph. Here's the existing version, which I understand is Davkal's preferred text.

Marcello Truzzi, one of CSICOP's co-founders, left the organisation after only a short time claiming that “They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts.” Truzzi even coined the term pseudoskeptic to describe the attitude he felt was prevalent in CSICOP.

Karl's version (again referring to these diffs has this text deleted completely.

Karl also made the following comment (see earlier on this talk page) about Truzzi's statement:

In the first place, this criticism does not refer to any particular act or investigation on CSICOP's part, but rather to 'them' in general. Thus it's not a substantial criticism, but rather an expression of Truzzi's personal impression of 'them'. In the second place, it's roughly 30 years old, and therefore has no established relevance to the current makeup of CSICOP.

Here are some comments about this section.

• I understand from some earlier comments that everyone agrees that Truzzi was one of CSICOP's co-founders, and that he said this.
• I feel we should have a source for this statement, if we do include it. Can anyone supply a source?
• We also need to have a date for the statement. Karl commented that this is a thirty-year-old dispute and (in his opinion) out of date. If it is to be included, it needs to be placed in the correct chronological context.
• Is the criticism substantial? Karl accurately says that it does not refer to a particular CSICOP investigation (unless there is more to the quote than is included here). I would like to hear opinions on this; however, it does seem to me that if this criticism has substance, it does so because of Truzzi's position within CSICOP and especially because of his position as a co-founder.
• Is the criticism (assuming it to be substantial) worthy of inclusion, or is it irrelevant because it is out of date? My opinion is that if dates are added so that the reader can see that these comments were made very early in CSICOP's history, the reader would be able to determine whether the comments are likely to be relevant. I also feel that a general reader is going to find it relevant that a founder might criticize the organization, even if that criticism was made a long time ago. If the criticisms are substantial they are interesting even if 30 years old; if they are not substantial they are uninteresting even if new.
• The coinage pseudoskeptic is mentioned, and linked. Is this notable enough to include?
• The issue of a response to criticism was discussed above. Is a response needed, or appropriate here? What would a suitable response be?

Please let me have your opinions on the above points. Thanks. Mike Christie 22:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to find the source for these particlaur words but the original was deleted and I can't remember where it came from. Nonetheless Truzzi made a number of similar comments(that can be well sourced- see the WP entry for Truzzi) from the moment he left CSICOP until very recently. It was an ongoing issue with Truzzi that the term "sceptic" had been usurped by what he variously called "pseudosceptics", "scoffers", and "professional doubters". It is also a criticism that could be made from, and supported by, many other sources. For example, Archie Roy (professor of Astronomy at Glasgow University) has argued recently that we should adopt a "beyond reasonable doubt" criterion for paranormal phenomena rather than what he takes to be the current CSICOP standard of "beyond any possible doubt. I therefore think the Truzzi quote (or point) has contemporary relevance, and given that Truzzi was a cofounder it is hard to think of a more apt place from which this particluar criticism can come. Davkal 00:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm busy with something else right now, but I will make a couple of comments. I worked some on the Marcello Truzzi article. He was indeed a co-founder of CSICOP and was the first editor of their journal, initially called The Zetetic, which was published twice a year then. Within one to two years, he received a vote of no confidence as editor, and was removed or quit. Bubba73 (talk), 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, it sounds like you think the source of this comment might have been mentioned in an earlier copy of this article. Is that right? If so, can you date it roughly? I'll poke around and see if I can find it, if you think it's there. I do think we need a source. Perhaps a query for the source posted at the Truzzi talk page might find someone who knows what the source is? I'll leave a note there. Mike Christie 00:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

According to this site, the source of the quote is the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sunday June 14, 1998. However, that appears to be incorrect. A search of the Philadelphia Inquirer archives for "Barrientos Marcello Truzzi" comes up empty, as does a search of NewsLibrary.com (Barrientos is the Philadelphia Inquirer reporter who is supposed to have written the article that the above amateur website quotes.

In any case, I maintain that this criticism is of little value and shouldn't be included. Truzzi is merely voicing his opinion that the way to do skepticism is his way, period. A worthwhile criticism should point to something specific that was demonstrably or at least arguably done incorrectly. If this "I don't like CSICOP" comment is included, then one could argue (though I don't) that it should be followed by a "jeepers, CSICOP is swell" comment from some equally notable source. I'm sure a comment of the latter type would be easy to find. KarlBunker 10:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the point and the relevance of the Truzzi quote can be summed up thus: Truzzi founded an organisation to do something (this gives his opinion far greater weight than if it came from some guy) - he then left because he thought the organisation was doing something quite different - the organisation still maintains that it does exactly what Truzzi complains it does not - many others think the same as Truzzi. Truzzi's view is therefore, representative of a very common complaint about CSICOP and since he was a founder member it is hard to think of a better source to cite as an example of this general criticism. For a similarly general piece of praise see the comment in the article about SI being one of the nation's leading anti-fruitcake journals - should that go? Davkal 11:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re the source: I originally got the quote from the Truzzi page - I can't remember if the source was copied into this one (there was much reverting and editing at the time but I will have a look). If I can't find it though there are a good number of others from Truzzi essentially saying the same thing. I should also say that I am happy to have the last part of the quote about moving the goalpost removed since I think the point is made clearly enough in the rest of the quote.Davkal 11:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Truzzi never had those complaints while he was in CSICOP, and didn't leave for that reason. It was only after he was fired as editor. So he might be a "disgruntled former employee". Bubba73 (talk), 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article on Truzzi you can see that the tensions caused by differences regarding this very point were present while he was in CSICOP. It therefore seems fairly reasonable to think that the things Truzzi went on to write about CSICOP expressed something he genuinely believed rather than simply being trouble-making cheap shots. The view is also supported by a number of others both connected with, and not connected with CSICOP (e.g., Richard Kammann, Dennis Rawlins, Archie Roy and numerous others). Given this, I think the/a Truzzi quote would be a good one to choose to illustrate this general complaint, disgruntled ex-employee or no.Davkal 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Truzzi wanted to include pseudoscientists and the committee didn't. Bubba73 (talk), 16:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In my poking around, I found this quote from Martin Gardner:

[Truzzi] wanted our periodical to provide scholarly discussion between skeptics and fringe scientists. He disliked calling anyone a crank. Marcello has always had a friendly, at times admiring, attitude toward pseudoscientists and psychic con artists. He seldom perceives them as any sort of threat to science or to the public.

This reinforces my opinion that Truzzi just had his own idiosyncratic ideas of how skepticism should be "done," and CSICOP didn't do things his way. This also points up why the Truzzi criticism--i.e., his opinion of what he saw as the "attitude" of CSICOP--isn't worth much. There's no way for a reader to evaluate it, because the reader (presumably) doesn't know anything about Truzzi except that he was among the founders of CSICOP. KarlBunker 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary of above discussion

Here's what I take as the main points from the above.

• We don't have a source for this Truzzi statement, or another direct quote with similar meaning.
• The key question seems to be the yardstick by which we evaluate the notability of Truzzi's criticism. The following points have been made:

• He was a co-founder
• His criticism does not "point to something specific that was demonstrably or at least arguably done incorrectly". This seems definitely true. I don't think it establishes non-notability in itself, though.
• Karl also stated "Truzzi is merely voicing his opinion that the way to do skepticism is his way, period." Karl, I don't think I can see how to read his statement that way -- when he says "[CSICOP] tends to block honest inquiry", I think that is a direct criticism. I know you feel it is neither specific nor substantive, but Truzzi is definitely making a negative statement about CSICOP here, whether he's right or not.
• Karl also said "There's no way for a reader to evaluate it, because the reader (presumably) doesn't know anything about Truzzi except that he was among the founders of CSICOP." It's certainly true that more information about Truzzi would help the reader evaluate the statement more accurately.

With the above in mind, here's a proposal.

1. We don't include the Truzzi statement until a source is found, or an alternative suitable quote is provided which does have a source. Although it's good practice to insist on sources, here I am suggesting it just because of the history of controversy in editing this article.
2. With a source, we then include the Truzzi quote. The justification for inclusion is that he was a co-founder of CSICOP, and that fact should be mentioned in the paragraph, as is the case in the draft above. After the quote, we provide a sentence of response giving the essence of Martin Gardner's quote; Karl can provide the source info. This sentence would need some wordsmithing, but it would say something like: "It should be noted that from the founding of CSICOP Truzzi's attitude to (etc.) was different from that of the other founders, and he always wanted the periodical to provide scholarly discussion between skeptics and fringe scientists." This would establish that Truzzi's approach to scepticism was not the same as most of the other founders; Karl has stated above why he feels this is relevant.

Comments? Mike Christie (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing: before we use that quote "They tend to block honest inquiry..." we need to make sure he was talking about CSICOP. Bubba73 (talk), 05:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the above claims are quite extraordinary. This is an article about an organisation called the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of Paranormal. Truzzi is now being maligned for wishing to seriously investigate claims of the paranormal. This view is then contrasted with the views of others in the organisation who (if it is indeed a contrast) must have wished to do something else (perhaps scoff at such claims without serious investigation). And this "argument" is put forward to show that Truzzi's claim that he wished to seriously investigate something that others merely wished to scoff at was nothing more than a general piece of sniping from a disgruntled ex-employee with no real merit to it. Gardner's point, to a significant extent, IS Truzzi's point. You could, for example, paraphrase Gardner as follows: Truzzi was more intereted in seriously investigating paranormal claims than others in the committee. He was reluctant to join them in simple name-calling and didn't appear to despise everyone who challenged scientific orthodoxy. Neither did he share their (paranoid) view that any claim of the paranormal represented a serious threat to science and the public at large. Davkal 07:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, "Truzzi is now being maligned for wishing to seriously investigate..." is a distortion, and the whole paragraph is just a rehash of your opinion of CSICOP, rather than a direct comment on any of the points at issue here. Please try to stay on topic. KarlBunker 11:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly it is not a distortion because Truzzi is being criticised (by you, Bubba and Martin gardner) for wishing to engage in scholarly debate with proponents of the paranormal. I think what this shows is that it is not Truzzi who has the idiosyncratic view of scepticism but CSICOP and it's followers. Truzzi's view, then, given that it is accepted, and appealed to, by Martin Gardner could, I think, be eleveted within the article from a point of view (Truzzi's) to a statement of fact.

And, here is Gardner's quote followed by my take in italics, which I admit is my take:

[Truzzi] wanted our periodical to provide scholarly discussion between skeptics and fringe scientists (Truzzi was interested in scholarly investigation of/debate about the paranormal). He disliked calling anyone a crank (He was reluctant to engage in simple name-calling). Marcello has always had a friendly, at times admiring, attitude toward pseudoscientists and psychic con artists (he appeared not to despise everyone who challenged scientific orthodoxy). He seldom perceives them as any sort of threat to science or to the public (he did not share the paranoid view that science and the public were under serious threat).

Davkal 11:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If we can't find a source for the above quote I would suggest replacing the Truzzi quote with something like this paragraph.

"A common criticism of CSICOP is that, despite their name, they are not genuinely interested in scientifically investigating claims of the paranormal. Co-founder Marcello Truzzi, for example, suggested that the “major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy” whose main focus was to attack the most “publicly visible claimants such as the National Enquirer.” Truzzi even coined the term "pseudoskeptic" to describe the attitude he felt was prevalent within CSICOP"

The quotes and sentiments are a summary of the following paragraph from Truzzi's Reflection on the reception of unconventional claims of science (links to the article can be found in the Truzzi page.

"Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal. I found myself attacked by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the paranormalists. My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries, but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific evidence. I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking the most publicly visible claimants such as the "National Enquirer". The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers."

Davkal 08:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that Truzzi has no credibility on this issue. The above quote reinforces that his approach was fundamentally different from CSICOP's, so of course he would characterize CSICOP's approach as "wrong." However, this general criticism is a common one, so it should be included. I propose a return to an edited form of an earlier version of the article on this count, namely:

On a more general level, CSICOP has been criticized for an overly dogmatic and sometimes arrogant approach based on an a priori conviction that paranormal claims must be false. Astronomer Carl Sagan wrote on this:

This would come after some specific criticisms and be followed by Carl Sagan's mea culpa discussion of arrogance among skeptics (not currently in the article). KarlBunker 11:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My point (Truzzi's point) is that his approach was fundamentally different: that is, Truzzi was a sceptic interested in scientific examination of claims of the paranormal, whereas CSICOP (despite their name) are pseudosceptics with no interest in serious inquiry (scientific or otherwise), preferring instead to mock, scoff and name-call - ever guided by the maxim: "one belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms". This is why I think this point can simply be stated as fact in the article rather than as just Truzzi's view.Davkal 12:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Further evidence that CSICOP has it's fair share of critics can be seen from the following passage (taken from the article from which KB's general criticism is taken):

"Because of its rapid growth and the nature of its subject matter, the organization has received considerable attention--some positive (e.g., Cornell, 1984; Hofstadter, 1982; Meyer, 1986; Otten, 1985; Schultz, 1986; Weisburd, 1991) and some neutral (Wallis, 1985; see also Kurtz, 1985a). But it is not surprising that the Committee has been involved in a number of heated controversies. These produced internal schisms and provoked rebukes from outsiders. A few examples will give a flavor of some of the disputes. In examining the scientific status of CSICOP, sociologists Pinch and Collins (1984) described the Committee as a “scientific-vigilante” organization (p. 539). Commenting on an article in SI, medical professor Louis Lasagna (1984) wrote: “One can almost smell the fiery autos-da-fe of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition” (p. 12). Engineering professor Leonard Lewin (1979) noted that in SI articles “the rhetoric and appeal to emotion seemed rather out of place” (p. 9). Rockwell, Rockwell, and Rockwell (1978b) called CSICOP members “irrational rationalists” (see also Kurtz, 1978b; Rockwell, Rockwell, & Rockwell, 1978a). Sociologist Hans Sebald (1984) described contributors to SI as “combative propagandists” (p. 122). Adams (1987) compared CSICOP with the Cyclops; Robert Anton Wilson (1986) labeled CSICOP the “New Inquisition,” and White (1979) called them “new disciples of scientism.” McConnell (1987) wrote: “I cannot escape the conviction that those who control CSICOP are primarily bent upon the vilification of parapsychology and parapsychologists” (p. 191). Clearly, CSICOP has its share of detractors.

It seems that given these views (many from academics and some from within the scientific community), something far stronger could be said in the criticism section than even I have been suggesting. I therefore think the attempts to remove the the fairly mild claims currently included from highly reputable/involved sources, and replace them with a general "some have said they are a bit dogmatic" claim followed by Sagan's "yes maybe, but that's only because we're right" response would give the reader a rather false view of the actual criticism and it's fairly widespread nature.Davkal 14:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again you're wasting your time, our time, and a lot of space by regaling us with your opinion of CSICOP, inserting a lengthy and irrelevant passage, and by suggesting that your bigoted opinion be inserted into the article as "fact," a proposal that you must know is a non-starter.

To rephrase my point: Truzzi says that CSICOP's approach is unscientific. However, a further investigation of Truzzi indicates that this opinion may be based more on certain preferences of his (such as including pro-paranormal research in the CSICOP magazine), rather than a rational evaluation of CSICOP's approach to science. So we could include Truzzi's opinion and follow it with a counter-opinion that impugns his judgment on this matter, or the opinion could be added as a generality that's described as having been voiced by many. KarlBunker 14:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Truzzi certainly had a different approach. In the book he coauthored (The Blue Sense) he examines most of the major psychic detective and doesn't find any evidence for any of them being real. Yet at the end of the book they say "but there might be real ones out there". Duhhh. Didn't you read your own book? He didn't understand "you can't prove a negative." It is as if he he wanted to test the claim that some people can throw a 150mph fastball. He tests all of the major league baseball pitchers and none of them can top 110. Then he says "there might be someone out there who can." You haven't proven that noone can throw 150mph, but you have shown that until someone shows that they can do it, you can assume that no one can. Truzzi or his coauthor basically says that at one point in the book, but Truzzi didn't live by it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And your point is...? Davkal 16:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A brief summary of Truzzi's book is: "We looked at all of the best evidence for psychic detectives and didn't find any. Nevertheless, there is a good chance that someone out there has psychic powers." That isn't a very scientific attitude. Bubba73 (talk), 20:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several points.

Firstly, Truzzi simply doesn't say "good chance" he says it is possible. Your conclusion is therefore based on a false claim. It also seems likely from Truzzi's article on his book, that you are the one who has misunderstood. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v59/ai_17972605

Secondly, your point has precious litle to do with point under discussion, which is: Truzzi said CSICOP are not interested in serious investigation. If he were the only person in the world making this claim then perhaps a full discussion of Truzzi's other views would be relevant. His view, however, is seemingly supported by numerous others from a variety of academic/scientific backgrounds (such as those cited above).

Thirdly, Martin Gardner quite explicitly admits that Truzzi was at odds with the committee because he wished to engage in scholarly discussion - clearly something CSICOP was not interested in. And it is this very attitude (the refusal to engage in scholarly debate) that the sources I have cited constantly refer to when making the charge. We therefore have a claim by truzzi, supported by numerous academics, and corroborated by CSICOP themselves, to the effect that CSICOP does not engage in, and does not wish to engage in, serious study of the paranormal. It is for this reason that I think the point can be stated in the article as established fact quite irrespective of whatever else Truzzi said or did. Davkal 20:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

At no point in this discussion have I voiced my opinion on CSICOP - I did on the previous discussion page but made clear at the time that I didn't think it should be included in the article per se. What I am doing here (which I don't see as wasting the time of anyone interested in putting together an accurate picture of CSICOP) is putting forward evidence of the extent to which Truzzi's views of CSICOP are supported by many other commentators. This is clearly relevant because you are insisting that Truzzi's views lack credibility and are merely his (alone in the wilderness as it were) opinions. The above passage clearly shows this is not the case. And given that we also have CSICOP members corroborating Truzzi's point (Gardner's quote and Mencken's maxim) it seems that the point about not engaging in serious inquiry but trying to stamp it out could possibly be elevated from the status of mere opinion to the status of established fact. On the point of this suggestion being a non-starter: that is your opinion.Davkal 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Second summarization

I have a couple of comments, followed by a suggestion or two.

First the comments:

• A lot of different criticisms of CSICOP have been quoted, discussed or referred to above. For now, we are trying to decide which, if any, of the criticisms made by Truzzi should be included. We can move on to other criticisms after that, but given that we're not finding it easy to come to a consensus, I think a narrow scope is good. Feel free to disagree, but unless someone does disagree I plan to go ahead with the Truzzi discussion.
• Several criticisms of Truzzi and his views are also to be found above. I believe that if we include a comment of Truzzi's, then we may also agree to add a response, but that it can't be determined yet what the response should be because we don't have a quote yet. So it is premature to try to define that response.

If we agree on the above, then the first job is to pick a quote. Options are:

• The original quote, which we've been unable to source. I'd be willing to go my local university library (a very good one, here in Austin, TX) and do the research to verify the quote in the Philadelphia paper, in case it's there. That might take a week or two for me to get the time, but I'd do it in the end; we'd move to mediating edits of another section while that was pending. Or someone else is welcome to try to locate it. Or, if everyone is agreeable, we can include it without the source information, since I haven't heard anyone deny it's actually a quote from Truzzi. I'd prefer not to do this, but we could if everyone prefers this approach. This also has the disadvantage that the quote refers only to "They"; Bubba73 pointed out above that it should be verified that "They" refers to CSICOP. If we don't have a source we can't check that.
• The quote beginning "Originally I was invited to . . . " which Davkal has included above.
• Any other quote proposed by any of us.

We could just paraphrase rather than quote directly, but we'd still need a source to paraphrase.

If you agree with this reasoning, I'd like to see suggestions for the quote to include. Once we have a candidate quote we can return to the review of whether to include it, and whether a response is needed.

So the alternatives are:

1. Use the current quote, without a source.
2. Search for a source to the current quote, and move to another section (or another paragraph in this section) while waiting for the source to be found
3. Find another, sourceable, Truzzi quote and continue

Comments? Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Knowing what I know, I don't doubt that Truzzi said it. I would like a source, though. And I certainly would like to who "they" are. He makes some comments about CSICOP in his book and he makes some comments about rational skeptics in general, and I'm not sure that the two are tied toegether, except in one case (as far as his book is concerned). He talks about a statement issued by Paul Kurtz on behalf of CSICOP asking police forces to not use psychic detectives. Truzzi (or his coauthor) is critical of that. I think that's the gist of it, without looking it up exactly. Bubba73 (talk), 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is still that Truzzi should be dropped and the general criticism retained, as I described above. KarlBunker 10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but if that is to be the consensus, I think we're only going to get there by picking a specific quote and examining its merits. If someone proposes a quote we can have that conversation; if not we can move on. Mike Christie (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, I think the problem is that Davkal wants the article to embrace Truzzi's view. Both seem to view "honest inquiry" as a synonym of "agnostic toward claims of the paranormal", which it definitely isn't. Equating both is an opinion of Truzzi's, with which the rest of CSICOP does not necessarily agree. So:

• Davkal wants the article to embrace Truzzi's view, which he regards as unarguable truth.
• NPOV, on the other hand, would demand that the article says that Truzzi and the remaining CSICOP had different views of how they wanted to do skepticism, and not that Truzzi found CSICOP was doing it wrong.
• As I see it (and I guess Karl and Bubba do too - right?), Truzzi intolerantly demanded that skepticism be done his way, and quit when he couldn't convince the others. It is not a matter of course that you have to be agnostic to do science, though there are many who believe it is, such as Truzzi and Davkal. I think that Truzzi's way is one feasible way of doing it, and CSICOP's way is another. I don't think one of them is a priori right and the other a priori wrong. (I prefer CSICOP's methods though.)

