---------------------------------------------------------- February 1998 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics ---------------------------------------------------------- Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet Vol. 17, No. 1 Editor: Ken Beseder IN THIS ISSUE . . . Austin Miles addresses BAS, by Bob Steiner In Memoriam, by Bob Steiner The Kookie Jar, by Robert A. Baker Air Force Denies UFO Crash, by A. E. Mous Steiner Caught Red-Handed, by Tully McCarroll The Hundredth Monkey, by Rick Moen The Mysterious UFB, by Bob Steiner Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine Is Psychology a Pseudoscience? (Terry Sandbek addresses BAS), by Patrick O'Reilly AUSTIN MILES ADDRESSES BAY AREA SKEPTICS by Bob Steiner The title of the talk at our November 19, 1997 meeting was . . . How Right Is the Religious Right? Austin Miles, Christian minister-chaplain, was our speaker. He is author of several books, including the blockbuster best-seller _Don't Call Me Brother_. I am on safe ground when I say that Austin Miles is both interesting and controversial. No one who attended the November 1997 Bay Area Skeptics (BAS) meeting has even a shred of doubt about that. So far, so good. Interesting speakers are the life blood of BAS. That fact keeps skeptics, believers, doubters, New Agers, and people with all shades of philosophical opinion attending our meetings. Rev. Miles discussed cults, and the devastating effect they have not only on the cult members, but also on their families, friends, and society as a whole. He told us that the enemy in life is not God, not the church, and not religion. "The enemy is man -- corrupt, greedy, power-seeking man." He went on to say that the enemy is the one who cloaks himself or herself in a particular group's identity, but is ignorant of the message of the group. Rev. Miles told us that "a real Christian is a good neighbor", and that an extremist is an extremist, regardless of whether the person is a Christian, an atheist, or a humanist. His rules for success in life included the following: o A freethinker should never have a closed mind. o To be successful in life, you must master two things: the thing that you love, and the thing that you hate. o Just because something is unexplainable does not prove that it does not exist. Next came what I consider to be the defining point of the meeting -- the assertions by Rev. Miles that effectively drew the battle lines. He told us that, just a few decades ago, the main problems of teachers with students in school were such things as talking in class, chewing gum, and running in the halls. Today, the problems are such things as rape, robbery, and assault. He then pointed out a correlation that many audience members inferred was an assertion of causation: "Back then, we had prayer in school; today, we do not." He explained how he believed that not only is prayer in school harmless, but also that it helps. The audience reaction was immediate and intense. Several people pointed out that there are _numerous_ differences between today and a few decades ago that could easily explain the difference in problems in the schools. One person informed us that "under God" was added to The Pledge of Allegiance about the same time, and that one could with equal logic and justification state that perhaps _that_ caused the change in behavior. Another person correctly informed the group that prayer in school had been ruled by the Supreme Court to be in violation of the Constitution of the United States. An audience member stated that any prayer would necessarily be discriminatory: "There is no such thing as a generic prayer." The person went on to explain that when one prays, there must be an object of the prayer -- someone or some thing to whom or to which the people pray. That is necessarily denominational, and excludes some religions, and _any_ prayer excludes _all_ unbelievers and _all_ agnostics. Others challenged Rev. Miles to name the studies that prove that his cited differences do indeed exist. He did not name any study. It was at this high emotional pitch in the meeting that Rev. Miles asserted what he perceives to be "arrogance in the scientific community." That escalated both the emotional pitch and the decibels in the room. An audience member called for a definition of a Christian. Rev. Miles responded: "One who lives the love of Christ." Another audience member asserted that most persecutions come from religious people. Someone else said that most religions are big business: "They are there to make money." Then, someone began quoting what that person believed it said in _The Bible_. Then came more quotations, and more arguments about interpretations of _The Bible_. One person boldly stated that all quotations stated that evening as being from _The Bible_ were in error. That person gave us his credentials: He has an e-mail Guide to _The Bible_, and spoke with great authority. As a point of miscellaneous information, I had a follow-up e-mail exchange with that self-anointed expert, wherein I proved -- _even to his satisfaction_ -- the correctness of what I had said, and that what he had, falsely and in ignorance, told a room full of people was wrong! To summarize: Some people in attendance believe that Rev. Austin Miles addressed to almost no degree the title of his talk (chosen by him): How Right Is the Religious Right? Some believe that the