Talk:Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Another problem

Don't you think there is also a problem with this:

Since paranormal claims are potentially revolutionary scientific discoveries that by definition run counter to the established body of scientific knowledge, CSICOP members argue that nothing less than the strictest standards of scientific scrutiny should be accepted as convincing. Such standards include well-designed and controlled scientific experiments published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, followed by independent replication by other researchers.

It basically assumes, without argument, that 1) paranormal science doesn't meet the strictest standards, which is very debatable in the case of parapsychology. 2), it basically says that there are no reputable peer-reviewed journals in paranormal fields. It impugns, for instance, the Journal of Parapsychology.

Martinphi 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, but the paragraph could be improved. Parapsychology is not accepted outside the field of parapsychology. Bubba73 (talk), 15:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the statement is that it simply does not apply in the way it is applied in the article. For example, parapsychologists do actually do exactly what CSICOP supposedly espouses - they conduct well designed, properly controlled scientific experiments, and publish their results in peer-review journals. Most organised skepticism on the other hand, certainly CSICOP's particular brand, consists of armchair speculation, superficial investigations and experiments (e.g, Joe Nickel takes time out from holidaying in Argentina to "debunk" a haunted cemetary, expose a few miracles, and suck the blood from the Chupacabra myth[1] - all in a day's work eh!), which are then published in general interest publications. The point being that there is nothing wrong per se with Sagan's mantra; but it simply doesn't apply in the way it is extended and explained here.Davkal 16:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Parapsychology, or paranormal belief, has a lot of acceptance in the sciences. It's just not professionally espoused, because you'll get tarred and feathered over it, because there's little lab proof, and because there's no theory (see parapsychology page). But, anyway, I agree with Davkal, that's the problem with the paragraph.

Martinphi 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to provide some backup for Martinphi's point: you can find this on the Skepdic website, "according to a survey of 1100 college professors in the US, 55% of professors in the natural sciences believe "telepathy is either an established fact or highly likely". Davkal 19:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't quote Wikipedia. It's ESP, not Telepathy. Modern figures taken from Stanford show that a mere 1% believe in telepathy. Intelligent scientists don't believe in that hocus pocus. There is nothing assumed there. It is stating the beliefs of the organization. It is very POV to misrepresent the organization's views. Furthermore, no rigorous scientific evidence for the paranormal has ever been done.

Davkal making an appeal to popularity and quoting a misquote he found on Wikipedia doesn't mean much.

It's from Attitudes Of College Professors Toward Extra-Sensory Perception.

-Nathan J. Yoder 06:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hocus Pocus wow talk about neutrality. This statement leaves no room for other viewpoints. Clearly a POV situation Magnum Serpentine (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not a Wikipedia article. And yes, editors have points of view. Even you.--Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the name of all that's Holy

Here I am going on and on for weeks, months (what seems like years) claiming that CSICOP is a misnomer because they're not really interested in scientific investigation of claims of the of the paranormal but are pushing one particlur (ultra)skeptical line; only to be met with howls of derision about this being my POV only, and (un)righteous indignation at the mere suggestion that CSICOP is not the most bona fide SCIENBLOODYTIFIC organisation, inetersted in scientific inquiry in the superscientific manner suggested by his holiness Carl Sagan when, what do you know, CSICOP changes its name and gets rid of the "scientific" part. As Jimmy Saville so eloquently put it, "now then, now then, now then, 'ows about that then guys and gals uuaoouuaoouuaoo" - not sure how you spell his trademark noise.Davkal 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gonna to get someone KILLED

CSICOP keeps saying about Bigfoot and the like:"Bring in a BODY". That will only get some ass in some costume killed, and CSICOP may be implicated in homicide. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's doubtful - unless a CSICOP member participates in the shooting of "some ass in a costume".Simonm223 (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Name change

I'm not sure we should simply print almost verbatim a section from what appears to be a CSICOP press release about their name change. For one thing it includes a number of demonstrably false claims - for example, the claim that "after three decades of baring questionable fringe and pseudoscience claims to the objective eye of the scientific method." might suggest to a reader that CSICOP actually engaged in and/or supported scientific investigations into claims of the paranormal. As has been pointed out time and time again here, there is no evidence that they have done anything of the sort, and much evidence to suggest the opposite, e.g, scientific studies of the paranormal conducted by CSICOP - no, serious scientific research into the paranormal sponsored or supported by CSICOP - no, scientific articles on the paranormal published in peer-review journals under the auspices of CSICOP - no, superficial investigations published in general interest magazines - yes, members appearing on TV as experts on paranormal issues - yes, publicity stunt experiments for TV - yes.