But those are just my impressions. Davkal, am I right with my hypothesis? And when Karl or Bubba seem to "detract" from Truzzi, they just want to show that Truzzi is not an absolute source of truth regarding philosophy of science, right?

Hopefully, this will remove an obstacle by clearing up misunderstandings. If not, please excuse me for intruding.

And I think a Truzzi quote needs to be included; if not this one, then another. --Hob Gadling 13:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hob, I think that's an excellent analysis, and the phrase "agnostic toward claims of the paranormal" is a nice insight. The only problem I have is that I think you express Truzzi's attitude better and more rationally than he ever did himself. The quotes we've seen from him are more along the lines of "they don't do science right, they cheat, they're a bunch of meanies." KarlBunker 13:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Thanks, but the phrase is not mine, it's Truzzi's. "They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them" is one of the Truzzi quotes discussed. --Hob Gadling 15:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hob, of course you're not intruding; glad to have another voice in the debate. I don't know if you've been following this article; there has been a good deal of difficulty getting to consensus here, and I'm here as a mediator to try to help. Because of the difficulties we've had, I've suggested we keep the scope pretty narrow for now. I think the next step is to locate a Truzzi quote that is acceptable to those who want to include Truzzi's viewpoint, and debate the inclusion of that quote. At this point we don't have a sourced quote of Truzzi's that has been agreed by Davkal (and anyone else who wishes to include Truzzi's viewpoint) to be suitable, so we're looking for one. If we can't find one, we'll move on to the rest of the criticism section. Anyway, thanks for joining the discussion, and I hope you stick around to participate in the debate and help us get to consensus. Mike Christie (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading a good deal of the discussion. I don't know if I can stick around, but I'll try. --Hob Gadling 15:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Askolnick, Hob Gadling, and KarlBunker have said. Last night I found a good thing about Truzzi's differing version of skepticism (there are philisopical terms for it) and I plan to add it to his article today. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to Hob Gadling's characterisation of my views: I am not trying to equate "honest inquiry" with "agnosticism towards claims of the paranormal". I am pointing out that Truzzi said CSICOP were not interested in serious investigation/honest inquiry; I am then pointing out that this view/charge finds support amongst numerous other academics who have studied the matter (CSICOP rather than the paranormal being the matter here),; and finally I have pointed out that CSICOP itself (in the form of Martin Gardner) has admitted this point inasmuch as he seems to regard scholarly discussion/debate as a quite extraordinary demand. And the point of all of this is that something like the claim: CSICOP does not engage in serious investigation of claims of the paranormal, and is not interested in serious investigation of such claims, and is more interested in simply presenting the views of orthodox science antecedent ot inquiry to various media organisations, is an accepted fact. This has importance for both the criticism and the activities section because the article still reads a bit, and KB's version reads a lot, like CSICOP are an organisation primarily involved in conducting and promoting serious research into claims of the paranormal when they are, in fact, nothing of the kind.Davkal 07:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, fine. So, since Bubba and Karl agreed with me, we were all misled by your writings into ascribing to you a position you do not hold. Now that's cleared up. (As an aside, maybe you should rethink your ways of formulation.)

Now we can sum up the discrepancies between Truzzi's and CSICOP's form of skepticism, as Truzzi sees them, in a few different points that may be, or may be not, independent of each other:

1. Scholarly discussion between skeptics and fringe scientists within one magazine.

   Skeptical Inquirer does do this to a certain amount by regularly printing very critical letters from readers and responding to them. But scholarly discussion can happen between different magazines too, and there is no need to join both sides in the same magazine.

   Judging from the quality of many papers from paranormalists, a scholarly discussion will be difficult if the magazine has any quality standard. Thus, it is understandable if Gardner regards "scholarly discussion/debate [within the same magazine, as you forgot to mention] as a quite extraordinary demand", since it involves publishing a load of garbage. I did read some issues of a magazine from Truzzi's brand of skepticism, and it was pretty bad in that regard. I would not want to regularly read that.

2. Agnosticism toward claims of the paranormal.

   CSICOP does indeed not seem to require this. Contributors can be agnostic, but don't have to be. I think that's a good thing. Restrictions regarding opinions are not good for science.

3. "Honest inquiry".

   The claim that CSICOP does not do this (thus, they are dishonest) is a malevolent slur. In my opinion, it is also untrue.(*)

4. "Serious investigation".

   Sounds very vague. What could it mean? It seems to me as if CSICOP does this. At least, it publishes papers from people doing it.

5. Not "simply presenting the views of orthodox science antecedent [of] inquiry".

   This may be Davkal's invention and have nothing to do with Truzzi. Here, I am baffled. Did you ever read any issue of Skeptical Inquirer? I can't remember any article that just presents views of science, orthodox or not. There is always reasoning involved, and there is inquiry involved. Maybe you would, for some reason, like the inquiry to take another form, but that's far removed from the claim that CSICOP does not do any.

6. "Conducting and promoting serious research into claims of the paranormal".

   Again, it looks to me as if CSICOP does this. It also discourages dubious (as opposed to serious) research into claims of the paranormal. But you call it a "fact" that CSICOP doesn't do it. Again, I am baffled. Did you ever read any issue of Skeptical Inquirer?

Can we agree that we handle the first two discrepancies as factual differences, the next two as Truzzi's opinion, and ignore the last two?

(*) Note that I mark my opinions as opinions instead of calling them "facts". This technique helps a lot when seeking understanding with others who don't share one's opinions. --Hob Gadling 10:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As regards the six points above I could provide reputable academic/scientific sources (in many cases have provided such sources) to back up any of the claims made so none of them are stricly apeaking my opinion only. For example, the "do not want to engage in honest inquiry" charge has been made on numerous occassions by, for exampl, Truzzi, Rawlins, Brian Josephson, Archie Roy (all scientists), Richard Milton (journalists), many of those cited in quote from George Hanson above, etc. etc. etc. The only point I am trying to claim is fact: is that CSICOP has never really engaged in serious scientific study of claims of the paranormal preferring instead to conduct informal "investigations", or no real investigation at all, and to desseminate their views to various media organisations. Perhaps this claim is too strong - but I also think that the number of articles (particluarly from CSICOP members) published in SI that could conceivably be published in peer review scientific journals could be counted on the fingers of one (grey alien) hand. Davkal 14:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but Davkal, your opinion here is absolutely irrelevant. You are NOT allowed to go sticking your opinions in Wiki articles. Nor do you get to decide which opinion should be regarded as "fact." And that's not my opinion. That's a fact.Askolnick 03:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmn, this is a real tricky one - an escape act worthy of Houdini would appear to be called for to slip from the clutches of yet another incisive Asholnick criticism. How shall I go about it? If you read what I have actualy written, you will see that I take great pains to say that these are not merely my opinions. That is, I say that they can all be backed up (have already been backed up) with quotes from numerous sources. So the point you are making turns out to be no point at all. Now there's a fact! Davkal 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh (sound of my tank of patience running on empty). It matters not that you can "back up" your opinions. Your opinions DO NOT belong in any Wiki article. No matter what you think of your importance here, you are only an editor and editors are NOT ALLOWED to stick their opinions into Wiki articles. It would be better for your credibility if you kept your opinions more to yourself. You're only hurting your ability to persuade others by constantly claiming your opinions should prevail because they are true or that you can back them up. Pay careful attention to this: Opinions of Wiki editors are NOT relevant. And they do NOT belong in Wiki articles. Askolnick 15:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This, I think, amply demonstrates your failure to understand almost anything. Pay careful attention to this: anything can be characterised as an opinion: for example, it is my (it is many people's) sincerely held opinion that the world is round. This does not mean that we cannot include such facts in Wiki. The issue of "backing-up" by reference to reputable sourced material being the key. And since at every stage at which I have asked for something to be included in the article I have provided such sources in line with Wiki policy means that my opinions in such cases are perfectly valid candidates for inclusion in Wiki. Davkal 16:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to shorten this process

With the possible/apparent addition of Askolnick and Hob Gadling to this discussion, we have an apparent mix of 4 "goats" (skeptics) versus 1 "sheep"(believer/non-skeptic). As much fun as I'm sure it would be to keep this debate grinding along at its current glacial pace, perhaps we can shorten the process.

I propose we switch our starting point from the current article version to this one (diff with current version here), which is more pro-CSICOP, and therefore likely to be closer to what the majority here ultimately accept. Comments?

KarlBunker 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If everyone agrees no further mediation is needed, then I'll mark the mediation as closed and y'all can carry on. I don't know if Davkal, for example, would prefer me to stay involved.

Regardless of whether I stay or not, though, I'd like to suggest that this and this section of the consensus policy are worth a read. I think if we go with a majoritarian attitude, more edit wars are likely. I don't believe a mediated version has to be a worse version; it should be the best possible version. So I'm happy to stay and try to help if you want me to. Mike Christie (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the mediation needs to continue since Karl's suggested shortening process consists of simply reverting to his version and then belligerently reverting any changes since he now has (he thinks - who knows who's waiting in the wings) the majority in his favour. It is also important to note that four or five contributers can just as easily be biased as one or two and so the idea that this will automatically lead to a good version is clearly flawed. I can see no way that this will not simply end up with another edit war.Davkal 07:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mike and Davkal in this point - that would not be a permanent solution. Mike's mediation has a good effect on the process. I think we are coming closer to a solution. --Hob Gadling 10:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing that mediation be ended, only that we consider a possible option for leap-frogging past a lot of debate by changing the "starting point" for the mediated debate and edits. KarlBunker 11:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If on this article I am considered a skeptic, then I could drop out. By the way, I have also recently been considered a supporter of the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lanka government, a creationist and (impressively) the founder of a new religious movement. Addhoc 11:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your input on this page has been valuable Addhoc, be you sceptic, believer, religious visionary or otherwiseDavkal 11:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Re KB's point: I disagree - I think, for example, that we have pretty much reached the agreement that Truzzi's quote (or something like it) should be included (Mike, Hob, Davkal). Given that this passage is missing from KB's version - and we already have a new title and opening paragraph for the criticism section agreed by mediation, I think that reverting to this previous version would be a backwards step. Davkal 11:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

?!? No one proposed that anyone drop out, and no one suggested that anyone drop out because of their skeptic/non-skeptic position, and no one characterized you (Addhoc) as a skeptic. KarlBunker 11:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of characterisation: I agree entirely with KB's description of himself as a goat.Davkal 12:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how starting from another version would shorten anything. We are talking about the criticism section only, right? Regarding the differences between the versions Karl suggested, I think

• the title should be "Controversy and criticism", as suggested before.
• The "Psi-Cop" thing does not belong in the criticism section. What's wrong with cops? But it should be mentioned. I'd put it either into the introduction or in a trivia section.
• Truzzi needs to be mentioned and quoted, as in the newer version.
• The Mars Effect brouhaha needs to be dated, as in the older version, but more exactly (to 1979). [1] says: "WINTER 1979-80 (vol. 4, no. 2): The `Mars effect'--articles by Kurtz, Zelen, and Abell; Rawlins; Michel and Francoise Gauquelin." That is the oldest issue that mentions the subject, and the Kurtz-Zelen-Abell article is the one in question.

Whatever we arrive at, we can copy the paragraph from a version close to it. --Hob Gadling 12:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above. I think "Controversy and Criticism" is a good title for the section. I think "psi-cops" could be put in the introduction as it is really a piece of trivia. I agree on Truzzi. The only thing I would disagree with is the dating to '79, since much of the controversy was taking place prior to this. I am conscious, though, that some have argued against extending the Mars-effect paragraph at all, nonetheless I think the article would benefit if, as I did in a previous version, this was given a subsection within the criticism section and a slightly fuller account was given. Davkal 12:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't be able to make any significant edits till this evening (US CDT). I'd suggest that we skip Truzzi for now until we get a quote to look at. If someone wants to tee up a discussion of the next part of the Criticism section, there's no reason to wait for me, but I'll do that if nobody has done so by the time I get back to the keyboard. I agree on the title of the section. Mike Christie (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Before 1979? So, is it 1976, 1977 or 1978? (Before that, CSICOP did not exist.) Is there a reference?

We could also expand the Mars effect article instead, which has recently been labeled as confusing anyway. --Hob Gadling 14:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to follow the original material on the Mars Effect, and it is very confusing too. Bubba73 (talk), 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Re the dates: I know some here do not like to think of Rawlins as a reliable source, but I don't think it should be too controversial to accept the dates he gives for the basics relating to CSICOP's involvement in the mars-effect controversy. There is a link in the main article to Rawlins' Starbaby where details are given which suggest CSICOP were involved since their inception in 76. Davkal 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Mars effect

Let's move on to the Mars effect, but first a couple of notes:

• We haven't finished the Truzzi discussion, but I'm going to put it on the back burner till we get a sourced quote. If we don't have one by the time we're done with the article, we'll delete it.
• I went ahead and changed the section title to "Controversy and Criticism" per the discussion above; I really should have done this on the first edit I made.
• An editor, CronoDAS (talk · contribs), recently made some changes to the criticism section; you can see the diffs here, in case anyone didn't notice. I don't propose we worry about other editors changing the article, unless it significantly modifies text we've agreed on here.

With regard to the Mars effect, here are the two versions from Karl's useful diff. First Karl's version (I'm eliminating the references from these as unnecessary for immediate discussion of the text; we'll be looking at sourcing all of this as we go):

Early in its history, CSICOP conducted an analysis of French statistician Michel Gauquelin’s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky - the so-called Mars effect. Founder member Dennis Rawlins claimed that other CSICOP researchers used incorrect statistics, faulty science and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. In an article in Fate magazine, Rawlins concluded: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism." CSICOP's Philip Klass investigated Rawlins' claims and wrote a lengthy article in rebuttal.

And here's Davkal's version:

Perhaps the most serious internal criticism concerned CSICOP's analysis of French statistician Michel Gauquelin’s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky - the so-called Mars effect. Founder member Dennis Rawlins claimed that other CSICOP researchers used incorrect statistics, faulty science and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. The controversy lasted for nearly five years before Rawlins went public with his version of events in an article for Fate magazine. In the article Rawlins accused CSICOP of a cover-up at the highest levels and concluded: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism." CSICOP's Philip Klass investigated Rawlins' claims and wrote a lengthy article in rebuttal. Klass' response caused further division, however, and was described as "a disgrace" by CSICOP fellow Richard Kammann who, like Rawlins, left the organisation shortly after.

Here are the key points of difference:

• Karl points out this was early in CSICOP's history; I think (per earlier discussions) that this point need not be made if the date is given.
• Davkal version comments that this was perhaps "the most serious internal criticism". It is legitimate within an article like this to assess the general seriousness of criticisms. I suggest we defer this point till we've agreed on a characterization of the criticism, since that will help us decide the seriousness.
• Davkal refers to the controversy lasting for nearly five years. If we include the date of the Fate article, presumably this would be evident and the comment would not be needed. We'd likely use some phrase such as "eventually published in 1984" to signal the timelag to the reader.
• Rawlins' accusation of a "cover-up" is not in Karl's version. We'd need a source for this. With a source, what objections would there still be?
• The final sentence in Davkal's version is missing from Karl's. It says three things: Klass's response caused further division; it gives Richard Kammann's opinion of Klass's response; and it mentions that Kammann subsequently left CSICOP. What are the pros and cons of including these points?

In addition, Karl has indicated above that he thinks Fate to be an unreliable source. I think it's a reliable source for Rawlins' words, since it is only Rawlins' words that are at issue here. However, we could also debate whether the nature of the magazine is relevant to a reader who needs to form an opinion of Rawlins and his comments.

That's plenty to be going on with. In the interests of trying to move a little faster, I suggest we attack this paragraph as a whole, rather than sentence by sentence. If that doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere, I'll try taking a piece at a time.

Comments? Mike Christie (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

By an odd coincidence, I like my version better.  :-)

• I like "early in their history", because it's clear that at least some of the problems with this investigation had to do with the inexperience of the people involved and of CSICOP as an organization.
• "The controversy lasted for nearly five years before Rawlins went public..." needs to go. It has no real meaning, inasmuch as any "controversy" lasts for as long as someone somewhere considers that thing controversial. But the phrase suggests that there was some raging, ongoing debate for 5 years.
• I don't know of any factual errors in the current version, but it needs to be shorter. This is a short article, and the amount of criticism in it is out of proportion, and gives the article a bias against CSICOP. The article doesn't give synopses of any of the thousands of experiments and investigations that CSICOP has conducted or published which were unmitigated successes, doesn't mention any particulars of the countless quacks, charlatans, con artists, psychic surgeons, etc., etc., that have been exposed by CSICOP. For a correct and fair balance, the coverage of the Mars effect in "my" version of the article should be considered the absolute maximum in length and in playing up the negative reflection on CSICOP. KarlBunker 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving on vacation for a week, and I'm going to a place free of Internet and computers, so y'all are going to have to make do without scintillating presence 7 or 8 days. I look forward to seeing what you come up with in my absence. KarlBunker 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Rawlins' accusation of a "cover-up" is not in Karl's version". I don't know what cover-up there was. There are more pages on the Mars Effect in Skeptical Inquirer than I care to read (but I have read the bulk of it). Gauquelin was given several pages to respond. Rawlings was given several pages to respond. IIRC, Rawlings was given three pages and a certain amount of time. He asked for more pages, so they gave him six. He asked for more time and that was granted too. Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Re KB's points: if you can find sources that suggest that the errors were due to inexperienced researchers then this point could perhaps be made, however, I don't think such sources exist.

The "controversy lasted for nearly five years before Rawlins went public with his version of events" is not meaningless at `all but means, unsurprisingly, that the controversy lasted for nearly five years before Rawlins went public with his version of events. The reason for including this claim is that the controversy lasted for nearly five years before Rawlins went public with his version of events. (See, for example, Rawlins, Kammann, Hanson on this topic.)

The shortness argument doesn't really work since the paragraphs are not that different in length. Also, the claim that KB's paragraph should be considered the absolute maximum length for this topic so as not to over-balance the article has been arrived at by means unknown. KB is also free to request inclusion of some of the actvities he feels are not mentioned in the activities section if he is able to show that such activities have taken place rather than merely claiming that they have. (See the last sentence of Hanson's paragraph below - a no research policy instituted after it's first piece of research descended into chaos casts some doubt on the idea that thousand of experiments could have been conducted.)Davkal 09:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Bubba's points on the cover up: Rawlins did accuse CSICOP of a cover up in his article Starbaby. In Hanson's article this is referred to as Rawlins accusing CSICOP of a "Watergate-style cover-up" (see below). And when CSICOP fellow Richard Kammann investigated Rawlins' claims he agreed with virtually every complaint Rawlins made including the fact that there had been a cover-up.

The following is a paragraph from Hanson's article on CSICOP - it includes the cover-up charge and the resignations (something else I think should be included as per a previous version).

Dennis Rawlins, an astronomer and member of the Executive Council of CSICOP, conducted the detailed calculations and data analysis for the project. He began noticing severe problems: The results were supporting the case for an astrological influence of Mars on sports ability, much to the consternation of the investigators. Rawlins tried to bring this to the attention of other Committee members. This lead to a bitter dispute, with Rawlins charging that serious mistakes had been made and that Kurtz had undertaken a Watergate-style cover-up. Rawlins (1981) was forced out of CSICOP, and he published an expose in Fate. There was no real answer to the charge of a cover-up, and much was published about it in Zetetic Scholar. The upshot was that several of the more moderate people resigned from the Committee. Rawlins’s article appeared in the October 1981 issue of Fate, and that same month CSICOP instituted a policy of not conducting research itself (“Policy on Sponsoring,” 1982). Davkal 08:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had a couple of tries at drafting a revised paragraph and am running up against my lack of detailed knowledge of the controversy. I've looked at a couple of sources, and it appears that the controversy predates CSICOP's formation. Is it also the case that although individual CSICOP members were involved prior to 1979, there was no formal involvement by CSICOP itself prior to the article in Skeptical Inquirer in 1979? Or was there some resolution by CSICOP to investigate the claim? I think this is an important distinction to make. The comment that "controversy lasted for nearly five years before Rawlins went public" would be read differently depending on this, though I'm aware of the difficulty of drawing a clear line between the actions of CSICOP and the actions of its members. Mike Christie (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right Mike, the Mars Effect controversy started before CSICOP even existed. Here is a brief chronology of the Mars Effect. Bubba73 (talk), 20:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's an attempted compressed chronology, with a couple of questions in parentheses/italics.

In 1976, Rawlins began to investigate the Mars Effect. (On his own initiative, or as an agreed CSICOP investigation?)' His analysis supported the Mars Effect; a dispute followed (Where? Verbally, or in the pages of the Skeptical Inquirer?) He leaves CSICOP (When? Was he forced out or did he resign?) In 1981 he writes an article for Fate making the charges listed above.