talk turned into a session of proselytizing for Christianity. The talk of Rev. Austin Miles certainly got the adrenaline flowing in the audience. At a few points, the meeting got a tad out of hand. It is difficult to set _formal rules_ to preclude that in the future. Bay Area Skeptics has been holding monthly meetings for fifteen years, and a case can be made that the meetings got slightly -- just slightly -- out of hand four or five times. That works out to about once every three years. We encourage questions, comments, and discussion, including disagreement with the speaker or others. Please keep your comments issue-oriented. The speaker will decide whether questions and comments will be allowed during the talk, or whether the audience should hold questions and comments until the discussion period at the end of the presentation. Our rules, such as they are, can be summed up in just four words: Please Show Common Courtesy. Back to the November meeting: I introduced Rev. Miles, and, by any reasonable standard, it was my place to act as moderator. The first "interruption", which at least one person believes "opened the floodgates" for the meeting to get out of hand, was when someone addressed a comment to Austin Miles. First, I do not believe the meeting got anywhere near as much out of hand as a few people believe it did. Did the meeting bring forth excitement, enthusiasm, and emotions? You bet it did! However, that is not all bad. The feedback I got from many people is that the meeting was exciting and interesting, and they are glad that they attended. Could the meeting have been handled better? Although we can easily concede that it was not perfect, given the highly charged emotional content of the talk, I am not sure how things could have necessarily been improved. With issue-oriented comments (which most, but not all, were), one approach is to allow the discussion to freely run. The alternative approach is, depending upon your point of view, either _keeping order_ or _squelching the free exchange of ideas_. All right, here was my problem, and the decision I had to make. I ask each reader to think about what you would have done in my circumstances. Our speaker, Austin Miles, is an accomplished public speaker. He is a Christian minister-chaplain, has conducted hundreds of religious services, is a renowned ringmaster, has been ringmaster for hundreds of circus performances throughout the world, was Historic Narrator for the Royal Lipizzan Stallion Show National Tour, has made numerous appearances on television (including "Larry King Live" and "Entertainment Tonight"), and has been Master of Ceremonies for special events at Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, the United Nations, the Brooklyn Academy of Music, and two events at the White House. When the audience member made the comment, Austin Miles immediately recognized the person making the comment, called her by name, and commenced to address the comment she made. I have seen many speakers, and I have done it myself, simply say something along the lines of "Please hold questions and comments until later. At the end, I shall allow enough time for discussion. Thank you." From my observation, that works every time: easily and gracefully, with never a hassle. If I, as moderator, had spoken up to stop the exchange in progress, it would have been Austin Miles whom I would have had to interrupt: I would have halted the flow of conversation by throwing a roadblock in the middle of a response that our speaker chose to make. All right, how many of you, acting as moderator, would have interrupted the proceedings and interrupted the speaker at that point? My assumption at the time, and it is still my assumption, is that when there is a highly skilled speaker, it is appropriate for the speaker, not the moderator, to make the decision whether and when the speaker will address comments and questions. It is not the duty of the moderator to override the decision the speaker has made. Nor is it the duty of the moderator to interrupt the speaker and to prevent him or her from addressing a comment that the speaker has chosen to address. A word to the students and newcomers who attended our meeting: Bay Area Skeptics welcomes you, and we welcome your participation in our discussion. When you do participate, your ideas should always be met with courtesy. We apologize for any lack of courtesy that you felt at our recent meeting. Such behavior is a rarity at a BAS meeting, and it comes from very few people. You must understand that, when you do participate, your ideas probably will not be met with universal acceptance. You must expect that your ideas will be weighed, evaluated, and challenged. That is part of Bay Area Skeptics, and that is how we all learn. Free-wheeling discussion and argument contribute a great deal to the increase of human knowledge. I apologize to both Rev. Miles and the audience for the fact that the meeting might have gotten a tad out of hand. Thank you so much to Rev. Austin Miles for an excellent presentation. You held the attention of the audience, and you got us thinking. