THE ASSOCIATION FOR RATIONAL THOUGHT NEWS
PRACTICING THE ART OF RATIONAL THINKING IN EVERYDAY LIFE
Volume 2, No. 3
April, 1993
The Association for Rational Thought is a new organization
committed to encouraging rational, well-informed evaluation
of fringe-science, pseudo-science, and paranormal claims.
A.R.T. encourages the investigation of paranormal and pseudo-
scientific claims from a responsible, scientific viewpoint
and the distribution of the results of such investigations
to the public. You are cordially invited to become a member
of A.R.T. Membership information is on the back page.
April Meeting: Election of Officers
The Second Annual Election of Officers for the Association
for Rational Thought will be held Saturday, April 10, 10:00
A.M. at our new meeting place, the Bethesda Blue Ash Medical
Building (see article below). Our goal is to fill every slot
required by our By-Laws.
The By-Laws require that we elect a President, Vice-
President, Secretary, Treasurer, Membership Secretary,
Investigations Officer, Publicity Coordinator, Newsletter
Editor, Meeting Organizer, and Media Resources Coordinator.
These officers make up the Executive Council, which meets
several times a year at the discretion of the president.
Officers elected in April take office in May.
The Executive Council, chaired by President Keith Brabender,
has been able to fill the following offices for the coming
year: President, Keith Brabender; Vice-President, Dick
McGrath; Corresponding Secretary and Publicity Coordinator,
Mary Pacinda; Treasurer, Peggy Borger; Membership Secretary,
Roy Auerbach; Investigations Officer, Joe Gastright;
Newsletter Editor, Virginia Jergens. All of these officers
are presently serving in these positions.
We still need a Recording Secretary, a Meeting Organizer and
a Media Resources Coordinator.
The Recording Secretary takes minutes at Membership and
Executive Council meetings. The Meeting Organizer's job is
to determine topics for meetings and introduce the program
at each meeting. The Media Resources Coordinator will
organize a pool of experts to be available to respond to
inquiries made by the media about pseudoscientific or
paranormal phenomena. The Meeting Organizer and the Media
Resources Coordinator may each organize a committee to help
carry out her or his duties.
Please call Keith Brabender (351-0921) if you are interested
in doing one of these jobs next year (May, 1993�April, 1994)
or if you have any questions about the election process. Get
involved! Being an involved skeptic is twice as much fun as
being a sideline skeptic, and provides a truly useful
service to the community.
Plan to join us after the meeting for lunch and lively
conversation at the James Tavern, across the street from the
Bethesda Blue Ash Medical Building.
At Last, A New Meeting Place!
A.R.T. has a new, well-lighted, comfortable meeting place
north of Cincinnati in Blue Ash. The Bethesda Blue Ash
Medical Building, 4360 Cooper Road, is at the intersection
of Cooper Road and Reed Hartman Highway. Driving
instructions are on the back page.
Our new quarters come to us through the generosity of
Claudia Harsh, M.D., spouse of A. R. T. Membership Secretary
Roy Auerbach. Dr. Harsh's practice, the Crescent Women's
Medical Center, has offices which include a well-equipped
classroom which the practice will allow us to use free of
charge. The new location includes plentiful parking and
convenient facilities closer to A.R.T. members who live
north of Cincinnati. James Tavern, across the street, is
available for lunch. The food is good, the parking easy, and
the prices perhaps a dollar a sandwich more than at the
Greenwich Tavern, our former meeting place.
Both regular membership meetings and Executive Council
meetings will take place at the new Blue Ash location. We
are indebted to Dr. Harsh and the practice, and to Roy
Auerbach, who came up with this excellent solution to our
meeting place problem.
Notes from the President
Executive Council Adopts Guidelines: On December 12, 1992,
the Executive Council adopted guidelines for choosing the
speakers who address the monthly meetings. The guidelines
are based on the By-laws, which state that A.R.T. is
"dedicated to the development of rational thinking and the
application of the scientific method to claims of paranormal
and fringe-science phenomena."
The guidelines are: 1) The speaker and topic will encourage
the development of rational thinking. 2) The speaker will
apply scientific methods or other recognized standard
scholarly techniques to the topic. 3) The purpose of the
program will be exclusively educational and scientific. No
product or service may be advertised during the
presentation.