In contrtast to this, the article dealing with the name change (you get it by following the new CSI link at the bottom of the article) gives more information which could be summarised in a far more neutral way. The main reasons given there being: a) a media friendly shortening; b)a move away from the confusion caused by the inclusion of the word "paranormal" which made CSICOP appear to some to be an organisation that supports the paranormal instead of one that investigates it (with apparently no sense of the obvious contradiction this might lead to if unbiased research was undertaken); and c)a desire to broaden the scope of the name to cover the broader issues actually dealt with by CSICOP. Davkal 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's like printing an advert. Go for it. -THB 22:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's blatant PR. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that it has been changed, I have added in a brief summary from the CSI lead article about the name change. Hope this fairly summarises the points.Davkal 12:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Other CSI include:

• Church of Scientology International
• Civilian Saucer Intelligence
• Civilian Saucer Investigations

Bubba73 (talk), 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Time to change article title

It's time to change this article's title to Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and leave a redirect here. The whole article needs to be gone through for relevant places to update the name. -- Fyslee 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll go through the article and update this afternoon (not sure how to do the redirect so will leave that to others). I think we should say "CSI, formerly CSICOP,..." in the first line and leave it like that for a good while. Yes, no?Davkal 13:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. The old name should still be mentioned in some places, and with time can be phased out and left only in the historical parts. -- Fyslee 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The move and redirect are now done, with double redirects taken care of. It remains to edit the article accordingly. --BillC 15:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I too think the CSICOP name should be mentioned (i.e. "formerly CSICOP"), because it is going to take some time for people to learn that, including me. I know when I hear "C.S.I." I'm going to think first of the TV show. Bubba73 (talk), 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have in many places CSICOP to CSI. Most of the ones I have left relate to things that happened within the "CSICOP" timscale and where the formation of the organisation is being discussed. It may need more changed though but I think it's a good start.Davkal 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it the change has now been implemented?? The first line of the Name Change section should probably be amended.Davkal 15:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It has. Their website has already been updated. --BillC 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

article now updated.Davkal 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent teamwork, everyone! Looking good! Dreadlocke ☥ 21:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on a job well done! Where else but Wikipedia can it be done so quickly? -- Fyslee 22:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope it's OK that i made a minor edit to tighten up the name change section. The actual organization is more interesting than the history of it's names and acronyms imho. In a year or so, one paragraph would likely suffice. JeanKorte 22:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Change "Humor" to "Sarcasim and Ridicule..."

The particular example of the trophies is clearly sarcasim - a type of humor funny only to the teller. While this may betray my personal belief concerning csicop, it certainly can't be aruged with that such displays are obviously biased.

I wonder when CSICOP will rebuke the Pope for perpetuating the irrational belief in the transubstantiation. I wonder when they'll go to Mecca - let the pilgrims know that big rock isn't from Allah afterall.

CSICOP claims these paranormal situations have no power over people; I wonder how true that assumption really is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by T.C. Craig (talk • contribs) 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

I think there is a serious point here inasmuch as many critics have pointed out that CSI(COP) does indeed often resort to sarcasm and ridicule rather than what could really be described as humour. Indeed it is one trait that has actually led some who agree with CSI's philosophical position to be critical of the organisation. It might be worth noting this in the paragraph in question. Davkal 07:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed T.C. Craig

The big problem with noting that in the text is that you invoke POV when you characterize it as sarcasm and ridicule. Doczilla 06:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for help with "CIIS" article"

A dispute has emerged over the article for CIIS (The California Institute of Integral Studies) as to whether the school can be said to have "rigorous" academic standards, or is "flaky" and "marginal" within academia. The school offers degrees in psychology and the humanities, with numerous courses on subjects like astrology. (My favorite: "Menstruation: Blood, Bread, and Roses," taught through the medium of "ritual".) It is regionally accredited, and its psychology program is subject-accredited. Anyway, please have a look at the article and its discussion. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.169.210 (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are Skeptics so abusive ?!

Read the archives about someone who nearly got shot by a Bigfoot witness because skeptics accused the Fouke
witnesses of being drunk, on dope, fucking the monster, being idiot hillbillies, worse.

Also seen on the Paranormal talk page regarding supression of evidence of criticisim of skeptics, especially of Philip Klass.

My Church preacher says that "all unbelievers" will be damned to The Lake of Fire. 65.163.113.231 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that.Simonm223 (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Damn glitches. 65.163.113.231 (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

CIA Front ?!

Holy shit !!!! Is THAT True ?! "Some guy who was in "Intelligence" said that this org was a CIA front as well." Seen that on the UFO Talk page some time back. The implication is that this org was part of the Robertson Panel and/or the Operation Mockingbird guidelines to keep people quiet about UFOs and the like. 65.173.105.118 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This accusation derives from an attempt to start a rumor to this effect as a dirty trick by the Church of Scientology, in response to an article critical of them in one of the early issues of Skeptical Inquirer. It's probably worth mentioning in the article; it became public and was reported in Skeptical Inquirer after documents seized from Scientology's HQ were made public by the FBI. Lippard (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's already there! Lippard (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

TV series?