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the purpose of the meetings of Bay Area Skeptics! We encourage the open, free, and enthusiastic exchange of ideas. Skeptics are the most gullible people, because they don't know what to believe. -- A.E. Mous IN MEMORY OF DON MORRIS by Bob Steiner It is with great sadness that I report that Don Morris died on August 6, 1997, at the age of 55. Don activated with Bay Area Skeptics near the very beginning. For years, he participated in virtually every event. Bay Area Skeptics played a large part in hosting the CSICOP Conference at Stanford University in November, 1984. Don and his wife Susie had active roles in making that event a success. Don took over managing the LA-TRUTH line (Bay Area Skeptics's information line) in 1984, when the telephone line was moved into his home. The line resides in that location to this day. Above all, what I remember about Don -- and this has been confirmed by everyone I have spoken to -- is his ever-joyful, happy, optimistic spirit. It was a pleasure to work with him on projects, and it was a pleasure just to talk with him. People who disagreed with Don on philosophical points related to skepticism often were taken aback when they found themselves arguing with someone who was logical, brilliant, reasonable, and an altogether pleasant human being. Don leaves his wife Susie and their eight-year-old son Oliver. [Ed note: This article is reprinted by kind permission of KASES File, the journal of the Kentucky Association of Science Educators and Skeptics, Vol. 10, No. 1.] THE KOOKIE JAR by Robert A. Baker In case you haven't heard of Fang Shui (pronounced "fung shway"), you're not alone, but, according to the _New York Times's_ recent report (courtesy of Wayne Davis), it is the latest rage among the well-healed with more time and money than common sense on their hands. This scam is based on the ancient Asian folk belief that the way objects are arranged and placed in one's home will affect chi (pronounced "chee"), i.e., invisible fields of electromagnetic energy that the Chinese and other Asians believe determines your vitality, fortune, and love life. For some reason, this folklore has caught on with a number of Americans, who have been spending a lot of dollars to hundreds of Fang Shui masters and consultants who will, for a modest fee, come to your home and advise you on where to put your cat's litter box to enhance kitty's and your well-being and future prospects. Thousands of people, the most respected Fang Shui say, are taking weekend courses and promising to change the fortunes and love lives of eager clients, through consultations that can cost "as much as $1,000 an hour", according to Molly O'Neill, the author of the _Times_ report of January 9 entitled "Fang Shui or Fang Phooey". These Asian con-artists have consulted on real estate developments in the United States for well over a decade -- mostly to Asian investors, but, just recently, ordinary Americans have managed to squeeze themselves into the coaches of this gravy train. Fang Shui consultants and gurus are now showing up in nearly every American city, and articles in _Architectural Digest_ and other magazines are dispensing advice on how to rearrange the chi in your home. Seems like installing wind chimes and table-top waterfalls, painting the walls green, and hanging eight-sided mirrors also help revive your flagging libido. Believe it or not, these fang phooey hucksters claim that putting a pink rose in your bathroom will perk up your love life. Ms. O'Neill reports that, on the advice of one of these "wind and water" seers, she moved her cats' litter box to another corner of the bathroom and installed a number of potted plants. Although the cats loved the jungle in their privy, they now use a living room plant as their dumping ground. Skeptics should not be discouraged, however, at this willingness on the part of a moronic public to be swindled and suckered by anything with a reputed ancient origin. In no way is this gullibility new. Take heart in the fact that, if you ever do decide to give up your integrity, there is a veritable mountain of gold out there for the taking, if you put on a turban, adopt an accent, invent some hidden universal energy source, and refer to yourself as the great Wang Dang, who sprang from the root of all knowledge. In a month, you'll make a mint. NEWS FROM THE FIELD: DISPATCHES FROM OUR FAR-FLUNG CORRESPONDENTS [Ed. note: We received the following missive in the wake of the recent NASA Pathfinder mission.] AIR FORCE DENIES STORIES OF UFO CRASH Valles Marineris (MPI) - A spokesthing for Mars Air Force denounced as false the rumors that an alien space craft crashed in the desert, outside of Ares Vallis on Friday. Appearing at a press conference today, General Rgrmrmy The Lesser stated that "the object was, in fact, a harmless high-altitude weather balloon, not an alien spacecraft". The story broke late Friday night when a major stationed at nearby Ares Vallis Air Force Base contacted the _Valles Marineris Daily Record_ with a story about a strange, balloon-shaped object that allegedly came down in the nearby desert, "bouncing" several times before coming to a stop, "deflating in a sudden explosion of alien gases". Minutes later, General Rgrmrmy The Lesser contacted the _Daily Record_ telepathically to contradict the earlier report. General Rgrmrmy The Lesser stated that hysterical stories of a detachable vehicle roaming across the Martian desert were blatant fiction, provoked by incidents involving swamp gas. However, the general public has been slow to accept the Air Force's explanation of recent events, preferring to speculate on the "other-worldly" nature