The Executive Council believes these guidelines will help
A.R.T. achieve its fundamental goals by keeping the goals
firmly in mind when choosing speakers. These same goals
apply to the long-term outlook for A.R.T. as well. I am
often asked, "What does A.R.T. do?" Usually I summarize the
preamble, or tell the inquirer about the scientific method.
However, I am tempted also to say that the things I have
mentioned are the goals A.R.T. would like to reach. A.R.T is
only in its second year, and is still focusing on building a
solid organizational base, filling committees, filling
speaker slots, sending out newsletters, and increasing
membership.
Some members are disappointed at A.R.T.'s inability to
perform the work of a "missionary," converting the populace
to the use of the scientific method, but the organization is
not yet strong enough to undertake major educational work. A
concerted effort to engage the public through visits to
schools, through the media, or through a large scale seminar
featuring nationally known speakers must wait for the
future, when ART hopes there will be larger base from which
to draw the kind of money and manpower required for such an
effort.
Other members have expressed their dismay at the notion that
A.R.T. do "missionary" work. They believe that A.R.T. should
be a group where like-minded people can meet and discuss
issues of common interest. In their opinion, the rest of the
world will believe what it believes with or without A.R.T.
For them, A.R.T functions as a club, and that is sufficient.
Like all good politicians, I can see the good in both points
of view. It is my hope that A.R.T. will be able to fill both
roles, and that a choice between the two will be
unnecessary. This year emphasis has been placed upon A.R.T.
as a meeting ground for the existing membership and the new
members who have recently joined. The "missionary" role has
been neglected in the process of building the organization.
As A.R.T. members, however, we can informally act as
"missionaries" in our daily lives. As members of our
communities we are in contact with many different people
every day, and the principles of science A.R.T. advocates
can be part of our daily conversations. I have been asked my
opinions on the paranormal on many occasions, because people
know I am active in A.R.T. and think my opinion is worth
hearing.
In order to strengthen A.R.T. so it can be both a place for
members to discuss common interests and a platform for
educational efforts, A.R.T. needs actively involved members.
I want to thank those who are already actively involved and
to encourage newcomers to actively take part in A.R.T. in
whatever way suits them best. The '92-'93 year has been a
year of progress, but as you can see there is still much
that is left to be done.
Skeptics Need to Learn to Tolerate Differences: I have read
enough of the Skeptical Inquirer and newsletters from other
skeptical organizations to conclude that groups of skeptics
often have the same problems. One of the most interesting is
the members' differences over exactly which topics are
appropriately the subject of skeptical comment. People in
A.R.T. and other skeptical organizations certainly seem to
relish "skeptic" as their designation. Members who are
thoroughly skeptical about one topic are often entirely
unwilling to consider another topic from a skeptical point
of view. I would not be surprised, for example, to attend an
A.R.T. meeting and hear a member denounce channeling as
dangerously unscientific, but defend ESP as authentic
because that member's aunt was unquestionably blessed with
this gift. For this member ESP would be off limits to
skeptical inquiry
Every one of us harbors ideas that we refuse to criticize
skeptically. A.R.T. cannot refuse to discuss a subject
because a member believes it is off limits. If a member
believes in ESP, so be it. A.R.T. is not personally
attacking this member's family, nor is it attempting to
force a member to believe something. When the inevitable
conflicts of opinion occur, I hope members will remember
that the purpose of A.R.T. is to encourage the honest
investigation of all paranormal and fringe science subjects.
The object of skepticism is to try to reach a judgment based
on an objectivity independent of how one may feel
personally. This message may seem both obvious and
redundant, but I include it here in an attempt to prevent
the damage too many good organizations suffer when members
feel the group has personally wronged them. For A.R.T. to
continue to prosper, members need to disagree in an
atmosphere of intellectual curiosity based on the scientific
method.