I've omitted the rebuttal by Klass, for now; we can come back to that. Overall the Mars Effect controversy does seem worth mentioning, since as with Truzzi, Rawlins is a senior member -- a member of the Executive Council, at least, per comments above, though I've no idea whether that really makes him senior. In any case it does appear to be insider criticism and so is noteworthy. Can anyone fill in some of the blanks I've left above, with sources? Mike Christie (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is quite what you are looking for, but it has a lot of important information. (see: "In the process Zelen et al.'s mildly critical comment on the results of the Zelen test was transmogrified into an urban legend about a major coverup by dastardly CSICOP") Bubba73 (talk), 21:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If one reads Richard Kammann's account of the controversy http://www.discord.org/~lippard/kammann.html, one might easily argue that the description of the way the controversy arose as "Zelen et al.'s mildly critical comment on the results of the Zelen test" as suggested in the article referred to by Bubba (published in SI in 1997), straightforwardly shows that CSICOP has continued it's cover-up for over 20 years. Here, for example, is CSICOP fellow Kammann's summary of the first section of his article:

"Faced with unfaultable evidence of a connection between the position of planet Mars at birth and success in sports, skeptical Professors Paul Kurtz, George Abell and Marvin Zelen repeatedly offered fallacious statistics to deny astrology's only ray of hope. Focusing only on a small section of the Mars data, deleting the favorable results for females, dividing the sub-sample into tiny bits and applying the wrong statistical tests, the trio still could not get rid of the Mars effect. They ultimately argued that it was based on faulty data, due either to incompetence or cheating by Michel Gauquelin of France, who produced the original finding." Davkal 23:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a list of items about the Mars Effect in SI here. Therear many responses by Galequin, Rawlings, and Ettel (sp?). How many responses to Rawlings did Fate publish? Bubba73 (talk), 23:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Draft paragraph

Here's a draft paragraph. I offer this with a reminder that I am here as a mediator; I have no brief for either side in this debate. If this appears to be biased to one side or the other, please give me the benefit of the doubt since I know less than y'all about the history of this debate. I have no particular investment in this version, but I thought a new draft might be a productive way to move us forward. Here it is:

An early criticism concerned the so-called Mars effect: French statistician Michel Gauquelin’s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky. In late 1975, prior to the formal launch of CSICOP, Dennis Rawlins, an astronomer, began some investigation of the claim, in correspondence with other members. Rawlins later became a founder member of CSICOP when it was formed in May 1976, but resigned in early 1980, claiming in Fate magazine that other CSICOP researchers used incorrect statistics, faulty science and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. He wrote: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism." CSICOP's Philip Klass wrote a detailed rebuttal, which Fate refused to publish; the rebuttal itself became a target for criticism.

Notes:

• I've left in "early"; this does seem relevant since the investigation by Rawlins predates the official formation of CSICOP.
• I've expanded the description of Rawlins' involvement, giving dates; this seems important since it establishes that Rawlins involvement with the analysis was not strictly in his capacity as CSICOP member. I also think it is important to mention that he was a founder. I'd like to shorten this but don't see how to wordsmith it without losing information.
• I've left the sentences about his claim, and the quote, more or less as they were in both Davkal's and Karl's version.
• The final sentence is an attempted compromise. The important point seems to be that CSICOP provided a rebuttal, but that this did not satisfy the critics (hardly surprising). I think this needs less emphasis than Rawlins' original comments since a reader will not generally assume that the criticisms have been resolved.
• I've eliminated the reference to a cover-up. I'm on the fence on this, but I have taken it out of this version because Rawlins' other claims are strongly worded. I could go either way on this one.

I've included no source references. When we reach agreement on wording we can establish the references then.

Comments, please -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very good. Addhoc 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks OK to me, but I think we should wait until KarlBunker gets back to look at it. I would also like Hob to look at it, since he seems most familiar with the Mars Effect. It might be mentioned that the whole controversy is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Zeller test. There are a couple of errors: (1) "Rawlins later became a founder member " founder" -> "founding", it is Philip J. Klass, not Philip Klass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba73 (talk • contribs)

A few points. It may be better to start with "An early controversy" rather than "an early crticism". I think that the resignations of other members could be addressed. I think it is euphemistic, to say the least, to call Klass' response a "detailed rebuttal" since, as CSICOP fellow Kammann (with no prior axe to grind) says, ""Crybaby" was written by Councilor Philip Klass. Although it offered to refute the cover-up charge, it ignored practically every specific point that Rawlins had made. Instead it offered blatant ad hominem attack on Rawlins' motives and personality, bolstered with rhetorical ploys-including crude mis-quotation." I don't think it is relevant to the issue at hand (some other issue maybe) whether Fate published Klass' response or not. I think the stuff about founding member etc. could be rewritten slightly.

I would therefore suggest the following paragraph:

An early controversy, which resulted in a number of resignations from CSICOP, concerned the so-called Mars effect: French statistician Michel Gauquelin’s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky. In late 1975, prior to the formal launch of CSICOP, astronomer Dennis Rawlins along with Paul Kurtz, George Abel and Marvin Zelen (all subsequent members of CSICOP) began investigating the claim. Rawlins, a founding member of CSICOP at its launch in May 1976, resigned in early 1980 claiming that other CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. In an article for Fate magazine he wrote: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism." CSICOP's Philip Klass responded with an article fiercely critical of Rawlins, his claims and his motives; the response itself became a target for further internal criticism.

Re Bubba's point that "It might be mentioned that the whole controversy is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Zeller test". Not according to, Rawlins, Kammann, Truzzi & Hanson - according to all of these commentators the controversy was caused by deliberate fiddling ("statistical numerology" as Kammann calls it) by Kurtz, Abel and Zelen, followed by a cover-up when Rawlins repeatedly tried to point this out internally.

Davkal 08:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there are enough differences here for this to be taken piece-by-piece, rather than doing the whole paragraph in one go, as I tried to do. So here are the two differences on the first sentence:

• "an early criticism" or "an early controversy". I don't see a strong POV in either one; if Davkal prefers the latter that works for me.
• "which resulted in a number of resignations from CSICOP"; Davkal, this is text that was not in the version in Karl's diff, so there may be some resistance to adding this. Do you feel it is really necessary? We do already have a link to the Mars effect, which should cover this in more detail, so I'm not sure we need to recap very much of the controversy. I can understand that the resignation of multiple CSICOP members is of interest to the reader trying to assess this. I should also add that we would need to source this; the resignations can be sourced, I assume, but we'd also need to source that they resulted from the Mars effect controversy -- can that be done?

Comments on the above two points? Let's stick to just those two for now; in the interests of speed and brevity. (By the way, I agree we should wait for Karl's return before editing the page; however, I hope we can have a draft of this paragraph by then, and be working on the next one.) Mike Christie (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Re a source, this is taken from the section in Hanson's article: "The upshot was that several of the more moderate people resigned from the Committee." The full paragraph from Hanson is quoted just before the first draft paragraph above. I think that we don't need to go into detail about who exactly resigned, but I think it is informative and important to note that there were resignations inasmuch as it gives a better idea of the extent of the internal controversy. Davkal 07:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree that saying there was controversy, which resulted in resignations, is more interesting than just indicating there was some criticism. Addhoc 17:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"An early controversy" is fine with me. The addition regarding "a number of resignations" isn't. This addition serves to make the incident reflect more negatively on CSICOP. If the article were to go into greater detail on the whole Mars Effect issue, it could easily include bits of information that reflect positively on CSICOP, or (probably more easily) negatively on Rawlins, Kammann, and whoever else may have taken the anti-CSICOP side, and that would bring the paragraph closer to neutrality. But this isn't the Mars Effect article, and the issue gets enough coverage in Mike's version of the paragraph.

Overall, Mike's draft of the paragraph, with the corrections mentioned by Bubba73, is fine. KarlBunker 05:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The number of resignations point should be included simply becasue there were a number of resignations. If this reflects negatively on CSICOP then so be it. The fact that a claim or two could be found from CSICOP members slating Rawlins or Kammann is neither here nor there - these would be simply claims (which may or may not have any basis in fact) as opposed to the resignations claim that has a very sound basis in fact on account of it being a fact.Davkal 10:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that KB knows in advance that negative information can be found on anyone who takes an "anti-CSICOP" line. Perhaps this is because it's a well known CSICOP tactic to simply smear anyone who disagrees with them (in a rigorously scientific manner of course). And perhaps that oft-made criticism should also be included in the section.Davkal 10:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that Askolnick has made a few changes to the article. Fisrtly, I think the response re the Demkina case goes into too much detail without any explanation of what the detail means (and an explanation would take us beyond the scope of the article). Secondly, the response doesn't really address the criticisms of Josephson et al: i.e, that the whole testing of Demkina was an excercise in pseudoscience (e.g, Keith Rennoll described the "experiment" as "woefully inadequate in many ways" and noted that CSICOP's analysis of the results demonstrated "a complete lack of understanding of how experimental data should be interpreted statistically".

This brings me to Askolnick's second edit - that CSICOP awarded it's critical thinking award to the participants in the Demkina fiasco. Perhaps that claim would be better placed in the criticism section. I suggest the following: "despite their experiment being described as "woefuly inadequate" and their interpretation of the results betraying "a complete lack of understanding of how experimental data should be interpreted statistically", CSICOP awarded the Robert P. Balles Annual Prize in Critical Thinking to Demkina's testers!".Davkal 17:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also reverted Askolnick's changes because he has been involved in the mediation process (see above), and there was an agreement from all involved in this process that changes would not be made by the participants prior to the discussion here (it was this agreement that allowed the article to be unlocked).Davkal 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Davkal, but I never agreed to stop correcting false information in this article. You reverted my corrections. Why? Do you prefer the incorrect information? It is wrong to say that the P value decision was Ray Hyman's. It was a decision made by all three of the researchers, NOT just one. It says that the test used a cut-off P value of .01. That's not true. Please read what Hyman reported. It was approximately 0.02. Hyman's article explains that the use of P values below 0.05 is common among paranormal researchers - which is contrary to what Josephson falsely argues. You took that out too. Why? Are you trying to give the article a POV favoring Josephson's argument that is not supported by the facts? I don't understand why you would do this. Josephson's principal argument in his defamatory attack is that the researchers did not use the proper P value because they were out to trick Demkina and set her up for failure. Anyone who read Hyman's articles, anyone who read Wikipedia's articles on Bayesian inference and on statistics, or anyone familar with paranormal research, should know that that Josephson's accusation is untrue. For example, J.B. Rhine, the pioneer of paranormal research, used P values more than an order of magnitude lower than was used in the CSMMH-CSICOP test!

Also, Davakal, I am mystified why you would take out the identify of the work that was awarded the Robert P. Balles Annual Prize. You call what I added a "claim." It is not a claim. It is a fact on the record. And you claim that the work does not deserve the award. Fortunately, that's not for you to decide. Nor is it for you to decide that readers may not know for what the award was given. Askolnick 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally, Rennolls' (not "Rennoll) comment were not based on our reports, which he had not read. They were based on Josephson's mischaracterization of the test and an off-the-cuff statement Wiseman made to Times Higher Education reporter. The Times Higher Education article did not go into details of the test, nor did it explain the statistics behind it. Rennolls' judgement was based solely on his reading of Josephson's personal attack. That is not at all how scientific disputes are supposed to be conducted. Askolnick 18:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Asholnick, I am not trying to prevent true information appearing the article. If the points you make re the facts are true then of course they should go in (e.g. 0.1 rather than 0.2). However, more has been added than just a few facts and given that the article is under mediation no non-minor edits should really be made to the section (criticism) which is under discussion. I will, however, leave your edits be for the time being since the para on Demkina is due up for discussion next and so your points can be discussed then.

I am not suggesting that you (or the others who won the Robert P. Balls Annual Prize) didn't deserve it - I am pointing out that the prize is an internal piece of CSICOP back-slapping nonsense. How can we be expected to think that the award amounts to much when an organisation just gives it to it's own members for a heavily criticised and obviously flawed piece of pseudoscience. It is simply another example of the kind of pseudo-everything that CSICOP gets up to from it's misnomer of a name to its calling its members "fellows".

As for the point about this not being the way scientific disputes are settled - this is irrelevant since no science took place at all. Normal science has properly designed experiments rather than contracts and challenges; normal science is not conducted on television or by press-conference/release; and, as many here keep pointing out, normal scientists publish their work in peer review journals rather than general interest publications: the experiment to test Demkina, then, indeed CSICOP as an organisation, bearing many of the hallmarks of pseudoscience.

And since were in the mood for picking up on typos, there should be a second quotation mark after Rennolls' name in your response.Davkal 19:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dakval, you say you are not trying to prevent true information appearing in the article. But that's exactly what you did when you restored the false information after I corrected it. And you are wrong to mischaracterize my corrections as "more than just a few facts." They were simple facts that are in the sources that were already cited. And now you call the Demkina test "a heavily criticised and obviously flawed piece of pseudoscience." And you falsely claim that Robert P. Balles (not Balls) Annual Prize is "back-slapping nonsense" because it's an award that CSICOP gives to its own members. In the future, please check the facts before you post any more statements like this. The Robert P. Balles Annual Prize is given by Robert P. Balles. He is the judge who makes the final selection. He was the one who chose the prize winner from the three nominated selections, only one of which was written by CSICOP-affiliated authors.

You say, "I am not suggesting that you (or the others who won the Robert P. Balles Annual Prize) didn't deserve it." Oh, please! That's exactly what you did when you suggested adding a statement to the article saying that our work "betrayed a complete lack of understanding of how experimental data should be interpreted statistically."

What is "irrelevant" is your opinion of what is and is not science. You declare here that the Demkina test is not science. I'd like to know how many articles you've published in peer-reviewed journals. Together, the three researchers who designed and conducted the Demkina test have published many hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed journals. How many have you published? By what should we measure the value of your opinion as to what is and is not science? But more importantly, your opinion is no more relevant here than is the cost of Turkish taffy in Timbuktu. You are NOT allowed to insert you opinions in Wiki articles. You keep claiming that your opinions are facts. As far as I can tell, nobody here is buying that assertion. Askolnick 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I reverted the stuff and then left it in pending discussion here - it has also not been demonstrated to be true yet as only you have claimed that it is.

2. I never claimed that CSICOP had a million dollar prize - I think you must have had a vision.

3. Re the Robert Balls prize not being a CSICOP award: The article says "CSICOP awards the Robert P Balles prize, and CSICOP's website says "Each year CSICOP is to select the paper, article, book, or other publication that in its judgment has the greatest potential to create positive reader awareness of currently important scientific concerns." And Balles is a member of CSICOP anyway. Dear oh dear oh dear.

4. I am genuinely not suggesting that you didn't deserve the prize. I think you did deserve it. My point is that the prize itself is meaningless nonsense so it's only fitting that it should be awarded for exactly that.

5. At no point have I tried to insert merely my opinions or have I stated that merely my opinions were fact (another vision perhaps). On the contrary I have provided copious sources for everything I have asked to be included.

6. As regards nobody buying my arguments. Look harder mate! Many changes - many more!

7. As regards the number of peer review papers I have published. Don't flash your credentials at me sir. How many Nobel Prizes (as opposed to the Robert Burns Cheftain o' the Puddin' Race Prize) have you between the three of you.

Now, given that almost every word you say is wrong, would you mind just giving it a rest for a while! Davkal 04:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, had you spent half the time checking the cited sources that you spent deleting and then arguing that the corrections "have not been demonstrated to be true," you would know that the corrections are indeed true. Obviously, as long as you're not willing to look at the record, you can continue to claim that their truth has not been demonstrated - to you. But that is not a productive way to resolve disputes. Also not productive is misrepresenting other people's arguments. I never said nobody is buying your arguments. I said that nobody here is buying your assertion that your opinions should be regarded as facts. Erecting strawman arguments to knock down is NOT productive for resolving conflicts. Indeed, it only inflates them.

I asked for evidence why we should regard your opinion, as to what is and is not science, as superior to the opinions of the researchers who tested Demkina. You answered by asking how many Nobel prizes were awarded to the three researchers. I may have missed something here, but the last time I looked, I didn't see your name on the list of Nobel laureates. Unless you're keeping YOUR Nobel prize under wraps, your argument is a non sequitur.

Your opinion of what is and is not science carries no weight here - nor should it. Not only have you failed to demonstrate any reason to regard your opinion as more credible than others, you have failed to show why it is even relevant. Your opinion, my opinion, and the opinion of every Wiki editor does not belong in Wiki articles. I know that this was explained to you before. It remains true.

Please stop making false accusations. It badly hurts your credibilty and ability to persuade others: "And Balles is a member of CSICOP anyway. Dear oh dear oh dear." If you want to make a point attacking something, you should first make sure that it is true. You obviously made no effort to check this one out. Robert Balles (again, not "Balls") is NOT a member of CSICOP.[2] He is a subscriber to the newsletter and magazine, as are tens of thousands of other readers. He is NOT a member. He is an philanthropist who has established a number of prizes, including a similar one in mathematics.[3] And it is he who decides who gets his prize, not CSICOP. And what web page claims that CSICOP chooses the award recipient? If you're telling the truth, then the wording is an error and I'd bring it to CSICOP's attention.Askolnick 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I spent about 3 seconds reverting rather than deleting, and as I have already said I only reverted because changes were made (without discussion) to a section under mediation by one of those engaged in mediation in breach of the agreement that only Mike would make such changes.

2. I say the Demkina fiasco (and CSICOP) bears many of the hallmarks of pseudoscience since if you look at, say, the Wiki article on pseudocsience (indeed, look at KB's para about scientific investigation in the activities section of this article) you will see many things that suggest this.

The para in question says (my comments are in italics): "Since paranormal claims are potentially revolutionary scientific discoveries that may run counter to an established body of scientific knowledge, nothing less than the strictest standards of scientific scrutiny should be accepted as convincing. This might involve, for example, well-designed (as opposed to woefully inadequate), double-blind (it has been argued that the subjects were not properly blinded), strictly controlled scientific experiments (ie. no mobile phones, no spying on subjects) published in reputable peer-reviewed journals (rather than shown on TV and then written up for a general interest magazine), followed by successful independent replication by other scientists (given her 50-1 shot success it probably should have been done again).

3. The point about the Nobel Prize is that I am simply going by the claims of a Nobel Laureate who gave excellent reasons for thinking that it was bad science. Once again you appear to fail to grasp the point about something not merely being my opinion.

4. I did check my sources. I checked again and look what I found in CSICOP's article about the prize "This prize has been established through the generosity of Robert P. Balles, an Associate Member of CSICOP." Tee hee.

5. The bit about CSICOP deciding on the winner is on the same page of CSICOP's website: Behold http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00477.html

Davkal 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will bring that error to CSICOP's attention. Askolnick 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Karl; hope you enjoyed your vacation.

With regard to the first sentence, Karl has said he doesn't want to include "led to a number of resignations"; Davkal does want to; Addhoc indicated he thought it was of interest to the reader.

In this case, there is a link to an article on the Mars Effect, which includes a discussion of the controversy. I think we'd all agree that the Mars Effect article should include a more detailed discussion than this; the question is what is summary detail and what is not necessary for the reader's understanding. I recommend that we do not include the clause about the additional resignations.

I recommend this mainly because it does not give any more substance to the criticism; it's circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence can be strong, and of interest to the reader, but here the reader would know little more than that the controversy extended to multiple people. Did they resign denouncing CSICOP? Were they forced out? What was the causal connection? Quite a bit of additional detail would have to be added. The nature of the criticism of CSICOP itself, that it used bad science and then that its members lacked integrity, is quite clear in the paragraph without it. I feel that given the link to the Mars Effect, the reader has the opportunity to go and discover more if they wish to.

Please note that I am not saying the information is not relevant or accurate -- a reader who wants to make up their mind about the Mars Effect needs to know that multiple people resigned, and of course also needs to know much else. But I don't think we can satisfy such a reader with this summary paragraph, and we shouldn't try.

Davkal, Addhoc, I can see why you would like to include it, but I think it is necessary to draw some kind of scope boundary around the description of the criticisms. The separate Mars effect article, which can and should discuss the additional resignations, seems the right answer to me.

I will also say, as mediator, that I think both sides will have to be prepared to make concessions. There should be no concessions on matters of fact, but issues like scope, level of detail and relevance are areas where good-faith contributors can disagree. This is one of those areas, and some compromises will have to be made -- I am asking Davkal (in particular) to make this concession, but I am sure Karl and others will also end up agreeing on wording that they do not see as ideal.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough on the resignation issue then - leave it out. How about the other changes: the inclusion of Kurtz, Zellen and Abel, and the wording around the founding of CSICOP I don't think should be too controversial. The stuff about Klass' response probably will be though. Deal with seperately?Davkal 22:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've reached a very reasonable compromise. Addhoc 22:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, both.

I believe the following text is uncontroversial; it includes all but the last sentence about Klass's response.

An early controversy concerned the so-called Mars effect: French statistician Michel Gauquelin’s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky. In late 1975, prior to the formal launch of CSICOP, astronomer Dennis Rawlins, along with Paul Kurtz, George Abel and Marvin Zelen (all subsequent members of CSICOP) began investigating the claim. Rawlins, a founding member of CSICOP at its launch in May 1976, resigned in early 1980 claiming that other CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. In an article for Fate magazine he wrote: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism."

The final sentence is probably controversial, as Davkal says. Here's Davkal's version:

CSICOP's Philip Klass responded with an article fiercely critical of Rawlins, his claims and his motives; the response itself became a target for further internal criticism.

My draft had been:

CSICOP's Philip Klass wrote a detailed rebuttal, which Fate refused to publish; the rebuttal itself became a target for criticism.

Some comments on the differences, with suggestions from me in italics.

