textfiles-politics/regexConspTest/crybaby.xml

<xml><p>I notice the now-ancient Gauquelin "Mars Effect" affair continues to
crop up, perennially, with considerable time-honoured but still-fuzzy
rhetoric about an alleged CSICOP "cover up", including copious
laudatory mentions of Dennis Rawlins's ALSO-ancient jeremiad
"sTARBABY", which appeared in "Fate" magazine. Essentially all
treatments of the affair since then have been loose (and even MORE
careless) descendants of the Rawlins article, often committing gross
distortions, such as confusing the test of European athletes with the
later one based on U.S. data. </p>

<p>The ONLY proper rejoinder I've ever seen to Rawlins was a reply piece
by CSICOP Fellow P. J. Klass, which "Fate" refused to publish, and
which far too few have seen, over the years since. Robert Sheaffer
and I have now scanned in the text, and are attempting to distribute
it more widely. The full text may be downloaded or File REQuested,
but not FTP'd from my BBS as CRYBABY.ZIP (as Robert mentions in his
comments, which follow), and I'll be mailing it to other skeptics'
groups on diskette, as well as uploading it to CompuServe. </p>

<p>-- Rick Moen
Vice-Chair, Bay Area Skeptics
Sysop, The Skeptic's Board BBS, San Francisco
(also reachable at 76711.243@CompuServe.com) </p>

<p> "CRYBABY" </p>

<p> by Philip J. Klass </p>

<p>Philip J. Klass is a member of the Executive Council, Committee
for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
(CSICOP). </p>

<p> [Note: This article, written in 1981, was submitted for
publication to FATE Magazine, in reply to Dennis Rawlins'
accusations against CSICOP in his Oct., 1981 FATE article
"sTARBABY". FATE adamantly refused to publish this article.
Meanwhile, Rawlins was given the opportunity to make a
rambling, six-page statement in the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER
(Winter, 1981-82, p.58), which was published exactly as
received, presenting his accusations of a "coverup." This
was in addition to the 5 1/2 page article he earlier had on
the "Mars Effect" in the Winter, 1979-80 issue (p.26). To
this day, supporters of the paranormal still charge CSICOP
with perpetrating a "coverup" on this matter. Only a
relatively few people ever saw Klass's "CRYBABY", the long
and detailed answer to Rawlins' "sTARBABY" charges. Now that
you have the opportunity to read Klass's rebuttal, you can
make up your own mind. </p>

<p> Klass's original text has been reproduced below, exactly as
typed, with the author's permission. Spelling and
punctuation have not been changed. Text that was underlined
in the original appears in capital letters.
- Robert Sheaffer, Bay Area Skeptics, 1991.
This article is brought to you courtesy of the Bay
Area Skeptics' BBS, 415-648-8944, from which it is
available for downloading, although not via FTP.] </p>

<p> "They call themselves the Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. In fact, they are a
group of would-be-debunkers who bungled their major
investigation, falsified the results , covered up their errors
and gave the boot to a colleague who threatened to tell the
truth." Thus began a 32-Page article in the October 1981 issue of
FATE magazine, which a a press release headlined: "SCIENTIST
BLOWS THE WHISTLE ON PARANORMAL COVERUP." </p>

<p> Since CSICOP was formed in the spring of 1976, it has been a
thorn in the side of those who promote belief in "psychic
phenomena," in astrology, UFOs, and similar subjects and it has
been criticized sharply by FATE whose articles generally cater to
those who are eager to believe. However, this FATE article was
written by skeptic Dennis Rawlins, who was one of the original
Fellows in CSICOP and for nearly four years had been a member of
its Executive Council. 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. </p>

<p> Because Rawlins proposed my election to CSICOP's Executive
Council I cannot be charged with animosity toward him, except
what he later engendered by his actions. And in a recent letter
to me, Rawlins volunteered that I "was less involved than any
other active Councillor" in the alleged misdeeds. </p>

<p> The FATE article, entitled "sTARBABY" prompted my own
investigation into Rawlins' charges. But unlike Rawlins, who
relies heavily on his recollection of conversations several years
earlier, I chose to use hard evidence - published articles,
memoranda and letters, some of which Rawlins cites in his
article. When I requested copies of these letters and memoranda
from the several principals involved, all of them responded
promptly and fully except for one -- Dennis Rawlins, who had
accused the others of "cover-up" and "censorship." RAWLINS
REFUSED MY REPEATED REQUESTS TO SUPPLY HARD DATA THAT MIGHT
CONFIRM HIS CHARGES, AND WHICH ALSO COULD DENY THEM! </p>

<p> The results of my investigation, based on hard data,
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." </p>

<p> If the editors of FATE had spent only a few hours reading
published articles cited in the Rawlins article they could not in
good conscience have accused CSICOP of "cover-up" or of having
"falsified the results." Instead, FATE chose to ignore the
traditional journalistic practice of investigating both sides of
a controversial issue and publishing both sides, as those accused
by Rawlins had done. </p>

<p> Rawlins' charges result from two tests intended to assess
whether the position of the planet Mars at the time of a person's
birth has a significant influence on whether he/she becomes a
"sports champion." This "Mars effect" hypothesis was first
proposed by France's Michel Gauquelin, who directs the laboratory
for the Study of Relations between Cosmic and Psychophysiological
Rhythms, based on a study of European champions. </p>

<p> The first of the two tests was performed by Gauquelin
himself, with results that generally were supportive of the Mars
effect hypothesis by eliminating a possible objection that first
had been raised by others, i,e, not CSICOP. The only way in which
CSICOP, or persons affiliated with it, could be guilty of
Rawlins' charges would be if they had refused to publish
Gauquelin's results or had intentionally altered the data in his
report. NEITHER OCCURRED. Nor did Gauquelin accuse CSICOP or its
members of trying to "cover-up" his results or altering the data
of this first test whose calculations he himself performed,
although there were some differences of interpretation of the
implication of these results. </p>