Alternative Medicine Research May Be Useful: On February
10, the New York Times front page included an article by
Natalie Angier, "U.S. Opens Door Just a Crack to Alternative
Forms of Medicine." The article reported that the National
Institute of Health is about to set up an Office of
Alternative Medicine which will "explore the merits of
therapies outside mainstream healing." My initial reaction
was one of dismay, but after discussing it with Joe
Gastright, A.R.T. Investigations Officer, my dismay has been
greatly lessened. The one point he made that did the most to
subdue my reaction was that although attempts will be made
to confirm unscientific practices as useful and valid, other
research will counteract these efforts As Joe pointed out,
homeopathy has never been proven to have any scientific
merit. This new research, if done appropriately, should
result in the same findings. If it does not, a response from
the scientific community is sure to follow. Optimistically
then, this research may lead to finally putting some of
these ideas to rest.�Keith Brabender, President.
Dick McGrath on Stigmata
At the February meeting, A.R.T. Vice-President and Roman
Catholic theologian Dick McGrath gave a talk on stigmata,
morbid marks of unknown origin on the skin, especially ones
which bleed spontaneously. These unexplained lesions are
known to have occurred since the Middle Ages on the palms,
side, forehead, feet, back, and on other places on the body.
There is a great deal of evidence that these wounds, which
have no apparent cause and are unresponsive to medical
treatment, do occur. St. Francis of Assisi is often
mentioned as the first person in the Christian tradition to
have been a stigmatic, but there is evidence that they
occurred earlier. Many stigmatics were recorded during the
11th and 12th centuries, but evidence for stigmatics earlier
than this is sparse. Stigmata also occur in adherents of
religions other than Christianity, including Buddhism and
Islam.
A modern example of the stigmatic is Joan Hunt, an English
woman who since 1985 has had spontaneously bleeding wounds.
Most of the over 300 people in the world today who exhibit
these symptoms are women. Stigmatics include all ages from
teenagers to people as old as 80. Stigmatics typically
engage in fasting, have visions and trances, and claim to
work miracles. Stories about stigmatics are abundant,
florid, and highly varied. Some stigmatics are said to have
wounds that bleed only on Fridays, or only on feast days.
Some claim never to eat.
Stigmatics are often mystics who meditate a great deal on
the suffering of Jesus or Mohammed or on the suffering of
humanity in general. Many do not eat much, are not given to
entertainment, and have a great deal of empathy for others.
They typically feel the suffering of others and are almost
obsessed by suffering. In their concern they are likely to
focus on the wounds of a religious leader, for example,
Jesus or Mohammed.
Some stigmatics have been found to be frauds, for example,
women who injure their own hands, and can be explained.
Other stigmatics have not been shown to be frauds, and their
wounds are more difficult to explain. The interpretation
often given is that these lesions are replicas of the wounds
Jesus suffered when he was crucified, or replicas of wounds
suffered by Mohammed.
There is considerable evidence that these wounds are not
replicas of the wounds of religious leaders. In the case of
Jesus, for example, the wounds claimed to be related to or
caused by meditating on his crucifixion have too much
diversity to be clearly related to the wounds Jesus is
thought to have suffered upon crucifixion. The wounds of
stigmatics occur in all shapes and sizes and all over the
body, not in the locations where one would expect to find
them had the stigmatic been crucified. For example,
stigmatics often show wounds to the palms of the hands.
Evidence suggests that those crucified were not nailed to
the cross through the hands, since experiment has shown that
the weight of arm pulls the nail through the hand.
Historical evidence collected from the bodies of those
crucified suggests that nails were driven not through the
palms but between the bones of the forearm, where the bones
were strong enough to withstand the weight of the body. The
palmar stigmata reflect traditional depictions of
crucifixion in art, but not the way crucifixions were
historically performed.
Since these wounds appear to occur unassisted by fraud, the
question becomes what causes them? Evidence points to a
psychological explanation. Stigmatics typically are under
considerable mental, emotional and perhaps physical stress.
Often a major shock in the life of the stigmatic triggers
the phenomenon. Many stigmatics are chronically ill.