of the crash debris. Conspiracy theorists have condemned Rgrmrmy's statements as evidence of "an obvious government cover-up", pointing out that Mars has no swamps. BOB STEINER CAUGHT RED-HANDED AT BAS MEETING by Tully McCarroll Last month's presenter was Bob Steiner, esteemed co-founder of BAS and magician extraordinaire. We were treated to a glimpse inside his magical surgery suite, and psychically inside of Dr. Arnold Knepfer's abdomen: While the Channel 7 camera rolled, Bob performed psychic surgery. He entered the stomach area without gloves or instruments; "blood" oozed out as he extracted a worm. Exhibiting his bloodied and red but empty hands, he re-entered to retrieve a racquet ball. Afterward, Arnold said he felt much better; he was cured (just as many believers are, in the Philippines, where psychic surgery is very popular)! Bob then gave us his formula for fake blood, and showed us the fake fingers used to hold it. "It's theater," Bob says, "but it's not harmless." It is not harmless when the dishonest prey on the naive or desperate, with remedies of no value. It is fraud, defined as deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. It is also quackery. Bob defined quackery as the promotion of false or unproved methods for profit. Those using these methods may be doctors, licensed or unlicensed persons; they may be sincere or fraudulent. The practice may be legal or illegal. Unless the methods or medications are scientifically validated as safe and effective, however, they are not proven methods. Some may be safe but not effective. Some may be so dilute as to have no effect, as in homeopathy, where minute doses of substances considered harmful are administered in large amounts of water. Included in the arena of Cheap Parlor Tricks, Bob illustrated the power of mental suggestion, inquiring if anyone had an itch. Using only verbal encouragement, he was able to get 50% to admit feeling itchy . . . and an unknown number who did not admit it. Another trick is muscle resistance testing, where an offending substance, such as tobacco, is held in one hand, causing "weakness" in the other, outstretched arm. The weakness is exhibited by the force necessary to push the arm down. Presumably, if the subject is adversely affected by the substance, there will be weakness in the arm. Because the person doing the pushing has total control of how difficult this appears, that person also has total control of the outcome. Because of mechanical advantage involving leverage, even the strongest person's resistance can be easily overwhelmed. Most impressive of Bob's cheap parlor tricks was his ability to stop his radial pulse. Although other audiences were ready to "start a church" for him, Bob noted that "there is a small disadvantage to speaking to skeptics" when everyone asked Bob to divulge his trick. He assured us that "my pulse doesn't stop because I'm a magician . . . unless I know how." He knows how. Bob next discussed reflexology. Taber's _Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary_ defines reflexology as "the study of reflexes", but, according to the chart, all organs and body parts are represented on the plantar surfaces and can be treated from there using pressure. "What about amputees?" you might ask. Not to worry; the chart states that even though the exact locations cannot be found on the stump, painful spots will be found that need attention. Faith healers occupy a large portion of high-profit fraud perpetrated upon the unsuspecting public, and Bob not only had a lot to say about it; he has done a lot about it. With his team of skeptics, Bob helped to debunk Peter Popoff, who was discovered using a microphone into which his wife fed him information from questionnaires the audience had filled out. He was exposed on Johnny Carson, a few months later. As a result, Popoff's TV faithful dropped from 52 channels to 9. However, he's still "healing". Bob then showed a videotape of an "A.M. San Francisco" program on which he appeared with a faith healer known as Amazing Grace. Before the show, Grace had "healed" a few members of the audience, including Don (the mailman) Henvick, who came at Bob's request. Don had been healed of fictional maladies eight times by Peter Popoff. Bob asked Grace how she made her selections, before the film was shown on the air. She answered that God told her whom to choose, and never made mistakes. It came as quite a surprise to Grace that Don was a plant. She backpedaled frantically, claiming to have known she was being tricked. It was a bad day for Amazing Grace, who is likely to be up to her old tricks with a new audience. A variety of other faith healers were also discussed. As Bob points out, they keep returning, even after being exposed as fakes. Slowing their activities may be the most that can be done, but we can at least do that. Of course, there would be no market if P.T. Barnum had been wrong. [Ed. note: This piece previously appeared in _Georgia Skeptic_, Vol. 4, No. 2, and originated in a post on the Usenet newsgroup sci.skeptic.] THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY by Rick Moen Have you heard of the "Hundredth-Monkey Phenomenon"? It approaches the status of holy writ among some New Agers. According to Lyall Watson's widely-quoted[1] book _Lifetide_[2], around the year 1952, young monkeys on the Japanese island of Koshima figured out how to make