<p> HOWEVER, GAUQUELIN DID PUBLICLY ACCUSE RAWLINS OF DISTORTION
AND MISREPRESENTATION, with implied criticism of CSICOP because
Rawlins then was a member of its Executive Council. There would
be other occasions when CSICOP would be criticized because of
Rawlins' intemperate statements and actions. </p>

<p> This criticism was published by CSICOP in the Winter l978
issue of its publication, THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER (p. 80). In it
Gauquelin wrote: "How, in spite of all this data could one
distort and misrepresent the effect in question and sow doubts on
the subject? Dennis Rawlins, a member of CSICP ... has done just
this in a polemic which appeared in the Fall-Winter 1977 issue of
that (CSICOP's) journal." In "sTARBABY," Rawlins tries to shift
the blame for his transgressions to CSICOP. </p>

<p> According to "sTARBABY," CSICOP Chairman Prof. Paul Kurtz
was the principal architect of the alleged cover-up. Yet in
reality it was Kurtz, then editor of THE HUMANIST magazine
(published by the American Humanist Assn.) who printed the
lengthy paper by Gauquelin describing the seemingly favorable-for-him results of the first test in the Nov/Dec,l977 issue (p.
30). What kind of doubletalk is this when Rawlins and FATE charge
that Kurtz's decision to publish test results favorable to an
"adversary" represents a "cover-up"? Rawlins might better have
waited until "l984" to resort to such "double-speak" accusations. </p>

<p> Because the issues are complex and because two different
publications and organizations were involved, it is useful to
recount briefly the events that led to the first Mars effect
test, which is at the root of the Rawlins/FATE charges, and the
second tests performed using data for outstanding U.S. athletes.
Based on calculations performed by Rawlins himself, the U.S.
champions test showed a very UNFAVORABLE result for the claimed
Mars effect, which Rawlins confirms in "sTARBABY." And these
Rawlins-computed results were published, without change, by
CSICOP. </p>

<p> The Sept/Oct. l975 issue of THE HUMANIST carried an article
by L.E. Jerome that was critical of astrology in general and of
the Mars effect in particular. When Gauquelin sought an
opportunity for rebuttal, Kurtz provided it in the Jan./Feb. 1976
issue of THE HUMANIST, which also carried several other articles
on astrology. Because Gauquelin's article claimed that the
Mars effect had been confirmed by Belgian Committee for the
Scientific Investigation of Alleged Paranormal Phenomena (created
some 25 years earlier), that group also was invited by Kurtz to
submit an article for publication. Belgian Comite Para, as it is
called, confirmed Gauquelin's calculations. But it questioned his
statistical assumption "that the frequency distribution of the
hours of birth during the day (the nych-themeral curve) is a
constant distribution...", i.e. that there is an equal
probability of a person being born during any hour of the day. </p>

<p> This seemed important because the Mars effect hypothesis
holds that persons born during an approximately two-hour period
just after Mars has "risen" or during a comparable period after
Mars is at upper culmination (zenith), are more likely to become
sports champions than persons born during other hours of the day.
If there is an equal probability of a person being born in any
one of the 24 hours, then 4/24, or l6.7%,of the general
population should be born when Mars is in one of these two "key
sectors." (Because of combined orbital motions of Earth and Mars,
the percentage of the day in which Mars is in two key sectors is
approximately l7%. But Gauquelin reported that 22% European
champions in his data base had been born when Mars was in the two
key sectors, significantly higher than the l7% "benchmark." </p>

<p> Because of the issue raised by Comite' Para, Kurtz
consulted statistics professor Marvin Zelen who in turn proposed a
control test that could resolve the statistical issue raised by
Comite' Para. This Zelen proposed test, also published in the
same (Jan./Feb. 1976) issue of THE HUMANIST, suggested that
Gauquelin should gather birth data for "non-champions" who had
been born in the same local areas and within three days of a
RANDOMLY SELECTED sub-sample of Gauquelin's "champions" who
seemed to show the Mars effect. </p>

<p> If only 17% of these NON-champions were born when Mars was
in the two key sectors, this would void the issue raised by
Comite Para. But if roughly 22% of the NON-champions also were
born when Mars was in the two key sectors, this would undercut
the Mars effect hypothesis. Zelen's article concluded that the
proposed test offered "an objective way for unambiguous
corroboration or dis-confirmation." In retrospect it would have
been more precise had he added: "...of the issue raised by
Belgian Comite Para." If Gauquelin's sample of "champions" data
was "biased," as Rawlins first suspected, this could not possibly
be detected by the Zelen-proposed test. </p>

<p> The same issue of The Humanist carried another article, by
astronomy professor George O. Abell, which was very skeptical of
astrology in general. But unlike Rawlins who dismissed the Mars
effect out-of-hand and "didn't believe that it merited serious
investigation yet" (FATE: p. 74), Abell wrote that if Gauquelin's
findings were correct, they were "extremely interesting." </p>

<p> However, Abell included the following note of caution: "If
all of Gauquelin's work is re-checked, and his results hold up,
then it is necessary to repeat the experiment with a new sample,
say in the United States. If that sample should give the same
result, then further verification is in order, until it is
absolutely certain that the effects are real and reproducible.
That is the way science works; reproducibility of results is
necessary before fundamental new laws can be inferred." This sage
advice clearly indicated the limits of what conclusions could be
drawn, and could not be drawn, from the results of the upcoming
Zelen test, and even from a complete re-check of Gauquelin's
original data on European champions, which was not attempted. It
should be stressed that at the time this first (Zelen) test was
proposed, CSICOP did not yet exist. Several months later, when it
was formed (initially under the auspices of the American Humanist
Assn.), Kurtz became its co-chairman and later its chairman.
Zelen and Abell were named Fellows, but not to CSICOP's Executive
Council. In l980, Abell was elected to replace Rawlins on the
Council. </p>