Tuberculosis, for example, is a common illness among
stigmatics. In addition to stress, many stigmatics give
evidence of multiple personality traits, speaking of
themselves as if they were two or more persons. Some
stigmatics appear to be susceptible to suggestion. A German
stigmatic known as Elizabeth K. was reported by her doctor
to have stigmata responsive to his suggestions to her. In
addition, there is evidence that people can take on the
symptoms of someone close to them who is ill, as for example
when a wife focuses on her husbandOs illness and develops
some of his symptoms. Thus the explanation is thought to be
psychological rather than theological in nature.
The vast majority of Christian stigmatics meditate on
detailed, bloody images of the crucifixion. Meditation on
these images seems by some unknown effect of the brain on
the body to produce the stigmata. The mechanism through
which this occurs is not understood. One hypothesis is that
the phenomenon is similar to mimicking behavior in insects
and animals, in which the animal or insect takes on the
coloration of its background. The Roman Catholic church
holds that stigmata are not miracles or signs of divine
favor.
More stigmatics occur in Germany and South America than
elsewhere, for reasons unknown. Stigmatics are known to have
occurred in India, but not in China or Japan. Although
frauds are likely to display their stigmata, stigmatics who
are not frauds often conceal the problem. Peggy Borger
suggested that stigmata may have become popular during the
11th and 12th centuries because at that time the Christian
church emphasized the passion of Jesus and the crusades.
Stigmata may have been seen as sharing in the suffering of
Jesus, sharing in his passion, and shedding one's blood to
help humanity. Most stigmatics who are not frauds are likely
to be retiring people like Padre Pio, an Italian Capuchin
monk and a stigmatic whom Dick McGrath visited when he was
studying in Italy. Padre Pio wore gloves rather than expose
his stigmata to public view.
For more information, see Rene� Biot, The Enigma of the
Stigmata, translated by T. J. Hepburne-Scott (1962) and
Herbert Thurston, The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism
(1952).
Misuse of Statistics by Parapsychologists
At the January meeting, Joe Gastright, A.R.T. Investigations
Officer, gave a wide ranging and highly entertaining talk on
the use of basic statistics and probability in understanding
allegedly paranormal events. He began by explaining how
"scientific" parapsychologists misuse statistics to promote
their cause. In an attempt to wrap their "research" in
scientific garb, such parapsychologists routinely present
statistically significant differences found in paranormal
research as evidence supporting their belief in paranormal
events. Here are five ways in which such evidence may be
falsely obtained.
A simple way to find statistical evidence of a paranormal
event is to repeat experimental trials until a result
supporting the paranormal hypothesis turns up. For example,
if five coins are flipped, the probability of getting 5
heads in a row is 3%. If 5 coins are flipped 10 times, the
probability of getting 5 heads in a row is 27%. If five
coins are flipped 100 times, the possibility that five heads
in a row will occur is 96%. If a hypothesis is false at the
95% confidence level, it is likely that about one in twenty
trials will turn up statistically significant evidence
suggesting that the hypothesis is true. Such "evidence" is
readily exploited failing to mention the nineteen or so
trials in which no evidence of mind reading turned up, and
emphasizing the one trial which had positive results.
Conducting multiple tests will eventually turn up an
instance of an unusual event.
Another way to find statistical evidence of a paranormal
event is to use extremely big samples. The bigger the
sample, the smaller the number of supporting cases needed to
show statistical significance. If the sample is large
enough, a tiny number of cases supporting the paranormal
hypothesis can have statistical significance. This is the
method used by Robert G. Jahn, retired Dean of Engineering
at Princeton University and author of Margins of Reality. In
his research, volunteers attempted to use their minds to
influence a computer-driven binary random number generator.
After millions of trials, the volunteers were able, by
concentrating on "1," to encourage the machine to produce
20,0001 1's to 19,999 0's. Because of the size of the sample
the difference, 2/19,999, is statistically significant.
Unfortunately for the "mind over matter" hypothesis, it is
not scientifically significant. The reason is that the
experiment simply continued until significant results were
obtained. A legitimate design states the number of cases to
be used in the experiment beforehand and stops when that
number of cases had been obtained.