sweet potatoes (provided by primatologists) more edible by washing them. They then taught their peers and parents, until, by 1958, this behaviour was found among widely-spread members of the troop. So far, so good. Then, in that year, a sort of group consciousness developed among the monkeys, when, say, the _hundredth_ monkey began washing potatoes. Suddenly, almost _all_ the monkeys began doing so. Further, "the habit seems to have jumped natural barriers and to have appeared spontaneously . . . in colonies on other islands and on the mainland in a troop at Takasakiyama." This anecdote has been used to provide ideological support to such diverse notions as telepathy and nuclear disarmament -- you, the reader, could be the "hundredth monkey" necessary for global transformation. What gets lost in the shuffle is the evidence for Watson's factual claim. Like many New Agers, Watson voices the sentiment that "when a myth is shared by large numbers of people, it becomes a reality". Ron Amundson of the Hawaii Skeptics, who investigated Watson's claim[3], suggested that this latter statement could be rephrased as "Convince enough people of a lie, and it becomes the truth". (Amundson found that _all_ of Watson's claimed documentation was grossly misrepresented, and in fact contradicted the -- now famous -- claim.) Whether one buys this philosophical stance or not, the notion that this alleged mass consciousness is somehow politically progressive is a curious one. Per Watson's vision, "Peace, love, and a taste for brown rice and tofu", as commentator Tim Farrington[4] put it, "will at a given point instantly envelope the planet, and humanity will live happily ever after . . . . Neuroses, bad habits, ignorance will all be dissolved in a flash, without effort on the part of the rest of us." Let's savour, for a moment, this balmy image, before allowing ourselves to think about it. Back in 1933, there must have been some hundredth German monkey who joined the Nazi party, mustn't there? The mass consciousness of the society was transformed. As the "Herrenrace" myth became shared by large numbers of people, it transformed the reality of Europe. Farrington continues: "There is no guarantee that the hundredth monkey will be any wiser than the first, and no assurance that the first will be wise at all. The myth of critical mass, and its magic, is double-edged." Farrington suggests that, rather than admire the hundredth monkey, brainlessly falling in tune with the mass consciousness of the other 99, we instead take our hats off to the one-hundred-first monkey's "individual acts of conscience and reason, acts not effortless, nor particularly inspired, acts not necessarily validated by the herd nor telepathically obvious; but acts simply that are steps, one by one, on the difficult, intricate, sometimes ambiguous, rewarding path of a single human life." [1] _The Hundredth Monkey_, by Ken Keyes, Jr., 1982, Vision Books, Coos Bay, Oregon; Article: "The Hundredth Monkey" in "Updated Special Issue: 'A New Science of Life'" of _Brain/Mind Bulletin_, 1982; Film and videotape: "The Hundredth Monkey", Elda Hartley, producer, 1982, Hartley Film Foundation, Inc., Cos Cob, Conn. [2] _Lifetide_, by Lyall Watson, 1979. Simon and Schuster, NY. [3] Article: "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon" by Ron Amundson, in Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1985, pp. 348-56. Follow-up in Spring 1987 issue, pp. 303-4. Watson had alleged, in _Whole Earth Review_, Fall 1986 (the "Fringes of Reason" issue) that his citations weren't really citations, and that the whole story, although contradicted by his supposed evidence, is nonetheless true. See also article "Spud-Dunking Monkey Theory Debunked" by Boyce Rensberger, _Washington Post_, July 6, 1989). [4] Article "The 101st Monkey" by Tim Farrington, in _The Node_ magazine, Winter 1987, San Francisco. THE MYSTERIOUS UFB by Bob Steiner Ian Noyes and the I-Team, of Channel 7 News (KGO-TV), showed up at the October 22, 1997, Bay Area Skeptics meeting. I was the speaker; the topic was Psychic Surgery, Faith Healing, and Other Medical Quackery. They had a video clip of an alleged UFO, and they wanted . . . . However, let us review it the way it appeared on the Eleven O'clock News, on November 26, 1997. Mike McHendry, music video producer, was filming a local rap artist, on September 12, 1997. When he viewed the tape back at his studio, McHendry saw what he believed to be pictures of a UFO streaking across the screen in the distance. It appeared to make three passes over Twin Peaks, during the taping. Dan Noyes and the I-Team conducted an investigation. The first stop shown on the News was an interview with Steven Wingate and Jerry Shifman, UFO Investigators. Wingate's observation was: "It has a lot of the characteristics of a real UFO, or a flying saucer. It is moving very rapidly. It appears to be saucer-shaped, and it's relatively clear." Given the estimated considerable distance of the UFO from the camera, they came up with the following calculations: o The UFO went from the Transamerica Pyramid to Twin Peaks in 0.267 seconds (less than a third of a second). o That is a distance of four miles. o That works out to a traveling speed of 54,000 miles per hour. The announcer stated: "No known aircraft, not even the Space Shuttle, comes close to matching 54,000 miles an hour." The next person interviewed