<p> The results of this first (Zelen) test were published in the
Nov./Dec., l977 issue of THE HUMANIST, where the issue first was
raised, although by this time CSICOP had its own publication.
Gauquelin and his wife Francoise were given nearly six large-size
magazine pages to present their findings without censorship.
Gauquelin reported having difficulties in obtaining data for non-champions born within several days of champions in small towns,
so he said that non-champions birth data had been obtained only
from the large cities in France and Belgium, The Gauquelins
reported that these data showed that only l7% of the non-champions had been born when Mars was in the two sectors which
seemed to resolve the issue earlier raised by Belgium's Comite
Para in favor of the Mars effect. </p>

<p> The same issue of THE HUMANIST carried an article jointly
authored by Zelen, Kurtz, and Abell, that began: "Is there a
'Mars Effect'? The preceding article by Michel and Francoise
Gauquelin discusses the experiment proposed by Marvin Zelen and
its subsequent outcome. Their conclusions come out in favor of
the existence of a 'Mars effect' related to sports champions. It
is the purpose of this article to discuss the analysis of the
data and to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the
evidence in favor of the 'Mars effect.'" </p>

<p> The Zelen/Kurtz/Abell article raised some questions about
the results. For example, that "the 'Mars effect' only appears in
Paris, not in Belgium or in the rest of France." The article
concluded: "lf one had a high prior 'belief' that there is a Mars
effect, then the Gauquelin data would serve confirm this prior
belief. In the other hand, if the prior belief in the existence
of a Mars effect was low, then this data may raise the posterior
belief, but not enough to accept the existence of the Mars
effect." </p>

<p> Rawlins charges that publication of this article, following
the uncensored Gauquelin paper,"commited CSICOP to a cover-up."
(FATE: p.76) Yet is characteristic of scientific controversy for
one party to question or challenge another's interpretation of
the data. And Gauquelin would do so following the second test
without being accused of a "cover-up" in "sTARBABY." </p>

<p> In the same issue of THE HUMANIST, in a brief introduction
written by Kurtz, the first "linkage" with CSICOP occurred. Kurtz
wrote: "Thus, members of CSICOP involved in this inquiry believe
that the claim that there is a statistical relationship between
the position of Mars at the time of birth of individuals and the
incidence of sports champions among them has not been established
.. to further the cause of scientific inquiry, the committee has
agreed (with Gauquelin) to make an independent test of the
alleged Mars effect by a study of sports champions in the United
States." </p>

<p> In "sTARBABY," Rawlins charges that the U. S, champions test
was a "diversion." Clearly the Gauquelins themselves did not view
it in this light, judging from the concluding statement in their
article which said: "Let us hope that these positive results may
induce other scientists to study whether this effect, discovered
with the European data, appears also with the U.S. data." </p>

<p> On March 28, 1978, SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE
FIRST TEST WERE PUBLISHED, Rawlins sent Kurtz a copy of a three-page memorandum he had prepared a year earlier (March 29, 1977).
It contained a very technical analysis of the issue raised by
Comite Para, which prompted Rawlins to conclude that the 22%
figure reported for European champions was not the result of a
disproportionate share of births of the general population during
the early morning hours when Mars often was in one of the two key
sectors. In this analysis, Rawlins concluded that Gauquelin had
"made fair allowance for the effect." </p>

<p> But Rawlins had not written this three-page memo until
several month AFTER the Zelen test had been proposed in THE
HUMANIST. Shortly after preparing the analysis, Rawlins had sent
a copy to Prof. Marcello Truzzi, then editor of CSICOP's
publication. Truzzi had decided not to publish it but sent a copy
to Gauquelin. IF the Rawlins analysis of 1977 took account of all
possible demographic factors -- and there is some disagreement on
this question -- it was much too technical to be understood by
persons without expertise in statistics and celestial mechanics. </p>

<p> When Rawlins finally got around to sending this analysis to
Kurtz on March 28, 1978, his letter of that date did NOT
criticize Truzzi or CSICOP for not having published it earlier.
Rather, Rawlins admitted, "I should not have kept my (Mar. 19,
1977) memo..private after all." He did suggest that perhaps it
might now be published in THE HUMANIST. But by this time Kurtz no
longer was its editor. More important, the results of the first
(Zelen) test already had been published several months earlier. </p>

<p>If, as Rawlins would later charge in "sTARBABY," the
Zelen/Kurtz/Abell article published several months earlier in THE
HUMANIST amounted to a "cover-up," Rawlins did not make such an
accusation to Kurtz when he wrote him April 6, 1978. Instead,
Rawlins wrote; "I think our best bets now are 1. The main
European investigation might seek to discover how the Eur. samp
(of Gauquelin) was (hypothetically) fudged -- check orig. records
microscopically for some sort of Soal trick. 2. Proceed with the
U.S, test, where we know we have a clean (unbiased) sample." </p>

<p> This April 6, 1978, letter clearly shows that while Rawlins
suspected that Gauquelin had manipulated his European champions
data ("Soal trick") he found no evidence of wrong-doing by
Zelen/Kurtz/Abell. On April 26, 1978, in another letter to Kurtz,
following his visit with Rawlins in San Diego, Rawlins wrote that
he "was certain" that Gauquelin's original data "was biased, but
not sure how." Rawlins concluded this letter on a cordial note:
"Now, wasn't it great visiting sunny, funny, California -- and
getting to see a real live nut religion launch itself in San
Diego? ... hope you'll get back this way soon again." </p>