Re-analysis can be used in a similar way to produce
"statistically significant" results. In this method, if the
experimental results do not support the hypothesis, the
researcher checks around in the data until positive results
turn up. For example, if the subject was unable to predict
the shape on a card at better than the rate expected by
chance in 100 trials, the researcher might check to see if
the subject predicted the shape in the first 50 trials, or
the last 50. Or perhaps the subject was not predicting the
shape on the cards as they appeared, but was running one
card ahead or behind. At a 95% confidence level, twenty such
re-analyses could be expected to turn up at least one
positive result. The parapsychologist presents that one
positive finding as OevidenceO that the hypothesis has been
supported, ignoring the fact that only the 100 trials as
proposed in the hypothesis provide a legitimate test of the
hypothesis. The other analyses test other hypotheses, not
the one specifying 100 trials, and thus can provide no
evidence either pro or con.
Another method is to ignore the requirement for random
trials. Instead of running a predetermined number of trials
and basing the results on those trials, as experimental
method requires, the experimenter begins trials and starts
collecting data when the data start to look "promising."
Should the data turn "unpromising," the trials are halted.
This method is often defended by making one of two mutually
exclusive claims: "psychic powers need a warm-up" or they
are "too strong to control." The researcher can claim that
the "evidence" supports the paranormal hypothesis by
neglecting to mention how the reported trials were
"selected."
Claiming that statistically significant but unreplicated
evidence "proves" paranormal hypotheses is another way
statistics are misused by paranormal psychologists.
Experiments that have resulted in data supporting paranormal
hypotheses have never been replicated by non-believers.
Because of predictable variability in experimental findings,
scientists do not accept the results of one experiment as
proof of a hypothesis. Only when a hypothesis is supported
in a variety of settings using a variety of methods, is it
accepted as likely to be true. If paranormal effects were
real, they could be replicated.
.
Joe Gastright Reads Minds at the January Meeting!
Have you ever wondered how "psychics" seem to be able to
guess numbers people in their audiences are thinking of? The
key to this puzzle, according to Joe Gastright, who spoke to
A.R.T. at the January meeting, is understanding the average
person's notion of random numbers. Most people, when asked
to think of any number between, say, 1 and 20, try to choose
a number randomly, but fail in the attempt. They believe
that random numbers never repeat the same number twice, so
they rarely choose a number like 11. They avoid numbers at
both ends of the range, so rarely pick 1 or 20. They also
avoid numbers ending in 0 or 5, because these seem too
regular to be random. They also avoid runs, so rarely choose
a series like 2,3,4. Common misperceptions about what random
numbers look like make a "psychic's" job easier, as Joe
demonstrated to A.R.T. members. He said, "I am thinking of a
number between 1 and 10, a number like 3, but it is not 3.
Write down the first number that comes to your mind."
Members dutifully wrote down a number, with the following
results, here compared with a group of almost 200 who were
asked the same question (totals do not equal 100% because of
rounding):
Response: Number Choosing Response Percent Choosing Response
Members Choosing Response Percent of Members Choosing
Response Probability of Response Based on Chance
1 4 2% 2 9% 11%
2 6 3% 2 9% 11%
3 10 5% 0 0% 0%
4 7 4% 1 5% 11%
5 25 13% 2 9% 11%
6 37 19% 6 27% 11%
7 63 32% 3 14% 11%
8 23 12% 2 9% 11%
9 21 11% 4 18% 11%
10 1 1% 0 0% 11%
Total: 197 Total: 100% Total: 22 Total: 100%
Total: 100%
What is interesting about these results is the nonrandom
choice of numbers made by A.R.T. members and Joe's sample.
Note that 6, 7, or 8 were chosen by 50% of A.R.T. members
and 63% of Joe's sample. This tendency of people to
consistently choose 6, 7, or 8 is what helps the "psychic"
look as though he or she has special powers. After asking
the audience to think of a number between 1 and 10, but not
3, the "psychic" can feel quite comfortable with claiming
that the number he or she was concentrating on was 7.
Typically well over half of the audience will have chosen 6,
7, or 8. Using the pretty-close-is-a-direct-hit principle,
many in the audience will agree with the "psychic" that
"psychic powers" have indeed been demonstrated.