was Eric Beckjord, head of San Francisco's UFO Museum, who believed that this spaceship contained aliens doing a little sightseeing. He called it "intergalactic tourism". He elaborated: "There are others that may actually be running us: We may be their test subjects." Thence, the I-Team showed up at the October 22, 1997, Bay Area Skeptics meeting. The News told a bit about BAS, and showed a bit of my psychic surgery being performed on Arnold Knepfer, M.D. Kate Talbot's reaction to the UFO video tape was "It's just so utterly ludicrous that I can't imagine anybody buying it." Another audience member said "Up until now, I never believed in flying saucers, but, now, I wouldn't travel any other way." Then, the I-Team took the video tape to a television commercial production house, Varitel, in San Francisco. Michael Hogan and the engineers at Varitel knew what to do: On the screen was a clearer image. The "UFO" was not far off in the distance. Rather, it was between the rapper (the subject of the video) and the lens. It is not a UFO. It is a bug! Dan Noyes summed up the piece with the following observations: _"It's a UFB! - an unidentified flying bug!"_ "This also gives us a very good example of how these things get out of control." He then told us that they have been getting calls from across the country about this "UFO" video tape. Kudos to Dan Noyes and the I-Team for conducting a systematic, thorough, scientific investigation, and bravo to Michael Hogan and the people at Varitel for the scientific approach to analyzing the data presented. [Ed. note: This article is reprinted, by kind permission, from Rocky Mountain Skeptics's May/June 1997 issue.] ANNOUNCING: THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE The public, the media, and even some physicians seem enthralled by the unexamined promises of "alternative" or unconventional treatments. Yet there has been no scientific journal dedicated exclusively to carefully scrutinizing the onslaught of dubious claims. Until now. The _Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine_ has just been launched to fill the void. It's a peer-reviewed medical journal whose aim is to provide objective, scientific assessments of the treatments, methods, and hypotheses of unconventional medicine. The editor is CSICOP fellow Wallace Sampson, M.D., clinical professor of medicine at Stanford University, and the executive editor is Lewis Vaughn, co-author (with Theodore Schick) of the critical thinking text _How To Think About Weird Things_. Prometheus Books publishes the journal, and it has been endorsed by the Council for Scientific Medicine, a group of physicians, scientists, and others concerned about the lack of critical scrutiny of "alternative" medicine. The journal is issued twice a year, but frequency may increase later. A subscription is $50 for individuals and $90 for institutions. To affirm its support for scientific medicine and this new journal, the Council issued the statement below. (To subscribe, call 800-421-0351; or fax your credit card number to 716-691-0137; or write SRAM, Prometheus Books, 59 John Glenn Dr., Amherst NY 14228-9826; or e-mail PBooks6205@aol.com.} In recent years, a wide range of unconventional therapies have appeared on the public scene. These are offered as "alternative" or "complementary" to mainstream medicine, and include everything from herbal medicines, homeopathy, and aromatherapy to the use of acupuncture, therapeutic touch, prayer at a distance, faith healing, chelation therapy, and miraculous cures. We, the undersigned, believe that the need for objective, scientific critiques of the claims of "alternative" or non-conventional medicine has never been greater. This conclusion seems inescapable because . . . o There is a general lack of readily available, reliable information about the efficacy of such treatments. This impairs people's free choice and increases risks to their health. The potential harm is incalculable but appears to be growing. The trend is abetted by those who promote unproven treatments, especially those who are naive, greedy, or unscrupulous. o The media all too often dote on controversial and false claims but unfortunately provide few careful, critical examinations of them, usually preferring to titillate, pander, or entertain. Often, what the public hears is anecdotal testimony of people allegedly cured, not the results of scientific research. Many best-selling books promote the power of such alleged healing, but they hardly pass the scrutiny of peer review. o Several new journals devoted exclusively to "alternative" medicine have appeared recently, but they merely advocate unconventional treatments, and rarely assess them objectively. o Both the public and some medical professionals seem unaware that credible, scientific assessments of many "alternative" medicine claims already exist -- that new evaluations based on available information are possible. o There is a critical need to test new claims before they are marketed to the public. We therefore welcome the founding of the _Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine_, the first peer-reviewed journal dedicated entirely to the scientific, rational evaluation of unconventional health claims. Its purpose is to apply the best tools of science and reason to determine the validity of hypotheses and the effectiveness of treatments. It will dismiss no claim a