<p> It was at about this time that CSICOP came under fire for
Rawlins' actions in another matter. In the summer of 1977,
Rawlins and Abell had been invited to be panelists in a symposium
on astrology to be held March 18, 1978 at the University of
Toronto at which Gauquelin, among others, would participate. The
invitation came from Dr. Howard Eisenberg on the stationary of
the University's School of Continuing Studies. Both Rawlins and
Abel had accepted. Then, in late September, 1977, Eisenberg
withdrew the invitations on the grounds that "the response from
potential speakers...has yielded an incredible acceptance rate of
100%. This places us in the embarassing position of not being
able to sponsor all of you," i.e. pay travel expenses and allow
formal presentations. </p>

<p> On Feb. 6, 1978, Rawlins wrote to the president of the
University of Toronto, protesting what he said were "a number of
oddities" associated with the symposium, including an imbalance
between the number of astrology supporters and skeptics. The
Rawlins letter charged that "this conference looks to be a pretty
phoney confrontation, which will therefore give the irrational
pseudo-science of astrology an evidentially-unmerited 'academic'
boost in public credibility..." Rawlins sent a copy of his letter
to another university official. </p>

<p> Rawlins' suspicion of a loaded panel may have been
justified. But the letter of protest was written on CSICOP
stationery and signed "Dennis Rawlins, Executive Council,
CSICOP." Another regretable action was a Rawlins telephone call
late at night to a university astronomy professor, Robert
Garrison, which gave the impression that Rawlins was speaking in
behalf of CSICOP. In fact, Rawlins had taken these actions
without consulting other Council members and without official
approval to use CSICOP's name. In early April 1978, a copy of the
Rawlins letter had reached Truzzi, who also had been invited and
dis-invited to participate in the conference. The Rawlins letter
claimed that Truzzi had co-authored "an astrology-supporting
paper...and so rates as a strange sort of skeptic." Truzzi sent
Kurtz a copy of this Rawlins letter with a note that said: "Since
Dennis' letter is on Committee stationery, would appear he is
writing on behalf of the Committee, I trust that will not happen
again." </p>

<p> Rawlins' actions were reported in the Canadian magazine
SCIENCE FORUM July/August 1978, in an article written by Lydia
Dotto. The article, entitled "Science Confronts 'Pseudo-Science'", began; "It was after midnight on a Saturday night when
University of Toronto astronomer Bob Garrison was awakened by a
phone call. The caller identified himself as a member of the
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal, and according to Garrison, he spent the best part of
the next hour urging the U of T scientist not to participate in
the conference on astrology...Dennis Rawlins, a California
astronomer and science writer and a member of the Committee,
acknowledged in an interview that he made the call, but denied he
was trying to talk Garrison out of attending the
conference...this and other incidents surrounding the conference
have become something of a cause celebre, particularly since the
event was cancelled shortly before it was to have taken place in
mid-March. Predictably, ACCUSATIONS BEGAN TO FLY THAT SCIENTIFIC
OPPONENTS OF ASTROLOGY WERE ENGAGED IN A CAMPAIGN TO SUPPRESS
FREEDOM OF SPEECH." (Emphasis added.) </p>

<p> Indeed they did, much to CSICOP's embarassment. Britain's
New Scientist magazine, in its June 29, 1978, issue, quoted the
Canadian magazine in an article that began: "Earlier this year an
astronomer at the University of Toronto, Dr. Bob Garrison, was
awakened by a phone call from a member of Committee for the
Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. The caller
allegedly spent most of the next hour trying to dissuade Garrison
from taking part in a conference on astrology." </p>

<p> This New Scientist account was picked up by FATE magazine,
which in turn attributed the action to CSICOP rather than to one
Council member. FATE commented: "If you have difficulty
understanding their (CSICOP) motives, remember that here is a
dedicated group of witch-hunters seeking to burn nonbelievers at
the stake." (How ironic that FATE now is promoting the views of
the same person whose intemperate earlier actions had provoked
FATE's harsh criticism.) The same criticism of CSICOP, because of
Rawlins' actions surfaced again in a feature article in THE
WASHINGTON POST (Aug. 26, 1979). The article, syndicated and
published elsewhere, was written by Ted Rockwell who was
identified as a member of the Parapsychological Association. </p>

<p> When I learned of the Rawlins incident, I was shocked as
were others on the Council. But all of us hoped that Council
members had learned an important lesson from the incident and
that it would have a maturing effect on Rawlins. Yet before
another year had passed Rawlins would once again demonstrate his
inability to distinguish between official CSICOP actions and
those of its individual members. </p>

<p> Originally it was expected that the required calculations of
Mars' position at the time of birth of U.S. champions (for the
second test) would be performed by Prof. Owen Gingerich of
Harvard University. But during the summer of 1978 the Harvard
astronomer was on an extended leave so Kurtz asked Rawlins to
perform the celestial mechanics computations. Rawlins did so and
found in sharp contrast to Gauquelin's findings that 22% of the
European champions were born when Mars was in the two key
sectors, and compared to the "chance" benchmark figure of 17%,
only 13.5% of the U.S. champions were born when Mars was in the
two key sectors. Thus, Rawlins' calculations showed that if Mars
had any effect on champions, it was a pronounced NEGATIVE effect
for U.S. athletes. </p>

<p> On Sept, 18, 1978, Rawlins prepared a four-page report
describing the procedures he had used in his calculations and a
summary of the results. But Rawlins could not resist including
some denigrating charges against Gauquelin. For example:
"Gauquelin was well known in his teens for his casting of
horoscopes (a practice he has since disowned)..." The comments
were both gratuitous and inappropriate. </p>