• "responded" vs. "wrote . . . [a] rebuttal". I presume that the reason Davkal prefers response is that he feels it is more NPOV; when we say Klass responded we are not asserting he was correct in his response. The word "rebut" does have this connotation, although its primary meaning is more "deny" than "prove wrong". I can see no harm in using the verb "respond", so long as the text makes it clear that Klass intended a rebuttal.
• "an article fiercely critical" vs. "a detailed rebuttal". Same reasoning as above. Here I think the reverse argument applies; "fiercely" connotes an attack more than a rebuttal. I am aware that the article has been described as an attack, but I think that point is made by saying Klass was critical of Rawlins' claims and motives.
• "which Fate refused to publish". I included it because it seemed relevant that Fate would not publish a response; having learned more about the controversy I can see that some are likely to claim it was not appropriate to publish, since in their opinion it contained ad hominem attacks. I'd suggest we strike this as unnecessary in the same way that we struck the note about multiple resignations above; it is really not central to the issue at hand.
• "critical of Rawlins, his claims and his motives". Is there any disagreement over whether the article was critical of Rawlins' motives? The inclusion of "motives" is the only reason for this clause. If it's agreed to be correct, is it valuable to mention?
• "criticism" vs. "internal criticism". It appears from the material cited above that the resulting controversy did involve other CSICOP members. I'd say adding "internal" is worthwhile, unless it can be argued that the internal criticism was not the main part of the criticism of Klass's response".

I should also note that we will of course link to "Crybaby" as a reference.

Comments? Mike Christie (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike, your latest version is okay with me. Both "fiercely" and "critical of Rawlins, his claims and his motives" are out, because they suggest that Klass' article had no content other than ad hominem attacks on Rawlins. As the final sentence, perhaps "Certain aspects of this debate continue to the present day." The debate isn't confined to internally to CSICOP, nor is it confined to the content of the Tarbaby/Crybaby articles. KarlBunker 00:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Fiercly (we could leave out) but critical of Rawlins (it was - and that was ad hominem), his claims (this means he countered Rawlins' arguments and does not suggest ad hominem), and his motives (he did question these and this is not necessarily ad hominem). The point of including the three points is that Klass' article was all three and to present merely one is misleading.

Here, for example, are a few remarks from Klass' opening sorte:

"This would seem to give credence to Rawlins' charges -- except to those of us with first-hand experience in trying to work with him and who are familiar with his modus-operandi." (ad hominem and motives questioned).

"...prompted me to conclude that the Rawlins article should have been entitled "CRYBABY," and that an appropriate subtitle would have been: "A wounded ego is the root of much evil."" (ad hominem and motives questioned)

2. Point 1 above may not matter anyway since Crybaby was never apparently published (not even in SI - never mind Fate???). All Klass (CSICOP) did was circulate it.

3. The question re the word "internal" is not whether the whole Mars-effect controversy remained primarily internal to CSICOP but whether the criticism of Klass' response was primarily, or even significantly, internal to CSICOP.

4. It is not relevant whether the Mars-effect controversy (i.e. the controversy over whether there is a Mars effect) continues externally to CSICOP since what is at issue here is CSICOP's particular treatment of the issue at the particular time. That is, it matters not whether the Mars-effect turns out in actual fact to be complete and utter rubbish, what matters is the manner in which CSICOP investigated it. That, I think, is the gist of Rawlins' claim that he is still skeptical of the occult beliefs (he doesn't think there is a Mars effect) but has doubts over the integrity of those... (he thinks CSICOP were cheating). Davkal 01:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Davcal, I could answer your responses point by point, but I don't have to. Your responses are based on your not reading my comment correctly in the first place. Read more carefully and you'll save yourself (and the rest of us) some time. KarlBunker 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you've made a mistake. My initial point (1) addresses your (obviously false) claim that my wording suggests Klass' response was ad hominem and nothing more. Points 3 and 4 deal with your failure to see that the word "internal" in my version relates specifically to Klass' article (the sentence being, "the response itself became a target for further internal criticism" sort of gives the game away), and so your point about the controversy not being confined to the Starbaby/Crybaby articles is quite irrelevant. The question Mike was asking being: was the criticism of Klass article purely or significantly internal to CSICOP? If so, "internal stays", if not, it goes, I think was the gist of it. Davkal 01:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope; you're still reading with your mouth/keyboard. Try using your eyes. KarlBunker 02:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The above is progress, though I'd like to remind everyone of the obligation to be civil. We have two points of contention left.

The phrase "critical of Rawlins, his claims and his motives" could perhaps be shortened. I don't see a lot of value to a reader of the article in differentiating attacks on Rawlins from attacks on his motives; the point is that in addition to a critique of Rawlins' arguments there were some ad hominem comments.

On the other hand, the "internal" does seem warranted; based on what has been posted above, this really indicates criticism such as Kammann's. If we are to compress this to a single clause, as we have done, it seems reasonable to leave "internal" as an indication. For a reader interested in what criticisms have been made, this seems a relevant point.

So I would suggest:

CSICOP's Philip Klass responded with an article critical of Rawlins' arguments and his motives; the response itself became a target for further internal criticism.

Comments? Mike Christie (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy with that, although "his" could be taken out. And I am still a bit concerned over the status of Klass' response - perhaps we should say it was unpublished. I would suggest:

"CSICOP's Philip Klass responded with an article critical of Rawlins' arguments and motives; the response, which was never published, itself became a target for further internal criticism. Davkal 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the importance of the article depends on it having been read and responded to, as it apparently was. I think as a result it's difficult to find a way to justify the mention of its unpublished status -- if that implies it was not important, or not widely read, then surely the response to it is also not important? Mike Christie (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think that its status as an internal response (circulated to CSICOP members etc.) which created further controversy may warrant inclusion on the basis of clarifying the internal schism/controversy relating to the issue. I also think CSICOP's decision not to publish it tells us something about its contents.Davkal 03:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike, your version looks fine. I still don't see much point in referring to the continuing criticism as internal, but that's a minor detail. Any reference to "unpublished", is of course, just another example of Davkal trying to find a way to increase the anti-CSICOP slant. I'll accept including a mention of Klass's article not being published on paper, if in return, Fate is referred to as "a laughable flying saucer magazine." KarlBunker 11:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's the whole paragraph. I've left in "internal" and have not included "unpublished", per my comment above. Davkal, you're right that CSICOP's decision not to publish is informative, but I think that can be covered in the Mars effect article. The "internal" comment does hint in the same direction.

An early controversy concerned the so-called Mars effect: French statistician Michel Gauquelin’s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky. In late 1975, prior to the formal launch of CSICOP, astronomer Dennis Rawlins, along with Paul Kurtz, George Abel and Marvin Zelen (all subsequent members of CSICOP) began investigating the claim. Rawlins, a founding member of CSICOP at its launch in May 1976, resigned in early 1980 claiming that other CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. In an article for Fate magazine he wrote: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism." CSICOP's Philip Klass responded with an article critical of Rawlins' arguments and his motives; the response itself became a target for further internal criticism.

I think we have consensus on this version, but just to be sure I'll leave it up here for comment and will make the edit later. I'll go ahead and add in the relevant references from the version already on the page. If there is anything in the above version that is unreferenced, please leave a note with the relevant information and I'll add that too.

This evening (most likely) I will start the discussion on the next paragraph. Mike Christie (talk)

I still think the "his" before "motives" could be taken out. It reads better.

Re KB's points about a trade-off for "a laughable UFO magazine" and "unpblished". It is an easily verifiable fact that Klass' article was not published, not even by CSICOP, not even in their own magazine (KB may wish to think for a moment about why this might be). This is fundamentally different from the negative opinion about Fate that he wish to include. That being said, I accept the proposal - Fate can be called "a laughable UFO magazine" and the last line can say: "CSICOP's Philip Klass responded by circulating amongst other CSICOP members an article critical of Rawlins' arguments and motives; Klass' unpublished response itself becoming the target for further citicism." It would seem that the warring parties have finally reached agreement then. Davkal 11:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, taking off the mediator hat and briefly putting on the editor hat, I wouldn't agree with the "laughable" characterization; the reader should be permitted to make their own judgement, rather than be provided with one. (I agree about taking out "his", though; leaving it in was just an oversight on my part.)

Back to the mediator hat: if we can come up with a characterization that satisfies everyone for Fate, we can then presumably use Davkal's version of the last sentence. How about just calling it a "UFO" magazine? Opinions are quite polarized on UFOs, and those who think UFOs are not laughable are not likely to be convinced by an adjective. So how about this:

An early controversy concerned the so-called Mars effect: French statistician Michel Gauquelin’s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky. In late 1975, prior to the formal launch of CSICOP, astronomer Dennis Rawlins, along with Paul Kurtz, George Abel and Marvin Zelen (all subsequent members of CSICOP) began investigating the claim. Rawlins, a founding member of CSICOP at its launch in May 1976, resigned in early 1980 claiming that other CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. In an article for Fate, a UFO magazine, he wrote: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism." CSICOP's Philip Klass responded by circulating an article to CSICOP members critical of Rawlins' arguments and motives; Klass' unpublished response itself becoming the target for further criticism.

Comments please. Mike Christie (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy for the claim about Fate's status to be stronger - "a popular pro-paranormal magazine" might do here - or something stronger still. Davkal 12:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Leave it as-is and let's move on. I was only being rhetorical and/or facetious anyway. KarlBunker 14:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the last version best: I think something should probably be said about the status of Fate, and likewise the unpublished status of Klass' response.Davkal 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Leave it as-is and let's move on. KarlBunker 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The last version above does give a note about what kind of magazine Fate is, and also mentions that Klass's response is unpublished, so I think this version will work. I'll make the edit this evening. Mike Christie (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that "in an article for the pro-paranormal magazine Fate he wrote..." is better since Fate is not, strictly speaking, or even loosely speaking, mainly a UFO mag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davkal (talk • contribs)

Karl, will that work for you? Mike Christie (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ack. This is getting a tad convoluted and I apparently contradicted myself above. Mike, your most recent version above, which follows "So how about this:", with "In an article for the pro-paranormal magazine Fate..." rather than "UFO magazine", and the correction re. "Fate Magazine" noted by Hob below, is good with me. KarlBunker 19:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Two factual additions: "Fate magazine" should be replaced by "Fate Magazine". ("Pro-paranormal" is a good adjective for it, I think.) And the "unpublished" Klass article is available online (since 1991, it seems) and given as note 6 in the article.

And one remark: It would be nice if people would not accept some other people's utterings as gospel truth just because those utterings confirm the first people's own opinions. I, for instance, do not know who is right with saying what in this whole Mars effect thing. It's just too confusing to sort out - there are too many papers and persons involved. It is very easy to think, "X said that Y did a dark deed, and Y is a villain anyway, so X must be right." But if you are looking for the truth, that is not a wise method to employ. Conflicts like this are complex from the start, and there is probably more than one misunderstanding and more than one overblown rhetorical phrase involved. People are not rational, not even rationalists. --Hob Gadling 19:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made the edit; if I've made any errors, please go ahead and correct them.

I'd like to suggest that one of the interested parties (it doesn't matter which one) goes ahead and posts a new section for the Demkina paragraph. I'd suggest that whoever does it tries to make it as neutral as possible, using the style I've been using, above. Reproduce the diff link, and go through at least the first couple of sentences difference by difference. Try to characterize both "your" point of view, and (with WP:AGF in mind) the opposing point of view. I'd suggest avoiding making any judgements at all in that summary about what is right or wrong with either version; just come up with a low-emotional-value description of the point of view inherent in each version. Then wait till the other party responds.

Ultimately the goal is that you don't need me here. If you can work this sort of process without me, you'll be better off, and so will this page. I'd like to see it given a chance; I'll post from the sidelines as an interested editor, but won't actively "take the reins" of the mediation unless at least one of the participants specifically requests it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant response to an irrelevant question

This isn't an article about Fate magazine, but if it's a comparison you're after see this from Hanson's article:

"After the moderate members left [following the mars-effect controversy], little dissent or criticism of the Committee has been seen in the pages of SI. The magazine nearly always presents only one side of a controversy in its articles. Although SI sometimes publishes letters of complaint, full papers from CSICOP’s critics almost never appear. This is in remarkable contrast to refereed parapsychology journals and even some of the pro-paranormal magazines. For instance, the popularly written magazine Fate has carried full articles by CSICOP members Susan Blackmore, L. Sprague de Camp, Kendrick Frazier, Martin Gardner, Philip Klass, Larry Kusche, Lawrence Jerome, David Marks, Joe Nickell, James Oberg, Dennis Rawlins, Robert Sheaffer, Gordon Stein, and Marcello Truzzi. In keeping with CSICOP’s one-sided approach, SI has given scant attention to papers in well-known, orthodox scientific journals that present evidence for psi (e.g.. Child, 1985; Jahn, 1982; Radin & Nelson, 1989; Rao & Palmer, 1987; Winkelman, 1982)." Davkal 23:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Demkina paragraph

Here's a starting point:

In 2004 CSICOP was criticized for unscientific procedures over its testing of claimed psychic Natasha Demkina. Nobel Prize winning physicist and advocate of the paranormal Brian Josephson found fault with the testing and evaluation methods used, arguing that Demkina's score of four matches out of seven should have been considered a "success." One of the test's designers, Ray Hyman, wrote a response to this and other criticisms. He noted, among other points, that their decision to require a significance level of approximately 0.02 instead of 0.05 was justified because of the extraordinary nature of Natasha's claim and to allow for correct guesses based on non-paranormal clues. He pointed out that even lower P values were commonly used by J.B. Rhine and many other paranormal researchers. The Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health published a detailed rebuttal of other objections.

This version describes Josephson as a "Nobel Prize winning physicist and advocate of the paranormal" and paraphrases the most substantive of his criticisms rather than using his rant-language about CSICOP's motives. This makes Hyman's point in his response relevant and somewhat understandable to a layman.

(BTW, the link to the CSMMH response isn't working at the moment.) KarlBunker 23:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, that's pretty good, Karl. A few things need fixing. For one, the choice of 0.02 was made solely on the basis of Bayesian inference, not on the fact that Demkina refused the blinded test design. (Although, if someone wants to throw in Josephson's false argument that the odds against Demkina getting 4 correct matches was 1 in 50, I'd insist on correcting that. We actually don't have a clue what Natasha's actual odds were for getting 4 correct, because she would not agree to a blinded trial. The odds of 50-to-1 is for blindly guessing. Demkina was NOT blindly guessing. She had a wealth of normal visual and auditory clues to help her. Josephson of course understands that. He simply chose to misrepresent the facts.) A few other points: Demkina does not describe herself as a "psychic." So I'd use the phrase she apparently likes to go by and is used by all her boosters. I also think Discovery Channel should be added because most people who know about Demkina know her from the TV program. I want to replace the term "extraordinary nature" because it is too easily interpreted as "special" or "really nifty" instead of the meaning we need - and that is "unlikely." The P value was chosen on the basis of Bayesian analysis which includes a calculaton of the probability that a hypothesis may be true - rather than special or really nifty. It's true that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," but in this context, I don't think the right meaning of "extraordinary" comes across. So here's how I would change it:

In 2004, CSICOP was criticized for unscientific procedures involved in the Discovery Channel test of the "girl with X-ray eyes," Natasha Demkina. Nobel Prize winning physicist and advocate of the paranormal Brian Josephson found fault with the test and evaluation methods and argued that Demkina's score of four matches out of seven should have been considered a "success." Ray Hyman, one of the three researchers who designed and conducted the test, wrote a response to this and other criticisms. He noted that their decision to require a significance level of approximately 0.02, instead of the more commonly used 0.05, was justified because they were testing a paranormal, and therefore unlikely claim. He also pointed out that substantially lower significance values were commonly used by J.B. Rhine and other paranormal researchers. The Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health published a detailed rebuttal of other objections.

You were wise not to bring in Josephson's personal attacks and accusation of an evil CSICOP conspiracy, as I expect one editor here will insist on doing. Sigh. Hopefully, we won't have to get into adding a sleep-inducing discussion on Bayesian inference, but in the likely event that someone will demand adding Josephson's false accusation that the P value was chosen for no other reason but to cheat Natasha, we will have to. Josephson's accusation simply is a lie. It was chosen based on a Bayesian analysis. He knows this. But he's playing to a crowd that doesn't know the difference between a Bayesian inference and a Bayesian scallop. Askolnick 03:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the text "and to allow for correct guesses based on non-paranormal clues." is valid. In Hyman's article he says "Ideally, our test would allow us to decide whether the number of correct matches excluded the possibility both of chance and of the use of external clues." and "We could not exclude the possibility of her picking up external clues with her normal vision. Realistically, the “null” distribution, as a result, would have an expected mean greater than one. Beyond getting one or more correct matches just by chance, we could expect her to get a few additional matches from external clues.", both of which indicate that the likelihood of correct guesses based on external clues influenced the choice of significance level. What do you (and others) think? KarlBunker 11:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no way that Ray Hyman nor I (and Richard Wiseman, I suspect) would use a 0.05 level of significance to test a so-called psychic even in a blinded test (because that would mean that 1 in 20 frauds would be able to go around claiming that their powers were "scientifically confirmed" by us.) We would not use the P value that is commonly used for plausible hypotheses, such as "Does drug X cure gullibilitiosis?". (Keep in mind that when researchers test a drug in a clinical trial, it has already been tested in cell cultures and on animals. By the time it enters clinical trials, there must be sound reasons for believing the hypothesis may be true - otherwise, it would be unethical to test it in humans. So using a P value of 0.05 is appropriate and common in most clinical trials.) We would use a considerably lower value, 0.01, or 0.001 if we could. (Josephson should know this. Only incompetents use 0.05 for testing Big Foot dung, unicorn horns, ectoplasma, and other paranormal claims. ECREE - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.) For our test, which was unblinded and preliminary, we cut Demkina extra slack and used 0.02. The point I'm making is that the selection of a P value for testing this particular implausible hypothesis was not made because the test was unblinded. It was made because the claim was unlikely to be true. If Demkina allowed us to use a blinded test protocol, we would have used the same level of significance. In fact, in a follow-up, better controlled test, we probably would have used a lower value of either 0.01 or 0.001. But after Demkina's unsuccessful performance on the preliminary test, no follow-up test was needed.

Also keep in mind that the test was not set up to determine if Demkina had even has only a small amount of paranormal power. It was set up to test her actual claim - that she can see into people's bodies and diagnose abnormalities (with 100 percent accuracy, says her mother). A diagnostic procedure that is correct 50.8 percent of the time is NOT a diagnostic procedure. Askolnick 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read what Josephson says then you will see that he only rhetorically asks whether 4 out of 7 should be considered a success. That is, he suggests that the 50-1 shot compared to guessing would prima facie look, to almost anyone, as a success. What Josephson goes on to argue, is that the correct conclusion to be drawn from this seeming "success" is that the results were inconclusive. The experimenters did not conclude this, however, they concluded they had refuted Natasha's claims and shown conclusively that she did not have any paranormal abilities. They then went on to talk as if the results showed that this was so obviously so that it would "likely close the chapter in this case". Since the results clearly did not demonstrate a total lack of ability on Natasha's part (or anything like it), Josephson (and many others) claimed that the whole thing was a fix.

The point, then, is that Josephson's claim is actually far more subtle and far more damning than is being suggested above. As Josephson puts it, "a statistically very significant result was obtained in the quantitative part of the investigation, but the experimenters concealed the fact with their talk of 'failing the test'. And it is the move from only just failing to achieve the required level of success to failing to have have any special abilities that Josephson, and others, have taken issue with. It matters not, then, how many arguments Hymen et al put forward for their decision to require 5 out of 7, and how much difference there is between a Bayesian inference and a Bayesian scallop; the point is that the results of the experiment simply cannot support the conclusion drawn by the experimenters. It may very well support the conclusion that they would not engage in further expensive testing (that is their perogative and any results could have supported that), but it simply did not support the conclusion that was actually drawn and presented to the public.Davkal 12:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read what Josephson says, you will see a showman at work. Using such "subtle" weasel phrases as "looks to almost anyone," and other sleight-of-hand arguments, he generated a false and misleading attack that his fellow believers in the supernatural could use to attack the researchers and CSICOP. More often than not, science produces results that do not look true "to almost anyone." The measure of scientific validity is not based on public understanding. If that were true, the earth would stop rotating around the sun and once again stand still. Josephson is playing to a gullible public audience, with a penchant for magical thinking. He knows why Bayesisan inference was used, but he says the researchers improperly chose an unacceptably low level of significance to cheat Natasha. He says, "a statistically very significant result was obtained in the quantitative part of the investigation, but the experimenters concealed the fact with their talk of 'failing the test'" That's a double falsehood. The result of the test was NOT "statistically very significant," it was not even a little statistically significant. And the researchers did NOT conceal the fact with talk of Demkina's failing of the test. They talked of her failing the test because she failed the test. He, and now Dakval, misrepresent the researchers conclusions. They concluded that Natasha Demkina cannot do what she claims she can do based on their complete investigation, of which the results of the test was only one small part. As they made clear, the ONLY conclusion they drew from the test result was that "no further study is warranted." They drew their conclusion that Demkina does not have the powers she claims based on many more observations and on other information they gathered. Those reasons are clearly explained in their Skeptical Inquirer reports. Claiming that their overall conclusion is based on the Demkina's numerical test score is a false, strawman argument. Scientists are not supposed to do this. Neither should Wiki editors. Askolnick 13:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of comments, from the sidelines. First, I'd like to ask everyone to remember the obligations to be civil and assume good faith. I'm well aware that the participants here find it hard to believe the other side is acting rationally and fairly, but it seems clear to me from the exchanges we've had that everyone here is intelligent and honestly believes what they say. Saying that another editor's comments are likely to be "sleep-inducing" is neither civil nor helpful, and is most unlikely to help us get to a accurate and fair version of this article. Referring to someone's language as "rant" is rhetoric, not argument; a rant might contain correct information that we need to cite.

With regard to the paragraph itself, it seems to me there are three things to be agreed on:

1. What is a fair statement of Josephson's criticism?
2. How much probability theory needs to be discussed here, and how much can be referenced by links or citations?
3. How should the response to the criticism be described?

