Subject: Re: Aural photography
From: [email-masked] (James J. Lippard)
Date: 30 May 1994 12:46 MST
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,sci.engr.lighting,alt.meditation,sci.skeptic,sci.med.psychobiology,bionet.plants,bionet.general,alt.binaries.pictures.d,alt.devilbunnies

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Mark S. Bilk) writes...
>In article <[email-masked]>,
>James J. Lippard <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Rohan Hawthorne 61-89-895442) writes...
>>:I am looking for any information on Aural photography.  I know they have
> 
>>Kirlian photography.
> 
>>It's not the biologists who have the relevant expertise, but the
>>physicists.  You can get nice Kirlian photographs of auras around
>>non-biological objects, such as coins, washers, and paper clips. See
>>
>>   Arleen J. Watkins and William S. Bickel, "A Study of the Kirlian
>>      Effect," _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 10, no. 3, Spring 1986,
>>      pp. 244-257.
>>   Arleen J. Watkins and William S. Bickel, "The Kirlian Technique:
>>      Controlling the Wild Cards," _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 13,
>>      no. 2, Winter 1989, pp. 172-184. 
>>
>>All of your questions are answered in those two articles.
> 
>It might be advisable to get a second opinion.  CSICOP has a 
>fundamentalist belief in the non-existence of psychic phenomena.

By all means get a second opinion, but I doubt that you will find
as careful or exhaustive a study of the Kirlian effect as the above
two papers, by physicists here at the University of Arizona.

>It also does not permit any dissenting views to be published in 
>its journal.  The combination of these two factors insures that it
>cannot be a source of objective information.  Quoting from _The New 
>Inquisition_, by Robert Anton Wilson:

The _Skeptical Inquirer_ does have a clear bias, but it is simply false
that it "does not permit *any* dissenting views" to be published.
Since you go on to discuss the "Mars effect" affair, you should note
that (a) the Gauquelins' own interpretation of the CSICOP "Mars effect"
study was published in _SI_, in full (Michel and Francoise Gauquelin,
"Star U.S. Sportsmen Display the Mars Effect," _Skeptical Inquirer_
vol. 4, no. 2, Winter 1979-80, pp. 31-40), (b) Dennis Rawlins'
analysis was published in the same issue ("Dennis Rawlins, "Report
on the U.S. Test of the Gauquelins' 'Mars Effect,'" _Skeptical
Inquirer_ vol. 4, no. 2, Winter 1979-80, pp. 26-31), complete with
criticisms of the CSICOP team (see especially footnote 2), (c) Rawlins
was given 5 1/2 unedited pages of space in the _Skeptical Inquirer_
to make his charges against CSICOP (Dennis Rawlins, "Remus Extremus,"
_Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 6, no. 2, Winter 1981-82, pp. 58-65),
(d) the CSICOP team admitted the errors in their analysis (George
O. Abell, Paul Kurtz, and Marvin Zelen, "The Abell-Kurtz-Zelen 'Mars
Effect' Experiments: A Reappraisal," _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 7,
no. 3, Spring 1983, pp. 77-82), (e) the most recent major article in
_SI_ regarding the "Mars Effect" is a reanalysis of the U.S. test
to show that it *does* show the "Mars Effect" (Suitbert Ertel,
"Update on the 'Mars Effect,'" _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 16, no. 2,
Winter 1992, pp. 150-160), and (f) although Paul Kurtz had a brief
response to Ertel's article, _SI_ published a criticism of Kurtz
which was left unanswered (Jim Lippard, "Questioning the 'Mars
effect,'" _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 16, no. 4, Summer 1992, p. 439).

In short, you know not of what you speak.  Nor, for that matter,
does Robert Anton Wilson, who is notorious for his careless
statements and disregard for factual accuracy.  (See, for example,
the exchange between myself and Wilson in _Saucer Smear_
(January 15, February 10, and April Fool's Day, 1994 issues).)

Apparently you missed the recent lengthy summary of the "Mars Effect"/
CSICOP/Rawlins controversy which I posted here.  I will email you a
copy.