priori, but consider it on its merits. It will reject no claim because it fits, or fails to fit, some paradigm. It will, using scientific methods and reasonable criteria, seek justified answers to two questions: "Is it true? and "Does this treatment work?" It will call for double-blind, controlled trials of alternative therapies. We believe that the launching of the _Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine_ is now imperative. We therefore call for physicians, scientists, health practitioners, and citizens everywhere to join us in supporting this important venture to advance scientific medicine, and to expand the benefits of people's free and informed choice. September, 1997 Bay Area Skeptics Lecture PSEUDOSCIENCE AND PSYCHOLOGY by Patrick O'Reilly The September guest speaker for Bay Area Skeptics was Clinical Psychologist Dr. Terry Sandbek, and the title of his talk was "Is Psychology a Science?" Dr. Sandbek is the Founder and Director of California Clinic in Sacramento, an outpatient treatment facility for eating disorders. He is on the staff of Sierra Vista Hospital, and is the author of the text _The Deadly Diet_. Among his many other accomplishments, Dr. Sandbek is also one of the six founders of Bay Area Skeptics. Dr. Sandbek began his lecture with an introduction of the psychology profession: He touched briefly on the works of Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, Pinel, and Benjamin Rush, and gave us a concise overview of the psychology profession in the late nineteenth and twentieth century, with particular attention paid to Sigmund Freud. Dr. Sandbek pointed out that, prior to the development of psychoanalysis, Freud was a well-respected scientist. With the advent of his psychological theories, Freud, who did not subject his psychological theories to scientific testing, lost the respect of much of the scientific community. At about the same time that Freud was formulating his psychoanalytic theories, which eschewed scientific methodology, much of European psychology was developing along scientific lines that advocated the use of scientific methods to study human nature. Dr. Sandbek talked about the development of psychological studies in the United States, and the implementation of professional and academic standards set by the American Psychological Association (A.P.A.), which was founded by G. Stanley Hall, a devotee of Freud's work, in 1892. Of more importance to our current understanding of psychology, Lightner Witmer in 1896 established the first psychological clinic in the world, at the University of Pennsylvania. Witmer believed strongly that the scientific study of human behavior could have practical benefits for humanity. Shortly after Witmer founded his clinic, J.D. Watson, considered by most to be the founder of American psychology, became the leader of experimental psychology, with emphasis on the study of behavior. B.F. Skinner ultimately became the accepted leader of the behaviorialist school of psychology, which followed scientific guidelines, and furthered the split between practitioners of that time, who tended to use the Freudian psychoanalytic model, and academics, who advocated a scientific study of human nature. Dr. Sandbek told us that, in 1942, Carl Rogers developed humanistic psychology to counter psychoanalysis and behaviorialism, and to emphasize the concept of free will. Rogers believed that people could cure themselves if they were in a nurturing, therapeutic environment. Although Carl Rogers is credited as being a major influence of much current non-scientific psychotherapeutic theory, Dr. Sandbek pointed out that Rogers was a great believer in basing therapy on empirical testing. In 1949, the American Psychological Association established training parameters, called "the scientific practitioner model", for psychologists, which emphasized the scientific principles of psychological training. Dr. Sandbek pointed out that most universities today preach this as a model, although it is not necessarily academically emphasized. The field of psychology is often seen today, even in academic circles, as composed of the distinctly separate schools of non-scientific psychology and scientific psychology. A glaring example of this, Dr. Sandbek said, is the fact that academia is turning out more clinicians than researchers. As a consequence of this de-emphasis of scientific methods, in the 1980s, many academics and researchers split from the A.P.A., which no longer insisted on empirical studies, and formed the American Psychological Society, which calls for strict scientific standards. Dr. Sandbek explained why he believes scientific standards are faltering in the psychology profession: He expressed concern over the current popularity of the Psy.D. (Doctorate of Psychology) degree. He told us that the Psy.D. is specifically oriented to practice, and, unlike the Ph.D., often does not adequately teach the skills needed to properly analyze data. He pointed out that too often Psy.D graduates have not mastered such professionally basic skills as statistics and research analysis, and, as a consequence, are unable to effectively understand research or professional journals. He said that practitioners who are so trained often do not know how to determine the correct approaches to treating psychological dysfunctions, because they are unable to understand what studies and work have already