Very similar debates occurred above in the previous two paragraphs. I hope the arguments made and the consensus reached above are useful in helping to find a middle ground here. Mike Christie (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Mike, but you misunderstood the "sleep-inducing" comment. I used that to describe MY OWN argument. I have it on good authority that I was not being uncivil to myself. You'll have to trust me on this. Much as I like to talk about Bayesian inference, I have to acknowledge that it is sleep-inducing. Askolnick 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I apologize! I guess it shows that when there's a history of difficult interactions, it pays to be extra careful. Anyway, I'm glad to know I was wrong. Mike Christie (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re your points Mike: I think the charge from Josephson is that the experiment as a whole was "a fix". I think that needs to be stated rather than any of the specifics because the specifics will take too long to explain to present fairly and accurately. I also think it important to note that Josephson is not alone in this. I don't think we need to go into any detail here re the probability. This I think makes the criticism look much more specific than it was (see my characterization above). (I would also point out that the only commentator we have with any real expertise in probability - Keith Rennolls, a professor of statistics - wholly supported Josephson.) I think the response can simply be stated as Hyman, or Wiseman, or the experimenters, rejected Josphson's criticisms followed by the line about the CSMMH "response" as opposed to "rebuttal" since this is middle ground between "rebuttal" and "avoidance". I also think this better reflects the fact that the responses themselves have generated much further criticism and so should not be seen as having in any sense settled the matter.

As a whole, I think the proposed para need a lot of work since: a) it doesn't really present much of an accusation given what Josephson and others have actually claimed; and b) we then have twice as much text dealing with the responses.Davkal 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal says, "Keith Rennolls, a professor of statistics - wholly supported Josephson." He did no such thing. I've corrected Davkal before about this. Rennolls never said the researchers cheated or fixed the test. I also explained to Davkal that Rennolls made his comments based solely on Josephson's attack and on an off-the-cuff comment from Wiseman. Rennolls had not read the researchers' reports. And after they were published, he never raised objections to their methods or conclusions.

Davkal says that he thinks the CSICOP article should simply state that Josephson says the researchers "fixed" the test so that Demkina would fail and leave out the "the specifics because the specifics will take too long to explain to present fairly and accurately." Excuse me, but I think the case for or against a charge of scientific misconduct MUST be presented fairly and accurately. I don't care how many people tell us not to look behind the Wizzard of Cambridge's curtain. Claims such as Josephson's need to stand up to scrutiny or else be ignored.

What Davkal does not state is that virtually ALL of that so-called scientific "criticism" are comments on pro-paranormal talk pages and personal web sites. NONE of it has appeared in any scientific or other reputable forum or medium. Therefore, none of it is reputable enough to be included in Wikipedia. It is wrong to say there is a scientific controversy over a test when there is NO scientific controversy. Bitter attacks on personal web sites, such as on Joespehson's and Victor Zammit's is NOT scientific controversy. If it were, then Wikipedia should also say there is scientific controversy over whether the earth is flat or the germ theory of disease. There are plenty of kooks who have web sites that argue against virtually every scientifically established fact and theory. There must be a scientific controversy to say there is a scientific controversy. Unless Davkal can show where scientists are debating the CSICOP findings on Demkina, he cannot claim there's a scientific controversy. And self-publishing personal attack pieces on one's own web site is NOT evidence of a scientific controversy.

I can understand why Davkal wants to include Josephson's charge of scientific misconduct without any discussion of the charge, but I cannot accept it. It is not what encyclopedias do.Askolnick 14:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Askolnick's point, "because that would mean that 1 in 20 frauds (1 in 50 in Natasha's case) would be able to go around claiming that their powers were scientifically confirmed by us" is interesting inasmuch as it mirrors exactly the accusation made by Josephson. That is, the exerimenters had decided beforehand what they were dealing with (a fraud) and set up the experiment to make it likely that they could "pass her off as a failure". What if Natasha has an ability to consistently get far more than could be expected by chance, e.g., 4 out of 7 in test after test after test. Such a case would be highly significant but we would never know because no further tests would be conducted. The point being that in the political (as opposed to scientific) world of charalatan-outing decisions are taken for wholly unscientific reasons. And in the paranoid world of CSICOP & CSMMH a false (or possibly false, or not even false at all but merely small) positive becomes a political and social disaster. Davkal 13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I must caution you Davkal that you are calling me a cheat and fraud. That is hardly civil. What also is not conducive to a civil discourse is ignoring another editor's points and arguing as if they were never made. Why do you simply ignore the point that the test was designed to test Demkina's claim - rather than yours or Josephson's? The test was designed to test whether Demkina can accurately diagnose medical abnormalities - not whether she may have some small degree of unexplained powers. That has been explained repeatedly, including here on this page.

Repeated misrepresentation of the facts and other people's arguments is not helping this resolution process. What you're doing is echoing Josephson's dishonest attack. By misrepresenting what the CSICOP researchers did, you are trying to advance your belief that they are dishonest frauds. You call the "world of CSICOP and CSMMH" "paranoid." It is this argument that is paranoid. Furthermore, as I was executive director of CSMMH, you are calling me paranoid. That's clearly an unacceptable personal attack on another Wiki editor.

Please restrict your comments to the facts and opinions that are available in reputable sources. Your personal view of people who do not believe in things-that-go-bump-in-the-night is irrelevant. Askolnick 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re your points. 1. At no point in the above do I say you are a cheat and a fraud - I say that your experiment is, in part, designed with socio-political rather than scientific ends in sight.

2. I am not ignoring your points I am addressing them.

3. If your point about the purpose of the test is true then how can Wiseman have said Natasha has "a real expertise at being able to look at people and make reasonably accurate diagnoses" but nonetheless be a failure - what is she a failure at then?

4. On the same point, it is the psychic aspect that makes the claim extraordinary, you tacitly accept this is what was being tested by stating the old chestnut about ECREE and your talk of unicorn horns and bigfoot dung. I am not sure even you know what you are claiming now!

5. You constantly claim that I am misrepresenting the actual situation. Your view of the actual situation is your view. Jospehson did claim "X", fact - that's what I want to include, and I only want to say that Jospehson claims "X" - not that "X" is true. Although given that you have now conceded "X" it may be valid to say that "X" is true.

6. Your stuff about a scientific controversy says nothing about my actual point. I am not claiming that there is. My point, Josephson and others' point, is that there has been no science. No publication in scientific journals, and no comment in scientific journals. Scientists have commented though, as can be seen from the title of the report in the Times Higher Education Supplement "Scientists don't see eye to eye...".

Given the above, how about this pargraph:

In 2004 CSICOP was again criticized for unscientific procedures over its testing of claimed Psychic Natasha Demkina. Nobel Prize winning physicist Brian Josephson and others found fault with the testing and evaluation methods used, with Josephson calling the tests “some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic by setting up the conditions to make it likely that they could pass her off as a failure”.[7] One of the test’s designers, Andrew Skolnick, confirmed that an important consideration in the design of such tests is to ensure that frauds cannot go on to claim scientific vindication as a result. This, Skolnick argues, is why Demkina was required to achieve a measure of success considerably higher than would be expected in normal scientific trials. In contrast, CSICOP, and the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (which was also involved in the testing), have published a number of responses to the criticism in which they argue that the level of significance required by Demkina was based solely on sound scientific grounds.

Davkal 14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, you're apparently attempting to be snarky and sarcastic, but you are actually pretty close to correct. What you (and Josephson) seem to fail to understand is that no piece of scientific evidence exists in isolation. Our understanding of how the universe works has to have an influence on how we evaluate evidence for a new phenomenon. Does this new phenomenon fit in with established knowledge of how the universe works? If not, then the standards have to change for how we evaluate the evidence. Josephson shows this same misunderstanding:

That line of thinking is problematic because, in minimising the probability of a false positive in this way, the experimenters significantly enhanced the probability of the alternative, equally undesirable, false negative, i.e. declaring that Natasha appears to have no abilities when in fact she has some.

In this experiment, and in rational skepticism in general, controlling against a false positive is actually far more important than controlling against a false negative. KarlBunker 15:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand this criticism (I have some training in statistics) but I think we need to be careful with the boundary between pointing out the obvious and providing an original critique. The comment is a fair one, but if it is to be adduced I think we should source it as a response from CSICOP or CSMMH. I think Davkal's version attempts to summarize this in the last part of the last sentence. Could we add a footnote to that sentence pointing to a critique of the type you give? Mike Christie (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

KB's point is actually very close to the first part of Josephson's argument. In such tests it may be important to ensure no false positive is acheived, but this high-bar-setting is precisely why one cannot draw the "failure to have any powers" conclusion that the experimenters drew in the programme. And this is why "inconclusive" is the only valid conclusion. It is also another reason why Jospehson's criticism is more subtle than has been presented and why it would take a lot of (too much) text to explain it.

Anyway, I think we're getting a bit off-track. I think my attempted paragraph above, particularly the point about Askolnick, illustrates why Jospehson made the accusation he did (he talks at length about their political motives in his criticism). As such it seems that the "fix" allegation cannot simply be explained in terms of the straightforward "4 is a success" summary and so that line (straw man) should not be used to characterise it. Davkal 15:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Davkal, please read my editing comments and don't just ignore them. Demkina does not claim to be a "psychic."
• "and others" is a weasel term, very useful for pushing a point without shedding any light on the issue.
• You cannot include any of my arguments from this talk page which have NOT been published in a reputable source. You must rely solely on facts and opinions published in reputable sources.
• Your characterization of Skonick's argument is inaccurate: 0.02 is a modestly, not a "considerably higher" level of significance to achieve than 0.05.
• Scientists talk of "confirmation" not "vindication" - that's of a term more commonly used by crackpots and cranks who see scientific questions in the form of "them vs. us."
• The term "in normal scientific trials" is an obfuscation. I haven't a clue what a "normal scientific trial" is.
• The researcher's articles in Skeptical Inquirer are not "responses." They are the reports of the CSICOP-CSMMH investigation of Natasha Demkina. Calling them "responses" to critics is an attempt to deminish them.
• Hyman published the Skeptical Inquirer reports that explain how the test was designed and conducted and explained how the level of statistical significance was established. To replace Hyman with Skolnick appears to be an attempt to slant the article in favor of Josephson. Unlike Hyman, Skolnick is not an authority on experimental statistics. He's a science and medical journalist. This switch is unacceptable.
• The argument you attribute to Skolnick does not at all address Josephson's defamatory charge of scientific misconduct. Talk about setting someone up for failure!
• Not withstanding Davkal's claim that Josephson's defamatory accusation of scientific misconduct should be included without providing evidence for and against his charge, including it would not be in keeping with Wiki NPOV requirements.
• In conclusion, there's nothing in this version that is in any way an improvement over Karl's version with my corrections, which remains the best draft. Askolnick 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal may be correct that Josephson's argument isn't as straightforward as saying that 4 out of 7 should have been considered a "success". I say "may" because Josephson's flowery writing makes it hard to tell what he's saying. When he writes:

A fairly straightforward calculation shows that the odds of getting 4 hits or more out of 7 by chance are more than 50 to 1 against. Surely a case for celebrating Natasha's success?

Well, no, actually. The experimental protocol, to which Natasha and her agent had been asked to agree, rather curiously states:…

In the "Well, no, actually", is he speaking in his own voice, or sarcastically characterizing the attitude of the experimenters? I'm inclined to think the latter.

As Davkal notes, Josephson spends most of the article talking about his view of the experimenters' motivations, and when he's not doing that he's mostly waving his hands and being a showman. Somewhere in there, there may be a valid, if misapplied, logical argument, but it's tough to extract a synopsis of it that's unequivocally correct. So the alternative is to just stick with the quote where he calls CSICOP a bunch of blue-meanie cheaters, and to heck with trying to find some point where he supports his accusation with logic. Valid or not, I think something of Josephson's criticism should be included in the article. He is a considered a notable authority, and his criticism of this experiment has garnered a fair amount of publicity, so the article would be incomplete without some mention of it. But the more time I spend with Josephson's article the less I like it. Isn't there some other notable person who has criticized this experiment--someone who can write like a grownup? KarlBunker 15:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No. And for good reasons. Askolnick 15:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal continues to either ignore my points or else misrepresent them. It's been explained to him numerous times that the CSICOP-CSMMH researchers' conclusions were NOT based solely on the Demkina test results. Yet he continues to ignore this fact and claims otherwise in support of his defamatory accusations. He argues that my colleagues and I cheated by "fixing" the test and of that I have a "paranoid world view" and then claims that he hasn't made any personal attacks! As long as he's allowed to carry on like this, there's is no way to we're going to reach a consensus here. No consensus can be reached with someone who will not participate fairly and civily. Unless he stops - or is stopped - I'm out of here.Askolnick 16:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal -- I think you're still sticking with the same misconception. Do the experimenters ever draw a "'failure to have any powers' conclusion"? It's my understanding that the conclusion was that she "failed to convincingly demonstrate her claimed powers", which is different. And "inconclusive" would indeed be the only valid conclusion if the purpose of the experiment was to detect something like bunions on Demkina's feet. In the real world, X-Ray vision is a somewhat less likely thing than bunions. CSICOP talks about the ideal of not rejecting paranormal claims on a priori grounds. It is correct and valid, however, to doubt paranormal claims a priori, and that doubt is factored into the conclusion drawn from the experiment KarlBunker 16:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But Askolnick vehemently denies that paranormal powers were being tested (so doubt over them shouldn't have been factored in). When between you you can decide which it is let me know - I'm off down the pub.Davkal 16:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In this statement, Davkal crosses the bondary between mistatement and outright lie. I can't believe Davkal could make such a false statement. In no way is this helping persuade anyone that he has anything of value to contribute. Askolnick 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And I don't think any of us should disturb him at the pub. Lincoln implied that the whisky Gen. Grant drank gave him a winning general. Perhaps it will also improve Davkal's arguments. I doubt it could make them much worse. How could any sober person read what I've written above and claim that I "vehemently deny that paranormal powers were being tested," and that "doubt over them shouldn't have been factored in", when I've repeatedly stated the opposite. I fear he's trying to drive us all to drink. Askolnick 18:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Another point (Edit conflict):

Davkal said: "they concluded they had refuted Natasha's claims and shown conclusively that she did not have any paranormal abilities." But I can't find that conclusion anywhere. What I can find is: "If Natasha correctly matches fewer than 5 target medical conditions, then the Test Proctor will declare that results are more consistent with chance guessing and does not support any belief in her claimed abilities." [4]

Josephson says: "Accordingly, it was announced that Natasha had 'failed the test'."

As far as I can see, nobody ever concluded that is was "shown conclusively that she did not have any paranormal abilities". So, Davkal, how about either retracting the claim or backing it up?

This is a common method of how false information spreads: people taking the truth and distorting it a little at a time until it agrees with their opinion. --Hob Gadling 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In the documentary Hymen said that he hoped Natasha would now return to Russia and forget all this foolishness since it was not good for anyone to live in a delusion (I forget the actual words he used but this was cetainly the gist of it). If someone is deluded about thinking they can do "x" then they can't do "x" and therefore Hymen concluded quite clearly that Natahsa can't do "x". How about retracting your know-it-all comment about how false information spreads or accepting that it does not apply in this case.Davkal 00:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hyman said he hoped" - so he was expressing his opinion, not an official quotable conclusion. You sloppily paste facts together and thus invent new "facts" that have nothing to do with reality: you just assume that with "delusion" he could have meant nothing but "believing to have any paranormal powers". She thought she was able to do 100%, but she was not - was that not a delusion?

The test was not (and could not have been) designed to definitely answer the question "does Natasha have any paranormal abilities?" There are always Type 1 and Type 2 errors, so such an experiment is impossible. Of course Ray Hyman knows that. To suggest that he "concluded" she did not have any abilities is downright silly. He doesn't believe in any abilities, but he does not think his opinion is proven in any meaning of the sense. Seven data points, I beg you! Hyman is not that stupid to draw such a sweeping conclusion. She failed the test, that's all. And that should make you think: why did she believe she could do 100%, if she could not? If I were Natasha, I would try to find out how I could have tricked myself into believing that.

So you were not able to back up your claim. Will you retract it now? (I don't expect you to, I just want to show the onlookers that paranormal proponents extremely rarely retract errors.) --Hob Gadling 14:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hob, everything you said is true. Davkal is deliberately setting up strawman arguments to knock down. He keeps ignoring my requests to stop misrepresenting the arguments of the CSICOP-CSMMH researchers. Unfortunately, he will neither retract his claim nor back it up. He will just keep repeating it. Askolnick 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this version (I added one sentence to Askolnick's version):

In 2004, CSICOP was criticized for unscientific procedures involved in the Discovery Channel test of the "girl with X-ray eyes," Natasha Demkina. Nobel Prize winning physicist and advocate of the paranormal Brian Josephson found fault with the test and evaluation methods and argued that Demkina's score of four matches out of seven should have been considered a "success." He also used ad hominem arguments against the researchers, speculating about their motivations and alleging "some kind of plot". Ray Hyman, one of the three researchers who designed and conducted the test, wrote a response to this and other criticisms. He noted that their decision to require a significance level of approximately 0.02, instead of the more commonly used 0.05, was justified because they were testing a paranormal, and therefore unlikely claim. He also pointed out that substantially lower significance values were commonly used by J.B. Rhine and other paranormal researchers. The Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health published a detailed rebuttal of other objections.

This mentions Josephson's meaner attacks, as Davkal wishes, and puts them in perspective by labeling them as what they are. (Speculating about motives is ad hominem, can we agree on that?) --Hob Gadling 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem is when you attack the person in an irrelevant way - speculating about motives is not necessarily ad hominem. For example, claiming that Hitler hated Jews is relevant (and not ad hominem) in a discussion of his politics but irrelevant (and ad hominem) in a discussion about his abilities as a plumber.Davkal 00:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Davkal. That's not how this game is played. We don't play by your definition. In this definition, we use the accepted meaning of words. That is NOT the definition of "ad hominem." From the American Heritage Dictionary: "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives." Sound advice and a sound definition. And it describes perfectly what Josephson and you have been doing. Askolnick 06:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. There may be some uncertainty about whether Josephson actually thinks that "four matches out of seven should have been considered a 'success'", but we can be generous and assume that he had some logical arguement. And since Davkal has just promised to spend the rest of forever at the pub (unless someone "lets him know" something or other), I guess we don't have to wait for his opinion. KarlBunker 16:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Karl took the words out of my mouth. I like it. But I recommend one change. The decision to use 0.02 was not "justified," because it was nothing extraordinary. In testing implausible claims like Demkina's, Bayesian inference leads one to using lower P values than those used to conduct clinical drug trials (which involves far more plausible hypotheses). So claiming the researchers "justified" this, as if they were a straying from normal scientific conduct, echos Josephson's unfounded complaint.

So I suggest this language instead: "He noted that their decision to require a significance level of approximately 0.02 (instead of the more commonly used 0.05) was based on a Bayesian analysis, which is appropriate whenever testing unlikely claims." Askolnick 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Askolnick writes: "the test was not set up to determine if Demkina had even a small amount of paranormal power" and "The test was [not designed to test] whether she may have some small degree of unexplained powers. That has been explained repeatedly, including here on this page", then he reacts with indignation and says that I have resorted to outright lying when I suggest that he has vehemently denied that the test was intended to test for paranormal powers.

Davkal, the word "even" was accidentally left in when I rewrote the sentence. It makes no sense there. The word that should have been there is "only." What also makes no sense is your claim that I "vehemently denied the test was intended to test for paranormal powers." Of course we were testing claimed paranormal powers. Did you not read any of the Skeptical Inquirer reports? The CSICOP-CSMMH test of Natasha Demkina was intended to test her claimed paranormal powers. It was not designed to test whether Demkina has only a small amount of paranormal power. I clearly stated and indicated many times that we were testing Demkina's claimed paranormal powers. For example, from my edited version of the Demkina draft paragraph:

Hyman "noted that their decision to require a significance level of approximately 0.02, instead of the more commonly used 0.05, was justified because they were testing a paranormal, and therefore unlikely claim. He also pointed out that substantially lower significance values were commonly used by J.B. Rhine and other paranormal researchers.

Your claim that I "vehemently denied the test was intended to test for paranormal powers," is clearly false. However, after seeing that errant word "even," I retract my claim that you crossed the boundary separating misrepresentation from outright lying. But I stick by my complaint that you chronically fail to read or at least comprehend almost any of my comments. Clearly, no one who read my comments here would claim that I "vehemently denied the test was intended to test for paranormal powers." Askolnick 06:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, you often use sarcastic pretended ingenuousness as an argumentative method, and this is one case where I'm not sure if you're doing that or not. Are you honestly confused by the sequence of statements you repeat above? If you are, you need to think about alternate meanings from the one you're assuming; meanings that aren't based on the supposition that Askolnick would talk nonsense. KarlBunker 02:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am most certainly confused when someone says "the test was not set up to determine if Demkina had even a small amount of paranormal power", and then in response to my suggestion that he said that the test was not set up to test for any paranormal power says that he always stated explicitly that it was. If Askolnick does want to say that the test was set up to test for paranormal power then there is a very straightforward way of doing this, and that is to say that the experiment was set up to test for paranormal powers. That is, he need only exclude the word "not" from the sentence!!!

Askolnick also says "how could any sober person..." and makes a few other remarks about my drinking a few sentences after I said I'm off down the pub. As Winston Churchill (almost) replied when asked if he was drunk: Yes sir, I am, and you are a charlatan, but in the morning I'll be sober".