>  ...Dennis Rawlins, a Harvard physics graduate who knows CSICOP from the
>  inside.  He was a co-founder in 1976, served on its Executive Council
>  from 1976 to 1979 and was Associate Editor of their journal (originally
>  the _Zetetic_, now the Skeptical Inquirer) from 1976 to 1980. ...

This is true.  Phil Klass argued that Rawlins wasn't an "Associate Editor"
(no such position is listed on the masthead), but there is good evidence
that Editorial Board members were at least informally referred to as
"associate editors."

>  Rawlins discovered in early 1977 that the first scientific study
>  performed by CSICOP was, to put it mildly, erroneous.

This statement is erroneous.  In early 1977, no scientific study had
yet been performed by CSICOP.  What actually happened was that in
1975, _The Humanist_ published "Objections to Astrology," which included
some anti-Gauquelin remarks by Lawrence Jerome.  (CSICOP, founded in 1976,
did not yet exist.)  This led to a response from Gauquelin, a response
from Jerome, and a critique of Gauquelin from the Belgian Comite Para,
which had performed a replication of Gauquelin's "Mars Effect" studies
in the late sixties.  The Comite Para produced the same effect, but
argued that the effect was not unique to athletes, but was simply the
result of the natural distribution of births throughout the day
(the nycthemeral curve)--with more births occurring in the early morning
hours than at other times--combined with the fact that Mars is slightly
more often near the sun than opposite.  (I'm not really doing justice
to their explanation here--for full details, see the articles in _The
Humanist_.)  Marvin Zelen proposed a test of the Comite Para's explanation
by comparing a sample of non-sports champions born in the same regions
at the same times to a subsample of Gauquelin's athletes.  If the Comite
Para was right, the non-athletes would show the same "Mars Effect" as the
athletes.  The study was conducted by Gauquelin (not CSICOP), and he
found that the non-athletes did NOT show the "Mars Effect"--thus disproving
the Comite Para's thesis.
   Dennis Rawlins did his own analysis of the Comite Para's explanation
and found that it didn't work (prior to and independently of Gauquelin's
conducting of the "Zelen Test").  He sent a memo about this to a few
people, but didn't (in my opinion) explain very well what the consequences
were of his (rather technical) analysis.
   The Gauquelins reported the results of the Zelen Test in their own
words in _The Humanist_.  Their paper was followed by a paper by Zelen,
Kurtz, and Abell which pretty much ignored what the Zelen Test showed,
but instead dissected the subsample of sports champions Gauquelin used
in the study, arguing that it didn't really show a "Mars Effect."  This
analysis was rather misleading and post hoc, and was criticized by
Rawlins in footnote 2 of his report on CSICOP's U.S. test, mentioned
above.

>  [Wilson gives a page of details and goes on to describe how the CSICOP
>  Executive Council censored an article by Rawlins about this matter in
>  the journal, and stopped a press conference in which Rawlins tried to
>  speak out about it.]

The allegedly "censored" article was Rawlins' report on the U.S. test,
mentioned above.  The only deletion were of _ad hominem_ remarks by
Rawlins--at least one of which was directed at Gauquelin, not CSICOP.
In my opinion, the deletions were entirely appropriate.  Rawlins'
scientific criticisms of CSICOP and Gauquelin remained intact and were
published.
   By the time of this press conference, Rawlins had himself gotten
fairly out of hand.  (I understand his frustration, as I've experienced
similar stonewalling from CSICOP in response to criticism, but I don't
think he kept his own actions beyond reproach.)

>  The executive council then met in closed session, with all members 
>  but Rawlins, and voted him out of the executive.  They allowed him to
>  continue as Associate Editor of their journal, however, and he went on
>  struggling to get the correction published for another year.  In 1980, he
>  resigned from CSICOP in total disillusionment.