been done. Dr. Sandbek also pointed out that the postmodernist viewpoint has also infiltrated psychology. The postmodernist idea that science is "just one of the ways" to understand the world and is no more legitimate than anything else has also popularized the notion that understanding basic scientific principles is not a requirement for successful psychotherapy. Such a postmodernist professional stance, though, might well lead to an inability on the practitioner's part to determine what psychotherapeutic approaches have been statistically shown to be effective. As examples of shoddy professional standards and sloppy professional methodology, Dr. Sandbek brought up such past fad therapies as Reichian Therapy, Transactional Analysis, and Primal Therapy. In keeping with the theme of his presentation, he pointed out that even a cursory scientific analysis of these approaches would have raised serious questions about their effectiveness. However, the proponents of these therapies did not offer scientific studies to validate their claims, and an unsuspecting public and poorly trained therapists too often assumed that these approaches were reliable without adequately examining the claims of the therapies' proponents. Dr. Sandbek concluded his talk with examples of the ways in which current fad psychotherapies thrive. Advocates of suspect therapies frequently rely on catchy wording: Pop psychology captioning such as "Five Minutes to . . . " or "Ten Reasons Why . . ." tend to capture people's attention without the need to provide adequate explanations or testing. Providing personal testimonials is also a popular approach with non-scientific practitioners. Such testimonials, of course, do not validate the success claims of the therapies. Dr. Sandbek pointed out, though, that the limitations of personal testimonials as proof are frequently not known to the public, nor to psychotherapists who are not adequately trained in research methodology. He was also concerned about non-peer-reviewed psychotherapies, many of which are taught only at workshops organized by the therapies' proponents. Dr. Sandbek did a remarkably thorough and entertaining job, explaining how science is correctly and incorrectly used in the field of psychology. His talk was interspersed with humor, and he was particularly entertaining when discussing how the development of Freud's theories was heavily influenced by Freud's own addiction to cocaine. The fact that psychoanalysis, like many psychotherapeutic theories, has been shown to be non-effective, has not stopped its use by psychotherapists, and Dr. Sandbek admirably explained why this is so. Dr. Sandbek succinctly pointed out the potential limitations of professional schools and poorly designed Psy.D. degrees. He emphasized the necessity of psychotherapists having the research skills necessary to study data and formulate tests. Of special interest to Bay Area Skeptics, Dr. Sandbek explained how the split between nonscientists and scientists in psychology originated, and the reasons why this division continues. ----- BAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Chair: Patrick O'Reilly Vice-Chair: Norman Sperling Secretary: Wilma Russell Treasurer: Carol Baumgartner Directors: David Knapp, Arnold Knepfer, Larry Loebig, Rick Moen, Patrick O'Reilly, Wilma Russell, Eugenie Scott, Bob Steiner, and Kate Talbot. BASIS STAFF Editor: Ken Beseder Distribution: Wilma Russell Meeting Coordinator: open BAS BOARD OF ADVISORS: William J. Bennetta, Scientific Consultant Dean Edell, M.D., ABC Medical Reporter Andrew Fraknoi, Ph.D., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Donald Goldsmith, Astronomer and Attorney Earl Hautala, Research Chemist Mark Hodes, Educational Consultant Alexander Jason, Investigative Consultant Thomas H. Jukes, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley Lawrence S. Lerner, Ph.D., Cal State University, Long Bearch John E. McCosker, Ph.D., Director, Steinhart Aquarium Kit Moser, Science Writer Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley Kevin Padian, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley James Randi, Magician, Author, Lecturer Francis Rigney, M.D., Pacific Presbyterian Med. Center Wallace I. Sampson, M.D., Stanford University Terry Sandbek, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., Anthropologist Robert Sheaffer, Author, UFO Expert Ray Spangenburg, Science Writer Robert A. Steiner, CPA, Magician, Public Speaker, Writer Jill C. Tarter, SETI Institute BAS INFO: 510-LA-TRUTH, or http://hugin.imat.com/bas/ SUBSCRIPTIONS: One year for a contribution of $18.00 or more. An "S" on mailing label shows the month/year of expiration. Please renew well in advance. "I" means inquiry or courtesy copy. MATERIAL FOR PUBLICATION: The deadline for submission to _BASIS_ is the 10th of the month. Opinions expressed in _BASIS_ are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of BAS, its board, or its advisors. The above are selected articles from the February, 1998 issue of _BASIS_, the publication of Bay Area Skeptics. You can obtain a free sample copy by sending your name and address to BAY AREA SKEPTICS, 17722 Buti Park Ct., Castro Valley, CA 94546, or by leaving a message on the 510-LA-TRUTH (voice) hotline. Copyright (C) 1998 BAY AREA SKEPTICS. Reprints must credit "_BASIS_, newsletter of Bay Area Skeptics, 17722 Buti Park Ct., Castro Valley, CA 94546."