Wrong again. That basic gag line dates back to vaudeville, but it was made famous by W.C. Field in his 1934 movie, It's a Hit ("You're drunk!" "Yeah, and you're crazy! But I'll be sober tomorrow, and you'll be crazy for the rest of your life!" BTW, I didn't bring up your drinking. You did. Askolnick 06:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Right again: Bessie Braddock (to Winston Churchill): Winston, you're drunk. Churchill: Bessie, you're ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober.Davkal 06:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that this is the level the discussion has stooped to in a few short hours (and the farcical paragraph suggested above) I would like to ask Mike Christie to act as a mediator again. Sorry Mike. Davkal 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there have been too many personal attacks and too much animosity here, but you've been responsible for at least your fair share. Referring to the current paragraph as "farcical" is an excellent example. As for this debate, resuming the mediation would be one option. Another would be to say that we no longer need mediation, since we now have a consensus, at least on this paragraph (noting that the definition of "consensus" is "general agreement"; not necessarily the same thing as "unanimous agreement"). KarlBunker 02:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A paragraph isn't a person. End of (or something else off).Davkal 02:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the example of "sarcastic pretended ingenuousness as an argumentative method": Pretending not to understand that "farcical" is an example of animosity. I really don't see how pretending to be dim is a useful debating tactic. You might want to rethink that. KarlBunker 11:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to return to a mediator role. As I said when we were getting started on the mediation, a majoritarian approach is less desirable than cooperation. I don't have any authority that the editors on this page don't agree to give me, but I'd like to think that the two paragraphs we have agreed on so far truly represent a neutral point of view that is accurate, and useful to a reader. The ideal version is one which all of the participants in this debate would defend against edits that tended toward either POV.

I'm going to go ahead and create a new section, since this one is getting quite long, and will start the process of working through the Demkina paragraph. Mike Christie (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Demkina paragraph mediation

I'm starting a new section here just because the previous section had become quite long, not in order to ignore the discussion above.

Here are two paragraph versions. I've picked, as being the most recent for their preferred approach, Hob Gadling's version of Karl and Askolnick's paragraph, with one subsequent change suggested by Askolnick:

In 2004, CSICOP was criticized for unscientific procedures involved in the Discovery Channel test of the "girl with X-ray eyes," Natasha Demkina. Nobel Prize winning physicist and advocate of the paranormal Brian Josephson found fault with the test and evaluation methods and argued that Demkina's score of four matches out of seven should have been considered a "success." He also used ad hominem arguments against the researchers, speculating about their motivations and alleging "some kind of plot". Ray Hyman, one of the three researchers who designed and conducted the test, wrote a response to this and other criticisms. He noted that their decision to require a significance level of approximately 0.02 (instead of the more commonly used 0.05) was based on a Bayesian analysis, which is appropriate whenever testing unlikely claims. He also pointed out that substantially lower significance values were commonly used by J.B. Rhine and other paranormal researchers. The Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health published a detailed rebuttal of other objections.

Here is Davkal's suggested version:

In 2004 CSICOP was again criticized for unscientific procedures over its testing of claimed Psychic Natasha Demkina. Nobel Prize winning physicist Brian Josephson and others found fault with the testing and evaluation methods used, with Josephson calling the tests “some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic by setting up the conditions to make it likely that they could pass her off as a failure”.[7] One of the test’s designers, Andrew Skolnick, confirmed that an important consideration in the design of such tests is to ensure that frauds cannot go on to claim scientific vindication as a result. This, Skolnick argues, is why Demkina was required to achieve a measure of success considerably higher than would be expected in normal scientific trials. In contrast, CSICOP, and the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (which was also involved in the testing), have published a number of responses to the criticism in which they argue that the level of significance required by Demkina was based solely on sound scientific grounds.

I've taken out the references to simplify the editing; I'll put them back in when we have an agreed version. As before, I recommend that we go sentence by sentence, in order to focus the discussion. In these two versions, the differences are as follows.

1. "again" is added in Davkal's version. In the context of the section we are editing, which is presented chronologically, again is clearly accurate, and could be regarded as simple narration. Does it seem POV, in that it connotes multiple criticisms?
2. The Discovery Channel is mentioned in the first version. Askolnick comments earlier that most people who know about Demkina know of her through the TV program. Is that generally agreed to be true? Are there reasons for not mentioning the TV program, or not characterizing the test as a "Discovery Channel test"?
3. She is described in the first version as 'the "girl with X-ray eyes"', and in the second version as "claimed Psychic". I'd like to know what is preferable or objectionable about either wording.

Since both sides have agreed that personal attacks have occurred, please rein in the rhetoric a bit. Remember that if your point is true, verifiable and relevant, it will likely end up in the article, and the fastest way to get it there is to make the case for it without verbal flourishes. With that in mind, comments, please. Mike Christie (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the documentary should be noted because it is particluarly the comments made by the testers in the documentary (and in other media) that amounts to what Josephson calls using "the media for propaganda". It is also almost certain that it is primarily through the media that people will know of the case rather than through reading SI.

I note that in the above paragraph, and in numerous places elsewhere, it is claimed that Josephson's critique contains a number of ad hominem attacks. I can't find any. Could examples of these be given, and if not, could the point not be raised again.Davkal 03:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Davkal. I'm not going to waste space here by pointing out Josephson's ad hominem attacks again, because you simply ignore almost everything I write. And the fact that you can't recognize the ad hominem attack that YOU JUST repeated is all the more reason to believe that pointing them out to you again will do no one any good. Askolnick 04:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy. To accuse someone of something is not, and cannot be, in and of itself a logical fallacy. It is merely an accusation, e.g., "a did x", which is clearly no logical fallacy. The key point is whether the accusation has any relevance to the overall argument. And since Josephson's point is, in large part, that the media were being used for propaganda, the accusation of using the media for propaganda is about as relevant as it gets. The gist of your point appears to be that nobody can criticize someone or accuse anyone of anything without it being an ad hominem attack and this is clearly not the case. Davkal 05:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, as I explained before, you are NOT allowed to make up your own definition. Please look up and memorize the definition of "ad hominem" so that you can recognize an ad hominem argument the next time you encounter one. Let me help you: "Ad hominem: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents motives." (From the American Heritage Dictionary).

It is the definition from Wiki that I used. An important part missing in your definition is relevance, which only makes it in tangentially inasmuch as relevance is part of logic. The contrast therefore (shown by "rather than" in your defintion) would not hold in Josephson's case since all the points he makes are relevant and therefore would form part of a logical argument. He does not, for example, make irrelevant personal claims by calling you Nazis or such like, which I think is the kind of thing suggested by your definition. In that sense Josephson appeals to no such personal considerations. Moreover, if your reading of the definition was correct, we could simply use as a criticism of CSICOP the fact that they engage in endless ad hominem attacks against their opponents (in many cases they do even given my definition but that is not my point here). The point being that given your reading, it seems that any type of negative statement relating to anything anyone has ever done could be labelled ad hominem - and that surely can't be right. Is it ad hominem to say Natasha failed the test?Davkal 09:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also point out that accusing me (incorrectly) of using my own definition when I went to the trouble of providing a link to show you where I got it from; then asking me to memorise your definition; then saying "let me help you", is about as condascending as it gets. So much for Mike's request for civility - lasted about two seconds.Davkal 09:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I've just about had it with all your disruptive misrepresentation of facts and statements. There can be no civil discussion with someone who refuses to play by honest rules of discourse. You are NOT allowed to constantly misrepresent every fact, every statement, every argument, and every definition to press your case. Even though I've asked you twice to look up the definition of "ad hominem" (and even provided with American Heritage's), you continue to disrupt this mediation by making blatantly false claims. Here's how Wikipedia defines ad hominem"

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself."

Which is entirely consistent with the American Heritage definition - and entirely consistent with the statements from Josephson that you insist on including. Calling a pig a calf is not going to get the dish on a kosher menu.

Here you claim that "it is the definition from Wiki that I used," and that an "important part" of the definition is "relevance." Not only is relevance NOT an "important part" it is NOT ANY part of Wiki's definition! Unless you stop this disruptive conduct, I (and I hope other editors here) will be forced to conclude you have no intention in taking a positive part in this mediation. You will simply be ignored. Askolnick 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling my conduct disruptive because I disagree with you is stupid - but that's probably to be expected. With regard to almost ever fact you have taken issue with me over I have been shown to be correct. You have engaged endlessly in pompous bluster even on so easily verifiable facts as Balles being a member of CSICOP and CSICOP awarding the Balles award - he is and they do and so even if he awards it they still do because he is part of they). It is your constant pompous disputing of such easily verifiable facts that if anything is disruptive. It is not for you to decide whether I am taking a positive part in the mediation - that can be seen from the number of my changes that have been accepted through the process of mediation. You may not like the fact that some people do not think much of CSICOP or CSMMH but many people do not. Many people are not fooled by an organsiation which calls itself a commission but has, in fact, been commissioned by nobody but themselves alone. And when an organisation has demonstrated an attempt to deceive with the very creation of it's name one is right, as Josephson is, to question the motivations of such an organisation and its members.Davkal 10:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike, I'll take your questions as numbered.

1. I don't see a POV problem with "again." However, I am a little concerned about the chance it may be misread as saying the Demkina Test came under criticism again. I tried to think of a simple rewording to eliminate that possibility. But I'm tired and came up blank.
2. From a scientific point of view it was a CSICOP-CSMMH test. Discovery Channel had no role whatsoever in the design of the test. But from a copyright ownership point of view, it was a Discovery Channel test of Natasha Demkina. The Channel owns the copyright to all sound and video of the test. I added "Discovery Channel test" in my version. I think it is important, for the reason you state. A substantial number of the people in the world who know of her do so because they watched the program, which was broadcast several times in Europe, Asia, and North America.
3. I pointed out (and both the Discovery Channel program and Skeptical Inquirer articles show) that Demkina does not identify herself as a "psychic." As Joe Nickell noted in his Skeptical Inquirer article (not cited in Natasha Demkina, Demkina's claims are kind of a combination of "medical clairovoyance" and "X-ray clairovoyance." However, I've never heard Demkina or her supporters use this terminology. Nor have I heard them refer to her as a psychic. "Psychic" generally implies someone who can read minds, see the past or future, communicate telepathically, or bend or move objects with their minds. Demkina doesn't claim any of these powers. She claims to be able to see inside of human and animal bodies with a special, X-ray-like vision. In my Skeptical Inquirer report, I occassionally referred to Demkina as a "medical psychic." While I prefer to use that term, I don't necessarily think it should be used in the Wiki article (unless as a quote from Skeptical Inquirer). I think the best choice would be to use the phrase that has been used in every report about her, "the girl with X-ray eyes". (It's metaphorical, because she doesn't claim that her eyes emit or receive X-rays.) In futher referrences, I would suggest using "medical psychic."

This is actually a surprisingly challenging question. As Joe Nickell found in his research, Demkina may be the first to combine two "tricks of the paranormal trade" - X-ray clairovoyance and medical clairovoyance. Medical clairovants claim to be able to psychically diagnose illnesses (Edgar Cayce was one of note). X-ray clairovants claim to be have a power to see through solid objects. Demkina appears to be the first to combine the two claims into a profitable routine.Askolnick 05:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Before we go any further I think we need to be clear about what Josephson is saying. That is, if this paragraph is going to be about Jospehson's criticisms then I feel we should be clear about what they are.

1. He is not saying that 4 out of 7 should be considered a success - he only asks this rhetorically at the start. He then goes on to say that "it seems to me that the only correct conclusion to have come to in regard to the test is that it was inconclusive". I think that is a fairly conclusive statement of Josephson's position and so if we are to portray it correctly that is what should be said.

2. Josephson is not engaging in ad hominem attacks although he is making some fairly damning allegations about the organisations and individuals involved in the tests. At no point are these allegations irrelevant or semi-relevant side-issues intended to bolster the argument unfairly (ad hominem) - they are the argument.

3. Jospehson's main criticism re the Demkina case, the one that for him shows CSICOP using the media as propaganda, is that the conclusions drawn by CSICOP members in the documentary and in other news media have no scientific justification. That is, for example, Hymen's suggestion that "my hope for Natasha is that she will grow up ... and give up this aspect of her life ... I don't think it is good in the long run for any of us to be living an illusion". It is this type of unwarranted negative conclusion that Jospehson argues amounts to putting forward the CSICOP line without scientific justifcation - ie. using the media for propaganda. And it is in this context that his comments about the decision to require 5 out of 7 should be viewed.

To my knowledge, nobody has provided a valid response to this last charge. That is, all that has been said here so far is that CSICOP never drew such negative conclusions. Or elsewhere, that CSICOP's conclusions were drawn not only from the experiment but from impressions formed, and anecdotal evidence provided by the experimenters.Davkal 07:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

An alternate wording would be:

...and argued that the test should have been deemed "inconclusive." He also questioned the researchers' motivations, alleging the experiment was "some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic ".

This avoids the use of "ad hominem".

Jospehson's points about "media as propaganda" are simply too unclear to bother with. Hymen's comment on Demkina giving up living an illusion was based on his opinion of the situation. Stating an opinion, especially a conspicuously rational one, based on the premise that someone probably doesn't have X-Ray vision, is not propaganda.

I expect that the paragraph, with this change, still won't be to your liking Davkal, but keep in mind that yours is a minority position. If you raise valid points, show flexibility and avoid engaging in personal attacks, then there's good reason to continue this debate. If you don't, there isn't. KarlBunker 10:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Karl. That's still an ad hominem argument. It impugns the motives of the researchers rather than addressing their arguments. If you open up this Wiki article to personal attacks from one side of a scientific dispute, you must open it up to the other side. And trust me, there has been much said that impugns the motives of Josephson - the guy who claims Uri Geller is not a charlatan. Everything else you say is right on the money. Askolnick 13:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to have a word with your friends about that as well karl. Anyway, I think the proposed wording is much better. I would take out "teenage claimed psychic" since doubts have been raised about its validity, and say "...plot to discredit" Demkina". I disagree that Josephson's point is unclear though, it is simply the follow on from the above. That is, given that the test was inconclusive there was no scientific justification for the conclusions that were drawn - not just Hyman's. There is a lot more that could be said re the conclusions but I won't at the moment since I just wanted the point to be made clearly.Davkal 12:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What friends are you talking about Davkal? I don't see anything Karl has mentioned about his friends. Please explain. Askolnick

On another matter; since you insist on including personal attacks Josephson makes on his self-published personal web page against the researchers' motives and integrity, I presume you would have no objection to including one researcher's reply on from his own web page. Because you've agreed to follow WIKI NPOV rules, you should agree to including the following sentence:

"'Josephson's self-published personal attack misrepresents statistics and other facts, as he often does in his on-going war against critics of paranormal charlatans,'" says Skolnick."

Because this is also a highly RELEVANT accusation made by a well-established authority, you should have no objection. Unless of course you now think we should keep this can of worms closed and not start including personal attacks and ad hominem arguments. What do other editors think? Should we open this article up to some good old fashion mud slinging and make it much more interesting? Or stick to points of substance like the reputable encyclopedia we're supposed to be? Askolnick 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should put both, Josephson's ad hominem and your reply, into the article about Josephson. "Josephson has recently come under attack for..." would be a good start. Now that I read this, I agree that Josephson's ad hominem should be mentioned only if your answer is included. --Hob Gadling 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"In addition, the leader of the investigation, Andrew Skolnick, is director of the organisation CSMMH [..] It would be consistent with the aims of members of such organisations for the experiment to be designed to maximise the chances of being able to discredit Natasha."

Josephson points out that Skolnick is likely to have a certain point of view, then uses a prejudice of his against people with such a point of view and uses the result to corroborate his allegations. This is clearly ad hominem.

But since Davkal will probably not agree, there is not much we can do. I think Karl's alternate wording is good enough. "...plot to discredit Demkina" is OK too.

Just a remark about significance levels: significance levels are arbitrary. You can choose the most sensible value. If Type 2 errors are fine with you but you want to avoid Type 1 errors at all cost (Josephson's position and that of the current psi-believing parapsychologists), fine, use 5%. If you think that a Type 2 error is the most likely (the position of Rhine and the Demkina researchers), use a stricter value. Josephson is off his rocker if he thinks every scientist has to estimate the risks the same way he does.

Also, I just realized that the paragraph in question is missing an important NPOV word: "In 2004 CSICOP was criticized for allegedly unscientific procedures". --Hob Gadling 14:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Josephson is off his rocker. But not for thinking every scientist has to estimate the risks the way he does, because I don't think he believes it. That specious argument was simply an excuse for launching one of his anti-skeptic, ad hominem argument-filled diatribes against Richard Wiseman, Ray Hyman, and CSICOP. I'm not sure "allegedly" is needed. The sentence says "CSICOP was accused of unscientific procedures ..." Accused implies that "allegedly" (allege and accused are synonyms). And your comments re the choice of significance levels is spot on. You put the issue into a nutshell. Askolnick 03:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with all this Josephson baiting and mutual back-slapping is that the a Professor of statistics, with no prior axe to grind, said Jospehson's criticisms on his web page were "scientifically and statistically correct", the experiment was "woefully inadequate in many ways", and Wiseman's responses demontrated a "complete lack of understanding of how experimental data should be interpreted statistically". The point, then, is that anyone here can come up with any opinions they like about the use of statistics, or anything else for that matter, but it simply cannot be refuted that two well places scientists, with no personal involvement in the affair, have been heavily critical of the way the test was conducted, including the way statistics were used and interpreted. It is not for us here to try to get to the bottom of the issue by assessing these comments from our own perspective - in a section about criticism and controversy we need merely describe what took place.Davkal 09:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do have to describe what took place: a statistician formed an opinion about research BEFORE the research was published, based on reading the self-published web site of a scientist with an "axe to grind" against those who scorn him. After the researchers reports were published, when the statistician had time to read what they actually did, not a peep from him. And we should describe that the newspaper said the other scientist (whom Davkal insists has "no personal involvement in the affair") who is "scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal."

"No personal involvement in the affair?" What dissembling poppycock! Josephson has long held and expressed animosity towards two of the researchers, to CSICOP, and to others who are critical of his promotion and defense of paranormal charlatans. And right on this page, Davkal has expressed similar animosity towards CSICOP and towards my colleagues and me, which is why we have to keep dealing with this never-ending stream of dishonest polemics.

And please, before judging me for these uncivil comments, consider that he keeps forcing me to respond to false and misleading statements and accusations that my colleagues and I are cheats and frauds. He insists his arguments are civil and not ad hominem because they're relevant and therefore do not meet the definition of ad hominem. That itself is another clearly dishonest statement: relevant or irrelevant, ad hominem is ad hominem.Askolnick 14:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This debate is becoming little more than an exchange of lengthy tirades, so I'm hoping we can end it soon. This appears to be what we currently have for a paragraph:

In 2004, CSICOP was accused of unscientific procedures in its involvement with the Discovery Channel's test of the "girl with X-ray eyes," Natasha Demkina. Nobel Prize winning physicist and advocate of the paranormal Brian Josephson found fault with the test and evaluation methods and argued that the test should have been deemed "inconclusive." He also questioned the researchers' motivations, alleging the experiment was "some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic." Ray Hyman, one of the three researchers who designed and conducted the test, wrote a response to this and other criticisms. He noted that their decision to require a significance level of approximately 0.02 (instead of the more commonly used 0.05) was based on a Bayesian analysis, which is appropriate when testing unlikely claims. He also pointed out that substantially lower significance values were commonly used by J.B. Rhine and other paranormal researchers. The Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health published a detailed rebuttal of other objections.

To Askolnick's point, this quote is certainly still ad hominem, but it isn't identified as such by the article. Doing so is unnecessary, since it's obvious, though not so overwhelmingly obvious that it isn't arguably POV to call it that. There's no requirement in WP that quotes be neutral or well-reasoned or non ad hominem. I left "teenage claimed psychic" in Josephson's quote, since it is a quote and it reads better than it would if it were cut off in mid sentence so a more correct characterization of Demkina could be inserted.

Can we agree that this, or something close to it, is "good enough", so we can end this part of the debate?

KarlBunker 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Karl, your points are persuasive. But I'd like to suggest some further changes:

In 2004, CSICOP was accused of unscientific procedures in its involvement with the Discovery Channel's test of the "girl with X-ray eyes," Natasha Demkina. In a self-published commentary on his web site, Nobel Prize-winning physicist and advocate of the paranormal Brian Josephson attacked the skeptical researchers and their test, calling it at best "inconclusive." He accused the researchers of "fixing" the test by using too-high a level of statistical significance out of "some kind of a plot to discredit the teenage psychic." Ray Hyman, one of the three researchers who designed and conducted the test, published a response to this and other criticisms. He noted that their decision to require a significance level of approximately 0.02 (instead of the more commonly used 0.05) was based on a Bayesian analysis, which is appropriate when testing unlikely claims. He also pointed out that substantially lower significance values were commonly used by J.B. Rhine and other paranormal researchers. The Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health also published a detailed rebuttal of these and other objections.

I am much more willing to include his ad hominem attack if it's pointed out that it was never published in reputable publication. This would help counter the opposite logical fallacy to ad hominems that's being used here - "appeal to authority." It's obvious that putting in "Nobel Prize winning" is an attempt to persuade readers that Josephson's opinion must be of great value (never mind that he got the prize for a nearly 50-year-old discovery in solid state physics, yet here he is pontificating on paranormal research and diagnostic medical testing, neither of which he's ever conducted or published research!) Without noting that Josephson put the rant up on his own web site, readers would likely be misled into believing that he disputed this in a scientific forum. I'd find it far more acceptable if readers are informed that the attack was self-published.