<p> Relations between Rawlins and Gauquelin had been strained
since CSICOP published a long, rambling Rawlins attack
(Fall/Winter 1977) in which he accused Gauquelin of "misgraphing
the results of the Belgian Comite Para check on his Mars-athletes
link..." Gauquelin had responded with the charge that Rawlins had
distorted and misrepresented the facts in a letter which then was
scheduled to be published shortly in the Winter 1978 issue of THE
SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. The same issue also would carry a sharp
rejoinder from Rawlins. </p>

<p> Thus it is hardly surprising that Kurtz decided that it
would be best if the upcoming summary report on the results of
the U.S. champions test should be written by Zelen, Abell and
himself -- especially since the three of them had jointly
authored the earlier article and Abell had proposed the U.S.
test. If Kurtz instead had suggested that the U.S. champions test
report be jointly authored with Rawlins instead of Abell,
"sTARBABY" might never have been published. This is evident from
numerous Rawlins complaints in "sTARBABY." For example, Rawlins
complains that the day after Kurtz received his Sept. 18, 1978,
report (with the ad hominem attack on Gauquelin) "Kurtz wrote
Abell to suggest KZA (Kurtz, Zelen and Abell) confer and prepare
the test report for publication (EXCLUDING ME)." (Emphasis
added.) (P.79.) </p>

<p> Rawlins also complains that Kurtz asked Zelen and Abell "to
verify the work," i.e. Rawlins' calculations. (P.80.) Because of
the importance of test, it was good scientific protocol to ask
other specialists to at least spot-check Rawlins' computations.
Then Rawlins reveals he was angered because "Abell asked
countless questions about my academic training." (P. 8O.)
Inasmuch as Rawlins lists his academic training as being in
physics rather than astronomy, Abell's questions seem justified. </p>

<p> Further evidence of Rawlins' wounded ego is his complaint
that "not only was Abell being invited to the press conference
(at the upcoming Council in Washington, D.C.), he was to be the
CSICOP spokesman on astrology in Washington." (P.81) Rawlins said
he "strongly protested the high-handedness of the choice of Abell
as the speaker at the annual meeting...I emphasized that CSICOP
had plenty of astronomers associated with it (Carl Sagan, Bart
Bok, Edwin Krupp and others), all of them nearer Washington than
Abell who lived all the way across the country, in the Los
Angeles area." (In fact, Krupp also lived in Southern California,
Bok lived Arizona, and Sagan then was working in California on
his "Cosmos" television series.) </p>

<p> In "sTARBABY," Rawlins claims that Abell had been invited to
speak because "Kurtz was trying to suppress my dissenting report
(of Sept. 18, 1978) and (by not paying my travel fare) to keep me
from the December Council meeting while inviting to Washington as
a prominent CSICOP authority the very person whose appointed task
I HAD MYSELF PERFORMED" (his italics, p. 81). In reality, there
was no question that Rawlins' Sept, 18, 1978, report, describing
his analytical procedures, needed to be published. The only
question was whether it should include the ad hominem attack on
Gauquelin. </p>

<p> It was not until approximately one year AFTER the results of
the Zelen test were published in THE HUMANIST that Rawlins first
charged the use of "bait-and-switch" tactics--what he calls
"BS"--had been employed. This allegation was contained in his
letter of Nov. 2, 1978, to Zelen, with a copy to Kurtz. BUT
RAWLINS STILL DID NOT CHARGE THAT THIS AMOUNTED TO A "COVER-UP,"
OR THAT CSICOP WAS INVOLVED. Quite the opposite. A few weeks
later when the Winter 1978 issue of THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER was
published, there was a Rawlins response which said: "It SHOULD BE
CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT CSICOP AS A BODY NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO
WITH THE HUMANIST ZELEN TEST 'CHALLENGE'...PUBLISHED BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE WAS FOUNDED"(Emphasis added.) </p>

<p> Like most members of CSICOP's Executive Council who had not
been involved either in the first (Zelen) test or the subsequent
U.S. champions test, and who were not sufficiently expert in
celestial mechanics, statistics or astrology to take a prior
interest, my first exposure to the controversy came during the
Council meeting in Washington in early December, 1978, when
Rawlins unleashed a rambling harrangue. Understandably I was
confused by Rawlins' charge that CSICOP somehow was involved in a
Zelen test-results cover-up that had occurred more than a year
before which contradicted his just-published statement in THE
SKEPTICAL INQUIRER stating that the original Zelen test was NOT a
CSICOP-sponsored effort. </p>

<p> Despite my efforts to understand Rawlins' allegations, it
was not clear to me (and to many other Council members) just what
it was that he now was claiming had been"covered-up." After three
years of working with Rawlins I was well aware of his proclivity
for making harsh, exaggerated charges. Most often these were
directed against supporters of the para-normal, but sometimes
also against Council members who disagreed with his proposals for
intemperate actions against "the believers." For example, Rawlins
had charged that Truzzi was involved with the "Church of Satan." </p>

<p>Beyond having difficulty in understanding the specifics of
Rawlins' charges, I failed to grasp what he thought should be
done to correct the alleged problem. Because the hour was getting
late and Council members had to leave to catch flights back home,
I suggested to Rawlins that he write a memorandum that clearly
and concisely set forth the basic issues and that he recommend
appropriate corrective action. In this way Council members could
better comprehend the matter and consider corrective action if
such were justified. Rawlins cites this in "sTARBABY" and claims
he was the only party who had put the issues in writing. BUT HE
DID NOT SEND COPIES OF SUCH MEMORANDA TO COUNCIL MEMBERS. ONE
LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR THIS IS THAT PREVIOUSLY HE DID NOT
BELIEVE THE MATTER INVOLVED CSICOP OR REQUIRED COUNCIL MEMBERS'
ATTENTION. </p>

