Newsgroups: sci.skeptic Subject: Mars Effect (Re: "Crybaby") Message-ID: <20JAN199221061688@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu> From: lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) Date: 20 Jan 1992 21:06 MST Distribution: world,local Organization: University of Arizona Nntp-Posting-Host: uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41 Lines: 102 Not too long ago, a copy of Philip Klass's article, "Crybaby" was posted to sci.skeptic and the BITNET SKEPTIC mailing list. This article is an unpublished response to allegations made by former CSICOP executive council member Dennis Rawlins in his October 1981 Fate magazine article, "sTARBABY," in which he accuses CSICOP of a "cover-up" regarding Michel Gauquelin's "Mars Effect." The impression that appears to have been given to some people by Klass's article is that CSICOP really did nothing wrong, but Dennis Rawlins did. It has also been pointed out that Fate magazine refused to print Klass's article, but I have also heard that the Skeptical Inquirer also declined to print it. I have recently taken the time to re-read the materials which I possess (a partial list is given at the end of this article) on the "Mars Effect" controversy, and I think that this impression is quite mistaken. I do not wish to defend Rawlins against some of the attacks in "Crybaby," but I do wish to point out that a number of Rawlins' charges in "sTARBABY" are not addressed by Klass, and these charges do amount to wrongdoing on the part of CSICOP members. I do think that (with the publication of Abell, Kurtz, & Zelen's 1983 "Mars Effect" reappraisal) CSICOP has admitted most of this wrongdoing and (with the publication of Suitbert Ertel's "Mars Effect" article in the latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer) is now on the right track regarding fair and open discussion of the "Mars Effect." There were two tests that CSICOP had involvement in: the Zelen test (which began before CSICOP and was published in The Humanist but involved a number of CSICOP executive council members and fellows) and the U.S. champions test (which was conducted by CSICOP and published in the Skeptical Inquirer). In this message I address only the former. The Zelen test was proposed by CSICOP fellow Marvin Zelen in order to test a possible objection to Gauquelin's "Mars effect." The test was conducted by Gauquelin and showed that the critique failed (i.e., that the "Mars effect" still stood). Klass writes, "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." Klass goes on to say that Gauquelin did accuse *Rawlins* of "distortion and misrepresentation." All of this ignores what Rawlins actually charges on pp. 6-11 (esp. pp. 10-11) of "sTARBABY": That Kurtz et al., in their critique of Gauquelin's results in the Zelen test, misused and misrepresented the statistics in order to claim that the test did NOT eliminate the objection to the "Mars effect." (Kurtz et al. recanted, at least partially, in "The Abell-Kurtz-Zelen 'Mars Effect' Experiments: A Reappraisal" in the Spring 1983 Skeptical Inquirer.) Klass points out that Kurtz et al. criticized Gauquelin on the grounds that "the 'Mars effect' only appears in Paris, not in Belgium or in the rest of France," but fails to point out that this post-hoc division of the data resulted in two parts, "one very small and [therefore] very unreliable; and one consistent with a Mars effect, but a little too small to achieve significance." (The quotation is from Eric Tarkington in an astrological publication, Phenomena vol. 2 no. 2; quoted in Curry (see refs. below).) This division of the data was also criticized by Elizabeth Scott, a statistician for the skeptical side, and by Rawlins, who had been opposed to the Zelen test for some time. Klass also fails to point out that Kurtz et al. dropped female sports champions (there were 9) from consideration in their critique of Gauquelin's results, without a clear rationale for doing so. Of those 9, 3 demonstrated the "Mars effect." Rawlins asked for CSICOP corrections to these errors, but they were not forthcoming until two years after "sTARBABY" was published. This is what his talk of a "cover up" refers to. Partial list of sources Rawlins, "sTARBABY" Klass, "Crybaby" Patrick Curry, "Research on the Mars Effect," Zetetic Scholar #9 (Feb/Mar 1982):34-52. Richard Kammann, "The True Disbelievers: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality," Zetetic Scholar #10 (December 1982):50-65. Jeremy Cherfas, "Paranormal-watchers fall out over the Mars effect," New Scientist 92(29 Oct 1981):294. Michel Gauquelin, "Mars effect," New Scientist 93(7 Jan 1982):40. Paul Kurtz, "Mars effect," New Scientist 93(11 Feb 1982):395- 396. Patrick Curry, "Mars effect: last word," New Scientist 93(4 Mar 1982):601. Jim Lippard Lippard@RVAX.CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZRVAX.BITNET University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 Newsgroups: sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Mars Effect (Re: "Crybaby") Message-ID: <3110@tuegate.tue.nl> From: wsadjw@rw5.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) Date: 21 Jan 92 10:02:28 GMT Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl Sender: news@tuegate.tue.nl References: <20JAN199221061688@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu> Distribution: world,local Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Lines: 18 In article <20JAN199221061688@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes: [long and interesting post deleted, in which Rawlins's main grief is explained clearly: the Zelen test (a rather superfluous check on a conjectured demographic explanation of the Mars effect) gave the result that could be expected all along (to wit: that explanation doesn't hold water), and subsequently CSICOP-VIPs tried to squirm out of it by improper use of post-hoc statistical arguments]. Good post! What a pity it will be ignored and far into the future again and again people will say either "CSICOP tried to cover up data and sTarbaby exposed them" or "There was no cover-up as Crybaby showed". The real truth: "there was a cover-up, not of data, but of people's sillyness, and it was exposed by a raving jerk and finally admitted" will have to be repeated over and over over again. JWN