I am opposed to using "found fault" because that implies fault was found and is not NPOV. I suggest saying instead, "He accused the skeptical researchers..." because, let's be honest, that's what he's doing. With those changes, I no longer think any any answer to his ad hominem arguments is necessary. They would speak for themselves. Askolnick 04:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Askolnick, are you suggesting Joseephson won the Nobel prize for work done as a 16 year-old schoolboy (high praise indeed) or that he pinched someone else's earlier discovery (libel). Davkal 12:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot has been said above; I've been through it trying to identify points of consensus, and I think that Karl's version moves us a long way in the right direction. Specific points:

• "again" is omitted in the first sentence; I don't think this matters much.
• "Discovery Channel" reference; I think all parties agree this is worth including.
• "girl with X-ray eyes"; this also seems uncontroversial, and is apparently how she, or her supporters, refer to her.
• The second sentence, if I understand the exchanges above, is a good compromise, retaining the point that Josephson felt the test should have been described as inconclusive.
• The next sentence is mostly a direct quote and does not pass judgement on the quote. I think this works; we thus get two sentences to directly state Josephson's concerns, including a partial quote.

I hope that those first three sentences can be agreed on by all parties; please let me know if not.

The remaining four sentences consist of three describing the statistical question at hand, and one sentence mentioning a further response from CSMMH. The first of these neutrally states that Hyman responded; again this seems uncontroversial. The remaining three sentences seem to me to need a little more review. Here are a couple of points.

• For sentence five, we currently have no reference. The sentence is "He noted that their decision to require a significance level of approximately 0.02 (instead of the more commonly used 0.05) was based on a Bayesian analysis, which is appropriate when testing unlikely claims." It's the final clause that needs a reference; can someone give a textbook or similar reference that makes this assertion?
• It was also suggested by Davkal earlier that we eliminate sentences five and six completely, simply stating something such as "Hyman rejected the criticisms, and asserted that the test followed good statistical practice." In other words, a description of the grounds of the rejection, rather than an actual statement of the reasons. Would this suffice, or are the two sentences giving details valuable?
• The statement about Rhine et al. I assume is uncontroversial since it appears to be a straightforward statement of fact. It would be unnecessary if we follow the suggestion to reduce the statistical sentences to summary statements, but seems relevant and informative if we retain them.
• The final sentence should, I think, change "rebuttal" to "response", in line with previous edits we've made to avoid the appearance of POV.]

That's a relatively small number of points -- if we can settle these, we'll have completed the last hard paragraph in what I expect to be the hardest section in the article. Comments, please. And by the way, I'm sorry I was unable to contribute earlier today; I had to drive to Houston and back. I should be able to be a bit more responsive for the next few days. Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help Mike. Here are my comments:

• Mike, the fifth sentence goes with Hyman's articles. Also, another reference Bayesian inference which explains the concept, is there in the text. If that's not enough, we could look at Hyman's online article and cite one of references he provides. I notice that the main Hyman reference is missing. We need to put that (back?) in. Hyman's secondary article contains most of the explanation of statistics, but it needs to be cited with the primary article in order to make more sense. [5] The primary article is [6] And the third Skeptical Inquirer article (also missing) was by me and should also be cited. [7] (that link is broken. I'll ask CSICOP to fix it.)
• Of course Davkal wants to include more of Josephson's attack, but doesn't want to add the researchers' rebuttal. He says a nice, short, "Uh uh, not it's not" should suffice. Do you really want to know what I think of this argument? To spare your ear drums, let me just say, Hey, what happened to our goal of NPOV?
• Righto as to Rhine. It's historical fact and it shows how outrageously disingenuous Josephson's tirade is. P values of 0.001 and 0.01 are quite common in paranormal research. We used a more generous 0.02 - and he is accusing us of cheating and "fixing" the test for doing so. As Hob correctly points out (and it is supported by the Wikipedia article on statistical significance), the choice of P value for a scientific experiment IS arbitrary, and is chosen in large part on the basis of which is more important to the researchers: reducing the risk of false negatives or false positives. For a "Nobel Prize-winning" physicist to say otherwise is simply dishonest. As someone who claims expertise in statistics, he knows what he's saying is false.
• The reference in question actually IS a rebuttal. Indeed, it is structured in an "Accusation - Answer" format. [8] Askolnick 05:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: Josephson is a scientist, but he isn't objecting for scientific reasons. He is assuming that the test results will fall either (1) chance or (2) she actually has x-ray eyes. Actually the test results are either (1) chance, (2) she either has x-ray eyes OR is getting information from some other source. That's a big OR. I think she said that she had a 100% success rate. The test disproved that, at least. Bubba73 (talk), 04:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bubba, Josephson is objecting on completely scientific grounds - that's how Keith Rennolls can say that J's criticisms were "scientifically and statistically correct". Also, just a point, the test didn't demonstrate anything about Demkina's success rate at what she actually does since it tested one of her alleged abilities in circumnstances quite different to those in which she actually operates - circumstances in which the testers decided (for reasons that were never explained), that an ability they admit they know nothing about (they don't believe it exists so can know nothing about it) must still operate fully fledged so to speak. A bit like concluding someone can't play the piano at all because they can't play it with their hands tied behind their back. This criticism has been made on numerous occassions by many commentators but has been left out of the paragraph for the sake of brevity. There is also something wrong with the response to this criticism generally offered (that Demkina agreed to the conditions) inasmuch as when one is dealing with a completely unknown phenomenon (which was supposed to have been what was being tested) one cannot assume that anyone knows how it works and so nobody's agreement, not even the person with the alleged ability, should take precedence over solid scientific reasoning. Conducting tests of this kind is good way of turning a synthete into a charlatan thereby closing the scientific door on another fascinating mental phenomenon until someone risks villification by seriously studying it. This general criticism has also been made re CSICOP a number of times but I'm not sure they understand it, or if they do they ignore it. The war on terror, sorry the advancement of scientism taking precedence over scientific advancement. This further criticism has also been made many times and is, I think, a better vantage point from which to view Josphson's criticism than the rigorous scientific vantage point offered above: he's off his rocker. Davkal 10:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Her mother claimed in front of the Discovery Channel camera that her daughter never ever made a misdiagnosis in the thousands of readings she's given. Demkina has set up her own "medical center" in Moscow where she's practicing medicine without a license as she goes to medical school (I kid you not - only in CorRuptsia!) On her web site, she makes a number of claims indicating 90 percent and better accuracy rates.

By the way, in her reading of me (which she asked to do), she issued a whole bunch of diagnostic findings - not one of which was correct. Let me grab my calculator and do the math... that's 0 percent. Wow! By coincidence, that's the same exact percentage of correct dignoses she achieved in her on-television reading of TV doc Chris Steele. Wow! The same score! Must be something paranormal going on here ... Askolnick 05:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of points. The first needs to be made loudly and clearly. Nobody here is claiming that Demkina has any paranormal powers or can do anything whatsoever. It is simply not the point - not even Josephson's. Let everyone be perfectly clear on this. Askolnick's anecdotes about her failures tell us nothing about the CSICOP test's validiy or otherwise. It also misses (indeed supports)the point that many criticis of CSICOP make - CSICOP cheats to expose what they believe are cheats (anecdotes are one of CSICOP's whipping boys when used by proponenets of the paranormal but suddenly become proof positive in the mouth of "Sceptics"). The point, then, the real point, that Jospehson is making is that there was poor science going on for a number of reasons. We also have a professor of statistics claiming the test was scientifically "woefully inadequate in many ways." A number of the responses that are currently in the suggested paragraph (which still make up more than 50% of the paragraph - more space to CSICOP that the criticis in the criticism section again) do not address these criticsms but attempt to turn them into a slightly different point which is then disingenuously addressed. For example, the stuff about J. B Rhine requiring 0.001 and 0.01 is disingenuous because as all the people from CSICOP who cite this know full well, or should know full well (I know it full well and I know next to nothing about statistics), such levels only make sense when you take very large sample sizes (thousands as opposed to 7). This, I believe, is the gist of one of Rennols' complaints.

In conclusion, then, I would suggest the following:

"In 2004, CSICOP was accused of unscientific procedures over its involvement with the Discovery Channel's test of the "girl with X-ray eyes," Natasha Demkina. In a self-published commentary on his web site, Nobel Prize winning physicist Brian Josephson found fault with the test and evaluation methods, arguing that the test should have been deemed "inconclusive," and claiming that the researchers drew conclusions from the test results that had no scientific justification. He concluded by questioning the researchers' motivations, alleging the experiment was "some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic." In a letter to the Times Educational Supplement, which covered the controversy, professor of statistics Keith Rennolls supported Josephson's criticisms and described the experiment as "woefully inadequate in many ways." Ray Hyman, one of the three researchers who designed and conducted the test, wrote a response to this and other criticisms. He noted that their decision to require a significance level of approximately 0.02 (instead of the more commonly used 0.05) was based on a Bayesian analysis, which is appropriate when testing unlikely claims. He also pointed out that substantially lower significance values were commonly used by J.B. Rhine and other paranormal researchers. The Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health, which was also involved in the testing, published a detailed response to these and other objections.Davkal 09:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal is right to say he knows next to nothing about statistics. The same level of stastical significance for either large or small test samples have the same meaning, for crying out loud! The mathematical process involved in measuring the statistical significance of outcomes ADJUSTS for sample size. A study of 7 that yields a P value of 0.05 provides exactly the same level of confidence as a study of 70o,000 that yields a P value of 0.05. I can't believe we have to put up with such PERSISTENT arguments from ignorance. Davkal keeps insisting that Josephson's statistical arguments are sound. To him I'm sure they are. To anyone with knowledge about statistics in research knows otherwise. (This conclusion has a P value of 0.0000001.)

Again, Dakval just ignores my point that Rennolls made these comments in a letter based ONLY on Josephson's self-published web site and off-the-cuff quotes from Wiseman reported in the paper. Rennolls wrote that BEFORE the researchers' reports on the test were published. I pointed this out to him. And I pointed out to him that Rennolls NEVER published ANY criticism AFTER the reports were published. Such silence is a way experts say, "Oh. Never mind." Supporters of Josephson and Natasha Demkina have not been able to come up with even one published criticism of the test's statistics in response to the published results. That's why they're grasping at this one straw that was written before the test process and results were published. Askolnick

Dakval, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you falsely claimed Wiki's definition of ad hominem says that for an argument to be ad hominem it must also be irrelvant. You gave this link to back up your bogus definition. Did you not think we would check it out? Askolnick 13:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A few points. 1. I said I know next to nothing about statistics and stand by this so it doesn't worry me in the slightest (and reflects nothing on Jospehson's argument if I have made a major mistake here). This is precisely why I relied on the what a professor of statistics had to say on the matter. In short, Josephson and Rennoll's arguments stand up irrespective of my knowledge of statistics or lack of it. Re your other points here, Rennolls said what he did - the experiment is described fully in Jospehson's account (7 people, cards, numbers, match the people to the cards etc.) so Rennolls knew what the experiment entailed. Maybe he even watched the programme and was appaled. Who knows? To speculate about what he now thinks and conclude that he must agree with you is an argumentum non-existium.

2. I said Wiki's definition used the notion of relevance because it does. It makes heavy use of it even though it is only stated explicitly a few times. It can be seen in every example but is so obvious that it is not mentioned much.

Take the example given in Wiki (and please note I am not saying that there is anything wrong with being Jewish):

1. Einstein claims relativity is correct. 2. Einstein is Jewish. 3. Hence relativity is false.

Jewishness being an irrelevant point in assessing a scientific theory - that's what makes it ad hominem. This is nothing like what Jospehson is saying. Now compare that with:

1. Evidence that Einstein is Jewish. 2. Evidence that Einstein is Jewish. 3. Einstein is Jewish.

Which has more of the form, if not the content, of Jospehson's argument. Please note that even though the very part of the first argument that makes it ad hominem is the conclusion of the second argument, the second argument is not ad hominem.

If your definition was correct then the editors of Wiki on ad hominem (and all the other logic textbooks) could have saved themselves a whole lot of trouble and used the following as an example:

1. A was a bad man.

Note that it is not even an argument, it is an assertion, but I have explained all that before as well. Davkal 14:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cut the crap Davkal. Show us this so-called definition you insist you found in Wiki's ad hominem. This is a fair and simple request. Show us this so-called Wiki definition. Don't treat us with yet another essay of sophistry. Show us the definition. Show it to us or admit that you made it up. You say this definition "only stated [the need for relevance] explicitly a few times." Show us these few times. As I noted already, Wiki's article does not mention this even once. Show us these explicit mentions or admit that you made it up. Askolnick 18:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK the crap is cut. There is one mention of relevance and one of irrelevance in the Wiki article - if you use Ctrl+f you can use the search facility to find them. My point though, never depended on the Wiki definition - in fact I may go there and suggest some changes given that logic is my subject. My point was that relevance is central to the notion of an ad hominem argument. Here is a link to a page dealing with ad hominem arguments http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06a.htm . The page is titled "Fallacies of relevance" because, interestingly enough (I didn't bother to tell you this earlier since I was having so much fun), an ad hominem argument is one of a group of fallacies known collectively as the "Fallacies of relevance". Put it into a search engine and see what comes up. One of the things found will be this http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/general/gl_fallacies.html where you will see the following definition of a fallacy of relevance which includes, as noted, ad hominem arguemnts:

"Fallacies of relevance occur when the premises of an argument are irrelevant to the conclusion."

Davkal 19:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are but a few of your many false statements you wrote here to back up your denial that you and Josepshon are trafficking in ad hominem arguments. I accused you of making up your own definition of ad hominem to do so, and you howled in protest and denial, claiming:

"Ad hominem is when you attack the person in an irrelevant way - speculating about motives is not necessarily ad hominem." (Correct - ad hominem arguments belonging to a group of fallaies known as the "fallacies of relevance" Davkal)

"It is the definition from Wiki that I used." (I did, it is consistent with everything I said inasmuch as relevance is a central point to all the example given. Davkal)

"I would also point out that accusing me (incorrectly) of using my own definition when I went to the trouble of providing a link to show you where I got it from...is about as condascending as it gets." (there are a significant amount of words missed out here which are kind of important - nonetheless, I did provide a link to a definition of ad hominem where the notion of relevance was central. Davkal)

"I said Wiki's definition used the notion of relevance because it does. It makes heavy use of it even though it is only stated explicitly a few times." (It does and it is. Davkal)

And now back peddling (I'm not back peddling at all, I'm laughing. Davkal), you say:

"There is one mention of relevance and one of irrelevance in the Wiki article - if you use Ctrl+f you can use the search facility to find them. My point though, never depended on the Wiki definition - in fact I may go there and suggest some changes given that logic is my subject. (2 mentions = a few, that's all I said so this was true. My point didn't depend on the Wiki definition because I already knew exactly what the term meant and could speak freely without needing a dictionary. Davkal)

This is typical of the dishonest and disruptive comments Davkal keeps posting that is interfering with and frustrating the editors here who are trying to make this article better. (Dishonest - I think not. Disruptive, possibly, since it certainly seems to disrupt Askolnick's little scheme for the article to have to deal with someone who knows what he is talking about. Davkal)

By the way, if one does what Davkal says and searchers for "relevant" or "irrelevant," you will find no occurrence in the definition or discussion of ad hominem. Near the bottom of the article, a few Subtypes of ad hominem arguments are defined. There you will find the two words used once in the description of "Ad hominem tu quoque" - which is an argument "that refers to an irrelevant accusation of hypocrisy"! I think a new Subtype should be added: "Ad hominem via Davkal."Askolnick 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is, and has always been, that the notion of relevance is central to the notion of an ad hominem argument. Now dry yer eyes and admit, like I did in the case of statistics, that you didn't know what you were talking about. Davkal 23:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a move in the right direction to me. Davkal has added "self-published", per one of Askolnick's comments. He has added Rennolls' criticism, which also seems relevant to me; the length of the criticism is still about the same as the length of the response to it. The only other change I can spot is "rebuttal" -> "response", which seems reasonable.

I would still like to see a cite for ". . . which is appropriate when testing unlikely claims"; I am not disputing this, but it seems worthwhile to point to an authority on this specific point. Askolnick made the case above, but we can't cite Wikipedia, so I'm going to dig into my statistics books and see what I can find -- if anyone else can provide a reference please do so.

Askolnick, to answer your question, the other refs are not deleted, I simply dropped them for readability -- I'll put them back in exactly as Karl had them at the start of this section.

Comments please -- I think we're close. Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also dropped "proponent of the paranormal" as a description of Josephson. Davkal 11:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you say why? It seems relevant to me; it's informative to the reader as it may be a source of bias. Is it accurate? Mike Christie (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "parapsycholgist" is the appropriate term - I am happy to have that included.Davkal 11:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To me "parapsychologist" means a researcher, rather than a supporter -- is that an accurate description of Josephson? Mike Christie (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Davkal 11:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think it might be useful to put "so-called" before the name of the CSMMH since some readers might take the name at face value and conclude they are an official body (i.e. a commission) rather that a private organisation.Davkal 11:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason not to characterize them, but "so-called" might not be the best term. I looked at their website, but the "about" link is not working. However, per the Wikipedia entries on CSMMH and Center for Inquiry, it seems that it would be fair to describe it as follows: "The Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health, a private organization associated with CSICOP, was also involved in the testing, and published a detailed response to these and other objections." Comments? Mike Christie (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, "so-called" is not a good term to use but I couldn't think of anything else. Your solution sounds good.Davkal 12:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but thanks mainly to Davkal, these "negotiations" have become more acrimonious and more of a waste of resources than the "war" they're supposed to end. I'm breaking off and going back to plain editing. I've inserted a good compromise version of the Demkina paragraph. I suggest that any further discussion/negotiation be done in the edit summaries on the article page. At least there there's a limit to the number of characters one can use. KarlBunker 14:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I see Karl's just posted a version that is close to what we're discussing here. If nobody objects I'm going to post some more slight modifications to include the changes Davkal and I discussed above; I'll do that later today, if I can find time. Mike Christie (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to offer this version for everyone's consideration:

"In 2004, CSICOP was accused of scientific misconduct over its involvement in the Discovery Channel's test of the "girl with X-ray eyes," Natasha Demkina. In a self-published commentary on his web site, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson attacked the researchers' test and evaluation methods. He argued that the test should have been deemed "inconclusive" and accused the researchers of drawing conclusions that have no scientific justification. He also attacked the researchers's motives and called the test "some kind of a plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic." He accused them of unethically raising the statistical level so that Demkina would fail. The Times Educational Supplement reported the dispute between the CSICOP researchers and Josephson, whom the paper described as "scorned by colleagues for his enthusiasm for the paranormal." The paper later published two letters in Josephson's defense, including one from Keith Rennolls, professor of applied statistics at University of Greenwich. The letter supports Josephson's criticisms of the test's statistics and describes the test as "woefully inadequate in many ways." Rennolls's letter, which was based on the newsaper report and Josephson's account of the test, appeared before the researchers' reports of their study were published. Following their publication, Rennolls did not publicly repeat his criticism. In one of those reports, professor of psychology Ray Hyman replied to Josephson's criticism of their statistical methods. He noted that their decision to require a significance level of approximately 0.02 (instead of the more commonly used 0.05) was based on a Bayesian analysis, which he said is appropriate when testing unlikely claims. He also pointed out that substantially lower significance values were commonly used by J.B. Rhine and other paranormal researchers.[9] [10] The Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health, a private group affiliated with CSICOP that took part in the testing, published a detailed response to these and other objections.[11] Askolnick 15:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is now over long - the Demkina case is just one criticism. I have also reverted KB's changes since a) the mediation was requested by me, b) the mediation continues and is proving constructive in that we are getting a much more balanced article; and c)and if KB wishes to cease his involvement in the mediation then that is his perogative - it does not mean he can simply bypass the discussion page and write the article the way he wants. Davkal 17:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, Davkal. You're the one who insisted on adding more balance by adding more material from the perspective of CSICOP's critics. When you add more material, articles get longer. I think what you mean by this criticism is that you want to remove material from the non-critic's viewpoint. Not going to happen.

As far as Karl's added text, it's fine with me. What he added is an outstandingly written, fair and balanced point of view of a great scientist and science communicator*. It eloquently sums up how friend and foe feel about CSICOP and why the work of CSICOP is so important. I vote it stays. Askolnick

• And member of CSICOP you must have forgotten to say.

The problem with the Sagan quote is that it is a response to a criticism of scientific scepticism in general - not of CSICOP. It also clearly doesn't sum up how foes feel about the organisation - if you're interested in that I could get you some quotes. In fact, I did so earlier, here are a few again (and these are not even necessarily from foes):

Sociologists Pinch and Collins (1984) described the Committee as a “scientific-vigilante” organization; medical professor Louis Lasagna (1984) wrote, “One can almost smell the fiery autos-da-fe of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition;” Rockwell, Rockwell, and Rockwell (1978b) called CSICOP members “irrational rationalists;” Robert Anton Wilson (1986) labeled CSICOP the “New Inquisition,” and White (1979) called them “new disciples of scientism.”

Sagan's quote somehow pales in comparison. It also contains the phrase "on both sides of this issue" demonstating the "us and them" attitude Askolnick pointed out above was the hallmark of cranks and crackpots.

Another problem with Sagam's quote is that it flies in the face of point 6 of CSICOP's charter, which is: "Do not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examine them objectively and carefully." The point being, how can Sagan know, ahead of time, that every paranormal wonder reported in the media will have "another side" after objective and careful examination. What are we to say about this?