<p> Rawlins was the last one to leave my apartment (where we had
been meeting that night) and he continued his earlier harrangue
but without clarifying the issues. Later, he called me from the
airport to continue the discussion. Again I asked that he clarify
the issues for me and other Council members by preparing a
memorandum. I assured Rawlins that since I had not been involved
in either of the two tests and since he had recommended my
election to Council, he could expect me to be at least neutral if
not sympathetic. </p>

<p> Rawlins never responded to my request. About six weeks later
(Jan. 17, 1979), he did circulate a five-page memo to CSICOP
Fellows and Council members. It was a "baby sTARBABY" which cited
a number of ALLEGED mistakes that had been made by OTHERS
involved in the tests and in CSICOP's operations. I replied on
Jan. 31 saying that his memo was "for me an unintelligible
jumble." I added: "without meaning to give offense to a friend, I
once again urge you -- as I did at our meeting here -- to outline
the problem...then outline your recommendations. And please do
not assume, as you have done, that all of us follow the G-affair
as closely as you have done." My letter concluded: "Skip the
invective...outline the problem clearly, concisely, and offer
your recommendations." </p>

<p> Rawlins never responded to this request. Today, following my
recent investigation, I know why. There was no cover-up, except
in Rawlins' troubled mind, fed by the fires of a wounded ego and,
perhaps, by embarassment over his unauthorized intervention in
the University of Toronto symposium. Rawlins was unable to
recommend specific corrective action because nothing could have
saved his wounded ego unless it were possible to turn back the
clock and to have invited Rawlins to be the CSICOP speaker on
astrology in Washington and to replace Abell in writing the
report on the results of the U.S. champions test. </p>

<p> Readers of "sTARBABY" might easily conclude that Rawlins
believes that Zelen/Kurtz/Abell, in the Nov/Dec. 1977 issue of
THE HUMANIST, should have conceded "Gauquelin has won" and
cancelled plans for the U.S. champions test. Yet had they done
so, Rawlins would have been outraged because such a concession
would imply that the Zelen test had proved the Mars effect beyond
all doubt and this was not true. Had Zelen/Kurtz/Abell even
contemplated such a concession, I am certain that Rawlins would
have urged that they be ousted from CSICOP. </p>

<p> "sTARBABY" reveals that Rawlins imagines many things that
simply are not true, such as his charge that I was involved in a
plot to suppress his discussions of the Gauquelin test at the
1978 Council meeting. His article implies that Council meetings
are characterized by attempts to suppress dissenting views. In
reality one usually hears almost as many different viewpoints as
there are Council members present. And Kurtz is the most
unconstraining group chairman I have ever known in the many
organizations of which I have been a member. </p>

<p> Even on easily ascertainable matters, Rawlins chooses to
rely on his vivid imagination or recollections rather than take
time to check the facts. For example, in "sTARBABY," Rawlins
claims that he was an "associate editor" of THE SKEPTICAL
INQUIRER, as well as being a member of its editorial board --
which he was [not]. Rawlins makes that claim in seven different
places in his article. One would expect that a person who
imagines himself to be an associate editor of a publication over
a period of several years would at least once look at that
publication's masthead, where its editorial staff is listed. Had
Rawlins done so he would not have made this spurious claim. </p>

<p> This is not an error of great consequence. But when I
pointed it out to him, his response was revealing, especially
because he accuses others of being unwilling to admit to error
and of resorting to "cover-up." Rawlins' letter of Sept. 21,
1981, explained that at a Council meeting HELD FOUR YEARS EARLIER
he remembers that "Kurtz called all Ed. Board members 'Associate
Editors'...I adopted to save syllables." Rawlins tries to justify
his misstatement of fact on the grounds that he was able to save
approximately 42 characters in his 75000-character-long article! </p>

<p> In "sTARBABY," Rawlins claims that the full-day meeting of
the Council in Washington was held at the National Press Club
because this was "the temple of CSICOP's faith." (P. 86.) Had
Rawlins asked me, I would have informed him that I had selected
the National Press Club because it was the lowest-cost facility
in downtown Washington that I could find. But Rawlins decided he
knew the answer without bothering to investigate. This is neither
good science nor good journalism. </p>

<p> In the previously cited Rawlins memorandum of Jan. 17, 1979,
following the Washington meeting, he wrote that he planned to
reduce his involvement with CSICOP. He added that there was no
reason to "hide" CSICOP's problems "from the public. So I may
inform a neutral, responsible, unsensational member of the press
re the foregoing." In reality Rawlins already had taken such
steps at the December Council meeting whose press seminar was
attended by an experienced journalist with a known empathy for
some paranormal claims. During the early afternoon Rawlins and
this journalist left the meeting together and returned together
several hours later. But this journalist never published anything
on the matter, possibly because he has as much difficulty in
understanding Rawlins' charges as did Council members. </p>

<p> According to "sTARBABY," in mid-1979, Rawlins received a
letter from Jerome Clark of FATE magazine, expressing an interest
in learning more about Rawlins' complaints against CSICOP.
Rawlins claims that shortly afterward "I told the Council I'd be
open with FATE." I question the truthfulness of his statement
because Rawlins did not bother to attend the next Council meeting
in December, 1979, nor have I been able to locate any Rawlins
letter or memorandum to substantiate this claim. </p>

<p> "sTARBABY" claims that "as the FATE-story realization set
in, Council reacted like the White House when it learned that
John Dean had sat down with the prosecution (during the Watergate
scandal). (P.91) This claim I know to be false. The prospect of a
Rawlins article in FATE was never discussed at the 1979 or 1980
Council meetings, nor by memorandum during the two intervening
years. Otherwise CSICOP would have prepared a response which it
could have released immediately following publication of
"sTARBABY," preventing Rawlins from boasting that failure of
CSICOP to respond quickly to his many charges indicated an
inability to do so. </p>