This omits a few crucial details.  The Executive Council was simply holding
its annual meeting.  Rawlins did not attend, even though he had been paid
for airfare in advance.  Rawlins did not notify anyone that he would not
be there.  Rawlins says that he did this because he had not been properly
reimbursed for airfare for the previous year's meeting.
   Executive Council members apparently are supposed to be reelected every
3 years or so, and the official story is that Rawlins was simply not
reelected--and his failure to show up for the meeting was apparently a
major reason for this.  Other reasons were also brought up--see Ken Frazier's
introduction to "Remus Extremus."  Rawlins disputes all of them, and says
that the real reason for his ejection was the "Mars Effect" controversy.
I have no doubt that the controversy was a major part of the decision,
though I also have no doubt that Rawlins' own behavior was a contributing
factor.

BTW, Rawlins says he never resigned from CSICOP.  He did submit a
resignation letter from the _SI_ Editorial Board, which he says was
conditional on its publication, unedited, in _SI_.  Ken Frazier responded
by accepting his resignation without publishing it.  Rawlins was removed
as a CSICOP Fellow in a ballot of the Executive Council.  Rawlins has
argued that there really was no such ballot, that it was invented by
CSICOP after the fact, because he was told by Martin Gardner that there
was no such ballot.  In fact, Gardner and other Executive Council members
were misled by the ballot, which added new Fellows to *replace* Rawlins.
(If you didn't read it carefully, you might think that you were just
adding new Fellows, not getting rid of old ones.)  Most of the Executive
Council, however, correctly understood the ballot--and at least two
voted to *keep* Rawlins (Frazier and Hyman, I believe--I'd have to check
my "Mars Effect Chronology" to be sure).  Gardner's vote was later
changed to an abstention because he was misled by the wording.

>  To summarize: CSICOP published a scientifically false report.  They 
>  blocked all attempts by a member of their own Executive Council to
>  inform members that the report was false.  When their own selected
>  referees agreed the report was false, they suppressed the referees'
>  report.*

This is nonsense.  CSICOP published some misleading and post-hoc data
analysis by both the Kurtz/Zelen/Abell team *AND* by the Gauquelins.
It also published Rawlins' analysis, which pointed out the post-hocery
on *both* sides.  (For some reason, the critics of CSICOP always forget
about the post hoc sample-splitting by the Gauquelins, even though
Rawlins pointed it out, too.)

By the way, all the data for the U.S. test was published in _SI_.
Anybody who read carefully could see that Rawlins' report was the most
objective and accurate, and that the other two reports were flawed.
I would not describe any of the reports as "scientifically false" 
(whatever that means).

>Wilson then describes how Prof. Marcello Truzzi, editor of the CSICOP
>journal, resigned or was ejected from the organization because he wanted
>to print both sides of debates.  Apparently, CSICOP does not permit those
>whose work it criticizes to answer the criticism in their journal.

Truzzi resigned, though his hand was forced.  He had numerous reasons,
including (a) he wanted _SI_ to be more scholarly than popular, (b) he
wanted paranormal advocates to be able to publish in _SI_ and to be
Fellows of the Committee, (c) he wanted the Fellows to have voting power
in the organization, (d) he was not happy with the close ties between
CSICOP and the American Humanist Association, which he felt put him in
the position of being forced to defend articles published by CSICOP
people in _The Humanist_ (e.g., against the critiques by the Rockwells
in _Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research_).

>  [Truzzi] says CSICOP isn't skeptical at all in the true meaning of that
>  word but is "an advocacy body upholding orthodox establishment views."

This is correct.

>Truzzi started his own journal in which he allows open debate.

This is also correct, though the _Zetetic Scholar_ has not published anything
since 1987.

By the way, if either you or Wilson had bothered to read the articles by
Patrick Curry and Richard Kammann regarding the "Mars Effect" published
in issues 9, 10, and 11 of the _Zetetic Scholar_, you would not have
posted such an erroneous article to the net.  I highly recommend their
articles.  You can still obtain back issues of the _Zetetic Scholar_ from
Marcello Truzzi, Dept. of Sociology, Eastern Michigan University,
Ypsilanti, MI 48197.  They're probably about $10 each.

>* _The New Inquisition_, Robert Anton Wilson, 1986, ISBN 0-941404-49-8,
>  Falcon Press, Phoenix AZ, $9.95.  (pp. 45-47)

Jim Lippard              [email-masked]
Dept. of Philosophy      [email-masked]
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721