All that being said, I have no real objection to the Sagan quote now that some more serious criticisms of the organisation have been included. My original complaint about the section was that there were nothing but nevbulous criticisms and then a flowery quote (Sagan's) that didn't say very much at all. Now that this is no longer the case the Sagan quote fits in reasonable well and don't really mind if it stays. It also quite nicely illustrates CSICOP's main function as, in Truzzi's words, "a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy."Davkal 18:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, I'm serious about this. If you continue to disrupt this discussion by misrepresenting facts and falsehoods to press your arguments, I will be compelled to post a complaint on [wiki:RfC]. I've told you several times now to stop. And yet here you go again. Although I am the former executive director of an associate group, I am not (and never have been) a member of CSICOP. Nor is Robert Balles, as you continue to falsely claim in an effort to dismiss the prize he awards. Balles and I are subscribers to CSICOP's publications - that's all. There are tens of thousands of subscribers and they're called "associate members" - as the AAAS calls subscribers to its publication Science. And now this latest falsehood - that I claim "showing both sides of an issue" is "the hallmark of cranks and crackpots" - suggests Davkal has absolutely no intent to stop this disruptive conduct. If so, I will bring a complaint with Wikipedia:RfC. Askolnick 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was that Sagan's quote talks about there being imperfections "on both sides of this issue" refering to sceptics and believers. Now, this means that Sagan considers there to be two sides, them and us. That was point one. Point two was that Askolnick had described a "them and us" attitude as the hallmark of cranks and crackpots. Point three (the conclusion of the argument) was that Sagan's view of a them and us situation is the view that Askolnick attributed to cranks and crackpots. Bizarrely enough, Askolnick interprets this as me saying that he said that "showing both sides of the issue is the hallmark of cranks and crackpots." As anyone can see, this has nothing like the same meaning so maybe he should remove the idiotic warning from my talk page and above and then apologise. And, as evidence that Askolnick did say what I claimed, here is what he wrote above; "crackpots and cranks who see scientific questions in the form of "them vs. us.".

On the Balles point, a member is a member is a member. And in any case, my point is that CSICOP award the Balles award - it says so on their website. Straight from the horses mouth so to speak. Askolnick mnaintains that this is wrong (even though it is repeated everywhere and nowhere is it said that anyone other than CSICOP awards the prize. I'll believe it when I see it. Davkal 19:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Again you were caught in an effort to mislead and deceive. You attempted to throw your ad hominem darts at Robert Balles and then me by saying we are "members of CSICOP." That is false and you know it. Obviously, it would hardly be an effective way to impugn our motives by calling us "subscribers to CSICOP's publications." So that's why you used the misleading choice of words. What makes this so inexcusable is the fact that even after this was pointed out to you, you continued to repeat the false, ad hominem argument.

No, CSICOP awards the prize, but it DOES not select the winner. That also was pointed out to you but you continue to repeat the falsehood.Askolnick 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1. As you know, the website says CSICOP selects the winner as well.

2. Are you sure you're using "ad hominem" correctly now (see above).

3. If you are an associate member of CSICOP then you are a member of CSICOP. The word "member" sort of gives the game away. Davkal 20:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And here's what Askolnick had to say elsewhere about the Balles prize

"While Lumiere [...] doesn't like our Skeptical Inquirer articles on Natasha Demkina, the judges for the first Robert P. Balles Annual Prize in Critical Thinking clearly do." (my emphasis).

I know Balles has an "s" at the end of his name but that doesn't make him more than one person. Maybe other CSICOP members in addition to CSICOP member Balles were the judges. Or then again, maybe CSICOP's website is correct and it is a simply a CSICOP judged, CSICOP awarded prize that CSICOP member Balles put up the money for and which CSICOP first awarded to CSICOP member Hyman, CSICOP member Nickell and CSICOP member Skolnick.Davkal 12:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a few facts:

1. Here is a complete list of all CSICOP fellows: [12]. There is no such thing as a "member" of CSICOP, but the Committee consists of "fellows" (so you could call the fellows "members"). As you can see, neither Skolnick nor Balles is on the list.
2. An ad hominem fallacy is called a "fallacy of relevance" because the properties of a person are not relevant to what the person says. Ignoring a person's argument because the person has properties one does not like is a fallacy, independently of the relation of property and argument. For example: if a non-biologist makes a false claim about biology, you refute his argument by showing that the argument is false, not by pointing out that he is a non-biologist. Non-biologists can say true things about biology, that's why ad hominem is not relevant. --Hob Gadling 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

Any objections if I do some archiving? This page is enormously long. I'd archive everything up to my initial mediation. Mike Christie (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

pleaseDavkal 12:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not from me. Askolnick 13:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

sounds good Addhoc 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that this evening; and I'll also assemble another version of the paragraph in the section above, and include all the refs from the original, for everyone to take one more look at before we make the change. Mike Christie (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's done; I renamed the old archive page, which had a slightly non-standard name. Mike Christie (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to Demkina paragraph

First, I'd like to say that in principle Karl is right to return to editing directly. Mediating on the talk page and reaching slow and painful agreement is less than ideal; if we can reach a consensus version through normal edits, we'll be better off. I propose to continue the mediation by making edits as a neutral third party, and participating on the talk page. I hope that will be useful.

I've made a few edits to the Demkina paragraph, in line with various discussions above. If there is disagreement, please edit or revert and we can discuss. I did not add a sentence about Rennolls, because I am insufficiently familiar with the sources to be sure of the importance. I have to say, however, that as a general reader of scientific inclination, I think his criticism would be likely to carry more weight than Josephson's. I have read Askolnick's comments about Rennolls, and they seem relevant, but I would want to see citations for the points Askolnick makes. Having said that I did not add it to the article because it is evidently controversial and, as I said, because I'm not sufficiently expert in the material.

With that one exception, I think the controversy section is now in good shape. I believe this section is much the hardest one to edit, though I'm sure disagreements remain elsewhere.

Since I think the overall version from which these most recent edits are made was more to Davkal's liking than Karl's, I would expect to see Karl, Askolnick and others making changes more than Davkal. I will participate in editing and commenting as I see those changes come through.Mike Christie (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I think you've done an outstanding job. I'm definitely going to lose that "parapsychologist" title. Wiki and other sources define the term as one who scientifically studies paranormal phenomena. That's not what Josephson does or ever did. He's NEVER published ANY parapsychology research. Wiki describes Josephson as "one of the most well-known advocates of the possibility of the existence of paranormal phenomena." And that's it. When it comes to paranormal claims, Josephson is NOT a scientist, he's an advocate. Josephson doesn't publish any research on paranormal phenomena. He has published a few commentaries promoting belief in the paranormal and criticizing skeptical scientists. Askolnick 04:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The change is fine with me; I introduced it based on Davkal commenting that Josephson was indeed a researcher. Davkal, can you provide a source -- e.g. articles published in the parapsychological journals?

The only change I reverted of yours was the {{citation needed}}; I think the assertion made about significance levels is true, but since it plays a very important role in the rebuttal argument I think it has to be supported by a statement in a neutral statistical text. Mike Christie (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I can - it's what I do. He has published, for example, 'The paranormal: the evidence and it's implications for consiousness', and 'Biological Utilisation of Quantum Non-Locality'. He is also director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, a project concerned primarily with the attempt to understand, from the viewpoint of the theoretical physicist, what may loosely be characterised as intelligent processes in nature, associated with brain function or with some other natural process and including aspects of what are considered to be paranormal phenomena. And here is what the Journal Physics World said in an article about Josephson "Most controversially, as far as physicists are concerned, he carries out speculative research on the nature of paranormal phenomena, a field known as parapsychology." Since we are editing ourselves now, I'll make the changesDavkal 10:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, here is one of the major problems with the way this article goes unmediated. I was asked to provide sources to show that Jospehsen was a paraspychologist. So I did. I found some articles, I gave his job description, and I gave a reputable source (Physics World Journal) which says that this is exactly what he is. So, I change the text to "paraspychologist" and within about 10 seconds it is changed back by Karl Bunker without any discussion here and with the following puzzling "argument" in the edit summary: "Josephson arguably doesn't qualify as a parapsychologist." My point is, who the f... is Karl Bunker to decide such things. No wonder he doesn't like the tedious business of having to actually source his claim and defend his arguments. No, much better to simply assert them in an edit summary and be done with it. I am reverting pending something, anything, that might suggest that J is not accurately described as a parapsychologist.Davkal 11:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeedily. Shame on me for not taking the debate here, where we can exchange cusswords like the m--- a---s (mature adults) we all are. KarlBunker 11:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuss word maybe, but serious point definitely. Who do you think you are to decide who does and who does not qualify as a parapsychologist? What is your basis for this edit? The fact that you keep wanting to have your view of things included without anything in the way of back-up should, if you think about it, tell you all you need to know about why mediation never comes out in your favour. Davkal 11:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Davkal, but who are YOU to decide who qualifies as a parapsychologist? Again, you are basing your arguments on your own definition for things. That's not going to fly here, bud. A parapsychologist is someone who conducts studies on alleged paranormal phenomena. If you can cite ANY parapsychology research Josephson EVER published in a science journal, we might let you call him a parapsychologist. And I'm not talking about citing his published arguments why skeptical scientists are witch burners. That's polemics, not research. Please do not replace the word parapsychogist unless you can cite his published parapsychology research. Doing so without citing his parapsychology research will be regarded as blatant disruption. Josephson is a promoter of paranormal belief, not a researcher of paranormal phenomena. And he needs to be CORRECTLY identified in Wiki articles (as he is in Brian Josephson. Askolnick 13:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You claim that Josephson "carries out speculative research on the nature of paranormal phenomena, a field known as parapsychology." If that is true (it's not), then cite even one report he's published on any study of a paranormal phenomenon or claim that he conducted. From his ivory tower, he occasionally publishes a speculative article suggesting woo-woo explanations for natural phenomena or tirades berating scientists who don't believe in ghosts and ghoulies and things-that-go-bump-in-the-night. That's not called research. It's called polemics. Show us any paranormal research he's published or be gone. Askolnick 13:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I already have done everything required above - I have cited articles on the paranormaal published by Josephson (one in a physics journal) and I have cited a quote from another physics journal report on Jospehson's work in which it says "he carries out speculative research on the nature of paranormal phenomena, a field known as parapsychology." At every stage of every argument you (askolnick) simply state something without sources, without citations without anything other than your own opinion and the use of CAPITAL LETTERS to back it up, and then when sources are cited to show that you are wrong you still deny it is true and then add in ridiculous threats about disruptive behaviour. Your opinion is of no consequence - if it is reported in the journal Physics World that J is a parapsychologist then that is that. Davkal 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is reported in many sources that Josephson is a pseudoscientist, but we shouldn't put that into a Wiki article. Wikipedia editors are supposed to select only information that is reliable, informative, and not misleading. They are not suppose to look around for any erroneous or misleading statements that they can use to obfuscate or mislead Wiki readers. Physics World is a science magazine, not a science journal. Science news magazines make mistakes all the time and so do science journals. One news magazine that makes an erroneous or misleading statement does not trump all other sources, nor does it cover up the fact that you cannot meet the challenge of citing a single study of paranormal phenomenon that Josepshon EVER published. A scientist is one who carries out research. An advocate is one who advocates. In matters paranormal, Josephson is widely known as the latter. The only way you can prove that is wrong is by citing evidence: It is clear by now that you cannot cite a single research study on paranormal phenomena that Josephson ever published in a science journal. Askolnick 15:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That does it Davkal. We've given you many opportunties to stop your disruptive conduct. Once again you have violated WP:3RR. I have reported this to an administrator and I hope she/he will block you for a longer period than last time. You don't seem to have learned anything from the first block. Askolnick 15:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Current situation

I am at work and don't have enough time to read the numerous recent posts carefully, as I would like to. I'm posting regardless to make a plea for civility. All three of the main editors to this article -- Davkal, KarlBunker, and Askolnick -- have displayed seriously uncivil behaviour, in some cases verging on personal attacks. The recent return to direct editing has led directly to an edit war, with a current accusation of 3RR leveled by Askolnick at Davkal. This is not a productive way to move forward with this article.

I would like to ask Karl and Askolnick to consider returning to a mediated discussion on the talk page, and I'd like to hear opinions from Bubba73, Hob Gadling and Addhoc, who have been involved here too; and of course I'd like to hear from any other interested editor. I don't believe the current approach is the best way to guarantee a well-balanced article.

Askolnick, you indicated that you had reported Davkal to an administrator for a violation of 3RR. Could you indicate where that report was posted? I was unable to find it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have wasted your time Mike. It was in a private communication. I heard back; he/she is too busy now to work on a 3RR complaint. So I'm considering filing the formal complaint myself. Askolnick 18:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

He didn't post a complaint - he just made it up (like almost everything else he said since he has been involved here). It was just one more intimidatory ploy, one more threat, one more bluff. Just another bully-boy tactic to try to force his pov into everything. If you don't believe me - why is the exact same claim still on my talk page the best part of 12 hours after he admits it didn't happen. (Unsigned edit from Davkal)

I never said I posted a complaint. I said I reported you to an administrator (who told me what to do.) Now however, I can say that I've posted a complaint. Askolnick 05:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeeze Mike, I'd HATE to see anything that you consider going beyond "verging on personal attacks"! :-)

Yeah, well, I'm trying to be nice. :o) Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Long before this round of mediation, I once noted in a comment to Davkal that his input had resulted in some valuable additions to this article. I still believe that a continued dialog that includes him might result in some good edits. But the process isn't nearly worth it. Given the tone that this dialog has deteriorated to (something for which I accept part of the blame), to continue with it is analogous to diving into a sea of garbage in hopes of extracting a morsel or two of non-garbage. For the time being, I think the best way forward is simply for editors to edit the article as they see fit. Minority opinions will bump into the 3RR, and that will be that. That option sounds a heck of a lot more civilized and less time consuming to me. KarlBunker 17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Davkal has valuable input, and I'm not surprised to hear you say it; your frustration has fairly evidently mostly been with the slow process. But, you know, we're not really in a hurry here. And please consider this: the Demkina paragraph is very likely the last really hard paragraph we have to work on. I think we may be closer to done than you think. Anyway, I'd still like to hear from Askolnick, Hob, and the rest; I hope we can go back to working cooperatively. Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I fear Karl may be right. It's useless to try to form a consensus with someone who insists on using his own definitions of words. It just doesn't work. Dictionaries, after all, are an alphabetical list of consensuses. A person who disregards those kind of consensuses is not the kind of guy one wants to work with to build a new consensus. Life is too short. And too filled with avoidable pain.

But as a consensus kind of guy, if there's a consensus here to continue trying to work out an acceptable article, I'll stay. But I'm not going to put up with much more of what we've had to cope with this past week. I won't work with anyone who refuses to accept dictionary definitions and falsely insists that his definition is from Wikipedia. That kind of disruptive conduct is clearly unacceptable. People who are unwilling to use the meaning of words that have been derived by authoritative consensus, and who lie about the source of their definition, usually disrupt far more than they contribute in efforts to reach consensus.Askolnick 18:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A person who simply won't admit that relevance is relevant to ad hominem arguments even though an ad hominem argument is one of a group of logical fallacies called the "fallacies of relevance" is, something or other. Please note, I do not have the power or the influence to force thousands of websites to use the term "fallacies of relevance." Nor can I travel back in time and compel logicians to adopt this title prior to my birth. Unless there has been a major supernatural occurance, then, it would appear that an ad hominem argument is one of a group of fallacies called the "fallacies of relevance" and that I was indeed correct to say that relevance was central to an ad hominem argument, and that therefore it is not MY OWN DEFINITION BUT THE ACTUAL DEFINITION THAT ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED UNDERGRADUTE LOGIC WILL BE FAMILIAR WITH THAT I HAVE USED HERE. Davkal 01:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to work further on this, Askolnick. It might be helpful if I mention that I have deliberately avoided getting involved in the many debates that have occurred on this page; I've restricted my comments to the specific part of the thread dealing with the sentence(s) under review. If y'all think it would be useful, I could also participate in the other conversations going on on this talk page, and endeavour to smooth out those discussions too.

Alternatively, we could all try to consciously limit ourselves to posting comments about the specific sentence(s) under review at each time. After all, a debate on anything else seems very unlikely to have any beneficial effect on the article. This might mean permitting others to have the last word occasionally! I'd be happy to try to help with either approach. That might help address Askolnick's irritation.

You know, we've got some well-informed people editing this page; we have all the information in our heads to make this a great article. I'd like to shoot for that. Frankly, with the people we have here, we ought to be trying to reach good article status, at a minimum. That would be a pleasant reward for the hard work that all of us have put in. Mike Christie (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did you go to mediation school, you dewy-eyed optimist, you?

"I could also participate in the other conversations going on on this talk page, and endeavour to smooth out those discussions too." Make that masochistic, dewy-eyed optimist. :-) Askolnick 18:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have to admit I actually laughed out loud when I read that. I don't use "LOL" because it almost never means what it says, but I got a good laugh from this. Thank you. Mike Christie (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Three points.

1. Askolnick has insited for the best part of a week that relevance is irrelvant to an ad hominem argument. When I finally pointed out that it is one of a category of logical fallacies collectively called "the fallacies of relevance" he still kept saying I had made this up. Look it up - it's everywhere.

2. Askolnick insisted that Brian Jospehson had no publication record on the paranormal and was not a parapsychologist. I produced the names of the articles on the paranormal that J has published and produced a quote from a scientific journal that described him as engaged in research into the paranormal. Nonetheless, Askolnick maintained his position. His sources were, as best I remember, he claimed it was false.

3. I made a statement about statistics, about which I admit I know next to nothing, and when it was pointed out that I was wrong I immediately confessed, once again, that I knew next to nothing about statistics. That is, I acknowledged immediately that I had made a major mistake.

The point, then, is that there is a fundamental difference between my attitude and Askolnick's. I am willing to admit I have made errors while Asolnick simply responds (when it is pointed out that he is simply wrong) with threats and innuendo and outright abuse. This is what is disruptive here. If the journal Physics World is not a good enough source to confirm that J is a parapsychologist then what is? Let Askolnick point out how he knows this is wrong. But do not for one second be fooled by a multitude of capital letters that say "NEVER PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE ON THE PARANORMAL" when we have the very articles in front of us. All that is happening here is that Askolnick is trying to use the kind of bully-boy tactics that may have worked on a Russian schoolgirl but which, I can assure him, will not work on me. Davkal 00:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the above I regret to say that I have to report the following: User Askolnick is harrassing me endlessly on the CSICOP talk page. When I cite sources he refuses to check them and will simply insist I made them up. If I disagree with him he threatens me with warnings about disruptive behaviour. I openly accept that I have not responded well to this, but now the constant posts on my talk page threatening me with action if I don't submit to his bully-boy tactics have crossed what I believe to be an acceptable boundary.Davkal 01:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If any of the above is unjust then I challenge Asolnick to produce one example of a defintion that I "made up". Please note that this does not mean a defintion which Askolnick is unfamiliar with (e.g., the defintion of an ad hominem arguement). He has made this charge at least 20 times now but on each occassion the definition I have been using has turned out to be the correct one. And all this from a man who used his own definition of "not" such that "not" did not mean not at all. E.g, his claim that his test of Demkina was NOT designed to test for paranormal powers, which acoording to Askolnick (and KB) meant that his test of Demkina was designed to test for paranormal powers! Pleae note this is not an ad hominem argument.Davkal 01:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, I posted a notice on your talk page that you have violated [WP:3RR]. Instead of responding with some contrition, you posted personal attacks here and on my talk page and then REVERTED the article for the FIFTH TIME in 24 hours. This conduct shows you have nothing but contempt for Wiki's rules. Following the recommendation of an administrator, I posted a formal charge against you on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR [13] where you are allowed to comment. By the way, so are other editors who have something to say about this conduct. Askolnick 04:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested ground rules

Askolnick has indicated he's willing to try again to work with the mediation. Based on some of the discussion above, I would like to propose the following ground rules to simplify and speed up this process.

1. Everyone agrees to abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF, no matter how irrational you think the other person is being.
2. We'll pick a topic -- I'll start with a piece of the Demkina paragraph -- and work on that; one topic at a time.
3. We will only post comments that are directly related to the issue at hand, rather than expanding into general comments or citing examples from other areas of the dispute.
4. I will try to identify an acceptable consensus and verify it with the group before making the edit.

If the above works on the first topic, we can start multiple sections in parallel. In that way we could have a section to discuss if Josephson can be described as a parapsychologist, a section to discuss if an Associate Member is different from a Member, and so on. That would dramatically speed up the process.

In addition, I suggest that where people depart from the above -- e.g. by violating WP:CIVIL etc., or by drifting off topic, I will post a note saying so. If I have managed to retain mediator neutrality, I think a note from me asserting a violation is less inflammatory than a note from one of the other participants. I'll do my best to post quickly after others, in order not to let a conflict develop, but of course work and sleep will sometimes prevent that.

Finally, I suggest that edits to any text that has been agreed on through mediation (currently only the first two paragraphs of the controversy section) be reverted by any one of us immediately, and a discussion started here. I would like to see you revert a change to that text even if the change is one you agree with -- keeping the agreed version in place is more important than supporting a particular POV. If there is a real improvement to be made, let's bring it back here to discuss. Edits to text not yet agreed on -- well, I think it would be better to get agreement first, but do as you see fit.

I'm going to go ahead and start a new section right after this. Once I see Karl and Askolnick participating, at least, I will immediately start some further sections for discussion of other aspects of the Demkina paragraph. Davkal has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR so he will not be posting till tomorrow, at least. I will be checking his talk page for his comments (he can still edit his talk page) and will incorporate his input as appropriate. Let's also post suggestions for new sections to discuss under a "Next topics" section.

Please let me know here if you don't want to participate. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

With such an excellently thought-out plan, how could I not? Askolnick 15:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, while I agree the plan is excellently thought out, I won't participate any further. Thanks, Addhoc 21:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)