Similar patterns of consistency in choice can be
demonstrated for other number choices, and for shapes and
objects as well. Another consistency well-known to
"psychics," although not to most of the rest of us, is a
tendency for most people to choose the same shapes when
given this question: "This time I am thinking of two simple
geometric forms, and one is inside the other. You can write
it down--you don't need to draw them." Here the responses of
a sample of 590 people asked this question are compared to
the responses of A.R.T. members at the January meeting:
Response Number Choosing Response Percent Choosing Response
Number of Members Choosing Response Percent of Members
Choosing Response
Circle-Triangle 203 34% 3 14%
Circle-Square 146 24% 5 23%
Triangle-Square 66 11% 5 23%
Two of the same figure 28 28% 2 9%
All Others 147 24% 7 32%
Total: 590 100% 22 100%
Note that 58% of the larger sample chose either the circle-
triangle of the circle-square combinations. Even the members
at the January meeting, a sample too small and therefore too
unstable to provide reliable percentages, resulted in 37%
choosing one of the first two choices. According to Joe,
mentalists like Kreskin and Uri Geller typically use this
question with large audiences, where they can be confident
that most people will choose one of the first two choices,
thus confirming their "psychic" powers.
Magic for Skeptics II
Secrets of Psychics, Mediums, and Mentalists
CSICOP will sponsor a seminar in Lexington, Kentucky, April
16, 17, and 18. Seminar leaders will be Robert Baker, who
gave a lively lecture on ghosts to A.R.T. last year, and Joe
Nickell, CSICOP Executive Council member, and author of
Secrets of the Supernatural and Mysterious Realms.
Several A.R.T. members attended Magic for Skeptics I in
Lexington last spring and reported that they learned a great
deal and had a wonderful time. This year the focus of the
seminar will be on exposing the secrets of "psychics" and
"mediums" by teaching participants how to develop their own
mentalist routines, including predicting the future,
perceiving remote objects, and talking with discarnate
spirits. Methods for investigating alleged "psychics" will
also be included.
The fee for the seminar is $130, which includes a magic kit.
Optional Saturday night banquet is $27. Register for the
seminar and the banquet with Skeptical Inquirer, PO Box 703,
Buffalo, NY 14226, 716-636-1425. Mention CSICOP when you
register at the Ramada Hotel, PO Box 11308, I-75 Newton
Pike, Lexington, KY 40575, to get a special room rate of $49
for a single or a double.
Books Introduced at the February Meeting
Joe Gastright brought to the February meeting several books
that he thought might interest members, including The Write
Stuff, a book about the deceptive use of graphoanalysis in
hiring employees. He also introduced a new journal, Skeptic,
published quarterly by the Skeptics Society, and "devoted to
the investigation and promotion of science and rational
skepticism." Skeptic is 8 1/2" x 11", about 76 pages and
includes long, thorough , illustrated articles. Joe believes
the articles are better researched and more comprehensive
than articles in Skeptical Inquirer. A year's subscription
is $30.00, and the address is 2761 North Marengo Avenue,
Altadena, California 91017. He also shared Joe Nickell and
John E. Fischer's Mysterious Realms: Probing Paranormal,
Historical, and Forensic Enigmas, the authors' third case
book of investigations of assorted unusual events. 221
pages, Prometheus Books (Catalog available, Prometheus
Books, 59 John Glenn Drive, Buffalo NY 14228-2197 or call 1-
800-421-0351 any time.)
Calendar
Regular Membership Meetings are held on the second Saturday
of the month, October through May, at 10:00 A.M., at the
Bethesda Blue Ash Medical Building. Executive Council
Meetings are usually held the first Saturday of the month,
10:00 A.M., Bethesda Blue Ash Medical Building. Call
President Keith Brabender to confirm, 351-0921.
April 10, Saturday, 10:00 A.M. Annual Membership Meeting.
Election of Officers. Roy Auerbach on "How to Detect
Scientific Quackery." Bethesda Blue Ash Medical Building.
May 8, Saturday, 10:00 A.M. Regular Monthly Meeting.
Bethesda Blue Ash Medical Building. Keith Brabender on "The
Logics of Argument: Why Discussions Are Often Like Ships
That Pass in the Night."
June 12, Saturday, 10:00 A.M. Executive Council Meeting for
Old and Incoming Officers. Bethesda Blue Ash Medical
Building.