<p> Returning, chronologically, to the fall of 1979, CSICOP was
preparing to publish the results of the U.S. champions test in
the Winter 1979-80 issue of THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. Rawlins
demanded the right to revise and expand his original Sept, 18,
1978, paper, and was given that opportunity. Furthermore,
according to "sTARBABY," Rawlins informed Ken Frazier, editor of
THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, "that if there were any alterations not
cleared with me, I wanted a note printed with the paper stating
that deletions had occurred over the author's protest and that
the missing portions could be obtained directly from me." (P.
92.) </p>

<p> Frazier (who had been recommended for the position by
Rawlins himself), acting on the recommendation of Prof. Ray
Hyman, a Council member who reviewed the Rawlins paper and the
others, and on Frazier's own long editorial experience, decided
to delete the sentence referring to Gauquelin's earlier interest
in traditional astrology. Frazier also opted to delete another
sentence that read: "In this connection I must also say that,
given the self piekill upshot (sic) of their European
(nonchampions) adventure plus their failure to perform
independently the U.S. study's technical foundations (sector
position, expectation curve), I find it amusing that ZKA (Zelen,
Kurtz, Abell) are the main commentators on this test in THE
SKEPTICAL INQUIRER." Once again Rawlins' wounded-ego had
manifested itself. </p>

<p> On Nov, 6, 1979, Rawlins sent a memo to other members of the
Editorial Board complaining that his article "has been neatly
censored here and there, so I have asked to add a statement
saying so and suggesting that readers who wish to consult the
original version may do so by contacting me. This sentence has
itself been bowdlerized (so that it reads as if no tampering
occurred)." Frazier had proposed an alternative sentence, which
was published at the end of the Rawlins paper, that read:
"Further commentary on the issues raised in this paper and in
these notes is available from the author." Rawlins' address also
was published. </p>

<p> This is the basis for Rawlins' harsh charges of "censorship"
against Frazier, the man whom he had so highly recommended for the
position. If Rawlins' complaint were justified, every working
journalist could make the same accusations regularly against
those who edit his/her copy to assure clarity and good taste and
to avoid libel. In response to Rawlins' charges, Frazier wrote to
members of the Editorial Board explaining what had transpired.
Frazier noted, "Dennis seems to believe his position as a member
of the Editorial Board gives his writings special status exempt
from normal editorial judgment. None of the rest of you has ever
suggested this," i.e. demanded privileged treatment. So because
Rawlins was not given privileged treatment, he charges
"censorship." </p>

<p> In the same Nov. 6, 1979, letter charging censorship,
Rawlins complained that he alone among Council members had not
been reimbursed for his travel expenses of $230 to the previous
Council meeting in Washington. Rawlins said that he would need
$400.00 for travel to attend the upcoming Council meeting in New
York and added "I won't do that unless all 63O dollars are here
beforehand." Kurtz promptly sent Rawlins a check for $350 as a
travel advance and assured him he would be reimbursed for
previous travel expense as soon as he submitted an expense
account--which Rawlins had never done (In "sTARBABY," Rawlins
characterizes this as a "ridiculous excuse" for failure to
reimburse him earlier.) Rawlins cashed the $350 check but did not
attend the New York Council meeting, nor did he inform the
Council that he would not attend. Rawlins never refunded the $120
difference between $230 he claimed was due him and the $350 he
received. Yet Rawlins professes to have been shocked and
surprised when the Council voted unanimously not to reelect
Rawlins at its New York meeting. (Since Rawlins seems so easily
shocked and surprised, I suspect he was equally surprised at the
resignation of Richard M. Nixon.) </p>

<p> Two months later, Rawlins wrote to Frazier saying he wished
to resign from the Editorial Board. But he insisted that the
resignation should not take effect until his statement
complaining about not being reelected "in absentia" was
published. This Rawlins statement claimed that he had not been
reelected solely because he had criticized "CSICOP's conduct
during ITS FOUR YEAR INVOLVEMENT in testing Gauquelin's neo-astrology..." (Emphasis added.) </p>

<p> Had Frazier opted to publish this grossly inaccurate
statement, which he did not, readers might well have wondered if
there were really two different Dennis Rawlins, recalling barely
a year earlier when a Rawlins letter had been published which
said: "It should be clearly understood that CSICOP as a body
never had anything to do with the Humanist Zelen test
'challenge'..." When Frazier accepted Rawlins' resignation, this
prompted Rawlins to complain that he had been removed from the
Editorial Board without "cause or written notice." Later,
following a mail ballot of Council members, CSICOP dropped
Rawlins from its list of Fellows. (The vote against Rawlins was
6:1.) </p>

<p> The foregoing highlights the key issues and actions that
prompted FATE and Rawlins to charge that CSICOP "bungled their
major investigation, falsified the results, covered up their
errors and gave the boot to a colleague who threatened to tell
the truth." (After my investigation, a re-reading of "sTARBABY"
gives me the feeling that I am reading a Pravda account
explaining that the Soviets moved into Afghanistan to help the
Afghans prevent an invasion by the U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency.) </p>

<p> Were it possible to turn back the clock, undoubtedly Kurtz,
Zelen and Abell would try to be more precise in defining test
objectives and protocol and would do so in writing. And more time
would be spent in more carefully phrasing articles dealing with
such tests. But all CSICOP Council members and Fellows have other
full-time professions that seriously constrain time available for
CSICOP efforts. </p>

<p>Were it possible to turn back the clock, the Council should have
insisted in the spring of 1978 that Rawlins issue a public
statement that he had erred in using CSICOP's name in support of
his personal actions connected with the University of Toronto's
planned astrology symposium. Failure to do this has resulted in
an unjustified blot on CSICOP's modus-operandi. Also at that time
the Council should have developed a policy statement, as it
recently did, that more clearly delineates activities that
members perform officially in behalf of CSICOP and those carried
out as private individuals. </p>