Wasn't there a fictional late-night television series about this show? I'm pretty sure there was. Does anyone remember it?--Howdybob 02:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. It's called Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal. It follows the actions of the OSIR (The Office of Scientific Investigation and Research). And, very strangely indeed, neither the show, or even its fictional organization is mentioned in this article to spite the fact they are both obviously based directly on CSICOP. I can't believe that nobody picked this up before, or even mentioned the fact that an entire TV series was devoted to CSICOP, but just under a different name. Dark Observer 15:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: I did not say that Psi Factor is the really taking first-hand accounts of CSICOP, rather simply, that the show derives extremely similar characteristics as to this skeptical foundation, which is involved in paranormal research. Dark Observer 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The main difference being, however, that CSI(COP)has never really been involved in paranormal research. That is, their main aims are, and always have been: a) to offer non-paranormal explanations to the media whenever some new paranormal claim is made (for example, if a UFO sighting takes place CSI spokespeople will soon appear in the media reciting their swap gas/weather balloon/misidentification etc. mantra); and b) to take the media to task over their "sensationalist" approach to the paranormal in terms of both fictional and non-fictional output (e.g. moaning about programmes like the X-Files, Buffy and, no doubt, The Psi Factor, as well as non-fictional stuff like newspaper horoscopes). I hardly think the sorry tale of a few scared and angry old men, upset that not everyone buys their peculiar world view, would make a very good drama series and, from what I can see, the makers of the Psi Factor thought likewise.Davkal 15:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So, do you agree or disagree? The similarities are quite apparent, all it is, is really just a re-formatting of the basic concept of CSICOP. To disprove paranormal claims. Have you even seen Psi Factor for yourself? It's very close to this. Dark Observer 16:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have talked to a few CSI members and they feel that everything related to UFO's etc does not exist and they even told me that their goal was to make sure that such was forgotten by the main stream media. Not sure if they were pulling my leg but looking at the situation today, seems they have almost met their goals... Magnum Serpentine (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ZeteticVol1No1.jpg

The image Image:ZeteticVol1No1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Misozabot this talk page

If it's acceptable to everyone, I'm going to install MiszaBot on this page. Any objections? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Truth in "Science"?

I don't really have a position on this case, but to say that

CSI's Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health also published a detailed response to these and other objections, saying that biasing the odds against Natasha was appropriate because her claims were unlikely to be true.[28][29]

When is bias acceptable in scientific inquiry? Why should the skeptics get the last word? Why should the average reader have to make the inference that this is nonsense? This is a hyperlinked encyclopedia. Where is the relevant link to the page on bias in science or the rudiments of the scientific method? Religious skeptics don't seem to admit that science proceeds both on the basis of hypothesis before observation (e.g., much theoretical physics) and observation before hypothesis (or theory), e.g. heliocentrism, gravity, continental drift, genetics, a good deal of evidence of evolution, etc. ad infinitum et nauseum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.253.227 (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Errr - and your point is? Shot info (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

My point is in regard to the phrase "unlikely to be true." Based on what? A law of physics that says this is impossible (there is none)? The fact that ingrained skeptics would have to laboriously reappraise their state of knowledge if it was? It's pure, shocking bias that has nothing to with science and is in fact base, vulgar, and superstitious (i.e. unfounded, derived from emotion rather than empiricism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.253.227 (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrase in question is a paraphrase from the two sources supplied after the phrase, so I'm still failing to understand what you are arguing for here. Shot info (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I also fail to understand your objection. Have you read the two references? I see nothing "base, vulgar, and superstitious (i.e. unfounded, derived from emotion rather than empiricism)" in the sentence or in the references cited. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the word "bias" as used here. In this case, bias means a balance between selectivity (few false positives pass) versus sensitivity (few true positives fail). The authors of the references explain the justification for the level of sensitivity/selectivity they selected. One of the reasons was that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". A second reason that they mention is plausability; many claims of this nature had been evaluated in the past but all, without exception, were found to be fraudulent. Taking precautions to preclude further instances of fraud is not the type of bias that is "unfounded or based on emotion rather than empiricism". If you're saying that the investigators should have treated Natasha's claims as if they were unaware of previous similar cases, you would be unjustified. The fact that the nature of the whole test was to preclude that her results were due to fraud or dumb luck is indeed consitent with the scientific method. The investigators adequately justify their skepticism and selection of the testing criteria in the references cited. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

CSI Fellows list

Is there any good purpose served by listing every Fellow, past and present? The list is quite lengthy, and is rather like publishing an alumni directory. It should, at the very least, be restricted to notables (those with wiki articles), who make up a majority of the list. Plazak (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Independent Investigations Group

The relationship between the CSI and the IIG (if any) is not stated in the IIG section, leaving this reader to wonder why the section on IIG is placed in this article. Also, there are items under the IIG subhead that appear to pertain to CSI, but not IIG. Can someone help me out here? Thanks. Plazak (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)