<p> When a small group of persons met in Buffalo in May, 1976,
to create CSICOP, their motivation was a concern over the growing
public acceptance of claims of the paranormal. CSICOP was created
to provide a counter-balance to those who espouse a variety of
claims, ranging from UFOs to astrology, from the "Bermuda
Triangle" to psychic phenomena. With the benefit of experience,
it was apparent that there was an extreme spectrum of viewpoints
on the Council. Rawlins was at the "hit-'em-hard" extreme, while
Truzzi was at the opposite pole and resigned after a couple
years, partially as a result of behind-the scenes plotting by
Rawlins which he admits in "sTARBABY." Now Rawlins has departed
and, in my view, CSICOP is much the better for it. </p>

<p> CSICOP never has tried to destroy those organizations that
promote belief in paranormal causes. But individuals in these
organization have tried to discredit CSICOP, even going so far in
one instance as to circulate a forged letter. </p>

<p> FATE magazine made wide distribution of the Rawlins
"sTARBABY" article in reprint form, together with its press
release. Prof. R.A. McConnell, University of Pittsburgh, founding
President of the Parapsychological Association, also distributed
copies to CSICOP Fellows and Council members, among others. In
his accompanying letter, McConnell said he believed the "Rawlins
report is certainly true in broad outline and probably true in
every detail...He has created a document of importance for the
history and philosophy of science." McConnell quoted an "unnamed
scientist" as claiming that "Rawlins has uncovered the biggest
scandal in the history of rationalism." McConnell characterized
CSICOP as "an intellectually dishonest enterprise." </p>

<p> FATE and McConnell have demonstrated the intrinsic flaw in
the basic approach of those who promote claims of the paranormal
-- THEIR EAGERNESS TO ACCEPT CLAIMS OF EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS
WITHOUT RIGOROUS INVESTIGATION. Neither FATE nor McConnell
contacted CSICOP officials to check out Rawlins' charges. This
demonstrates why CSICOP is so sorely needed. </p>

<p> The late President Harry Truman phrased it well: "If you
can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." CSICOP is "in the
kitchen" by choice and intends to remain there despite the heat.
The response of CSICOP's Council and its Fellows to recent events
shows that the Committee is not an easy victim of heat-prostration. </p>

<p> If the Mars effect, or any other paranormal hypothesis,
should ever be demonstrated using rigorous scientific procedures,
there simply is no way in which the small group of individuals
involved in CSICOP could ever hope to suppress such evidence. Nor
have I found any CSICOP Council member or Fellow who is so
foolish as to try. </p>

<p> (end) </p>

<p> [In the years following "sTARBABY", Rawlins has continued to
receive publicity by making sensational charges of
scientific coverup and fraud. In 1988 he made national
headlines by renewing an earlier charge he had made before
CSICOP's founding, this time supposedly supported by a new-found document: that Admiral Peary never actually reached
the North Pole during his famous expedition in 1909, but
instead fabricated his navigational records to make it
appear as if he had. A New York Times article of October 13,
1988 carries the headline: "Peary's Notes Said to Imply He
Fell Short of Pole." It begins: "New evidence based on
navigational notes by Robert E. Peary indicates that the
Arctic explorer fell short of his goal and deliberately
faked his claim in 1909 that he was the first person to
reach the North Pole, according to an analysis by a
Baltimore astronomer and historian ... Dennis Rawlins, an
independent scholar who trained as an astronomer and who has
a long-standing interest in Peary's expedition, said
yesterday that his analysis of the navigational notes,
mainly sextant readings of the sun to establish geographic
position, indicated that Peary knew that he had come no
closer than 121 miles from the Pole." Officials of the
National Geographic Society promised to examine Rawlins'
data, but added "We believe Mr. Rawlins has been too quick
to cry fake." </p>

<p> After a three-month investigation of Rawlins' charges, a
press conference was sponsored by The Navigation Foundation
at which they dismissed his "sensational claims". As
reported in a Baltimore Sun story syndicated Feb. 2, 1989,
"Since October [Natl. Geographic] Society President Gilbert
M. Grosvenor and others had quietly endured Rawlins' public
calls for debate and unconditional surrender on the Peary
issue." The Society was willing to take seriously an
analysis by the British explorer Wally Herbert, based on
other evidence, that a navigation error may have caused
Peary to miss the pole by about 45 miles. "Suggesting that
Peary might not have reached the Pole is one thing," said
Grosvenor. "Declaring Peary a fraud is quite another."
Rawlins held his own "informal press conference" afterwards,
reports The Sun, in which Rawlins "admitted he had confused
time readings for chronometer checks with altitudes of the
sun and had mistaken serial numbers on the chronometers for
navigational observations." Rawlins conceded, "My
interpretation has some problems, and I acknowledge that.
It's fair to say that, if I'm saying Peary was a fraud, I
think I have not yet met the burden of proof." </p>

<p> Finally, in December, 1989, a 230-page report commissioned
by the National Geographic Society was released, concluding
that Peary actually did reach the Pole. As reported in a
story on p.1 of the New York Times, Dec. 12, 1989, a new
analysis of Peary's records by professional navigators
concluded that Peary's final camp was not more than five
miles from the Pole. "The report said, there was no evidence
of fraud and deception in the explorer's records. But one
critic, Dennis Rawlins, a Baltimore astronomer and
historian, said he remained convinced, despite the new
study, that Admiral Peary did not reach his goal and had
faked his claim." </p>

<p> Robert Sheaffer, Nov., 1991]
--
Rick Moen - via RBBS-NET node 8:914/201
INTERNET: moen@f207.n914.z8.RBBS-NET.ORG


Robert Sheaffer, Nov., 1991]
--
Rick Moen - via RBBS-</p></xml>