#5   06 Oct 89  14:29:17 [2] 
From: Rick Moen
To:   All
Subj: Review in "The Nation"

Keith Rowell (keithr@tolkien.WV.TEK.COM) has made reference in this
discussion group to "the perceptive book review of Not Necessarily 
the New Age (Prometheus Press) by Tom Anthanasiou posted here 
recently" (review from "The Nation", July 10, 1989, pp 61-3).
As chance would have it, Mr. Athanasiou recently sent me a copy 
of that review and asked for my comments.  Following is the text 
of my recent reply:
 
Dear Tom:
 
First of all, thank you for the copy of your review from "The
Nation".  It's always a pleasure to read a well-written review of
any type, and I collect those on topics like yours, as part of my
little hobby of being a card-carrying skeptic.
 
May I indulge myself with a few comments?  It might help to tell
you a bit about my own perspective, first.  I'm an old-time leftie,
a sort of anarcho-socialist:  volunteer worker on a far-left
kibbutz in Israel, volunteer campaign worker for Art Agnos, Leo
Ryan, Ron Dellums, & Jesse Jackson, ACLU member, NOW member,
donator to Greenpeace, that sort of thing.  Your article was all
the more interesting, given that background.
 
So, your skirting around the brink of saying that New Age-ism is
(or might be) some sort of progressive force was one of the things
that perplexed me.  You do this in several places:  "[The New Age]
shares its dark visions, if not always its metaphysical
conclusions, with ecological movements and often with the left." 
"The left, for its part, can't afford such an easy dismissal, for
in the New Age we can measure a profound alienation, one that we've
largely failed to link to an attractive and compelling vision of
socialism."
 
You do draw back from the brink to say "New Age theorists are
largely hostile not only to the left tradition, which they see as
bound to reductionism and domination, but to critical thought and
historical analysis as well [etc.]", yet I sense that you are
looking back wistfully.  Tom, New Age thought has, to date, been
antithetical to ANY organized political efforts.  A movement that
teaches people not to analyse is NOT going to be an effective force
for meaningful social change.
 
On the other hand, you ascribe to the skeptics a hidebound
ideological stance "that scientific knowledge can be easily and
unproblematically abstracted from the society that holds it", and
"rejects superstitions about the supernatural world only to embrace
equally superstitious beliefs in science".  This IS NOT THE
SKEPTICISM I'M FAMILIAR WITH.
 
Skeptics use scientific inquiry as, as a friend of mine puts it,
"a neat tool".  Belief in science is NOT a part of it.  I do know
some folks who do take part in a quaint worship of science -- I
keep them at a distance.  The day that belief becomes prevalent in
skepticism is the day I and many others drop out.
 
You would not criticise your neighbourhood carpenter for a
"superstitious belief in hammers", so why criticise skeptics for
their attraction to the tool called science?  Yet, as BAS Secretary
and as system operator of our computer conference system, I hear
this sort of (unsupported) criticism all the time.  We are (take
your pick) fundamentalist materialists, victims of scientism,
scientific realists, logical positivists, atheistic humanists,
simple-minded rationalists, and/or bourgeois ideologues, according
to our critics.  And I didn't even get a bumper sticker!
 
Also, skeptics already have their work cut out for them.  Our
chosen area of concentration is the EXAMINATION OF TESTABLE CLAIMS,
in the fringe-science/medicine and paranormal fields.  That's quite
a task.  We should be critics of science and epistemology, too? 
If we don't take on that additional chore, does that mean we
"embrace superstitious beliefs in science" and are "bourgeois
ideologues"?
 
You also say that "science is a form of power as well as a method,
and there are good reasons to distrust, not to say hate, its
existing institutions".  But we don't anywhere endorse those
institutions.  We teach and advocate a particular application of
critical thought.  I submit that critical thought is a (welcome)
threat generally to entrenched institutions.  Who is more likely
to empower people to attack those institutions, the New Agers, who
shun critical thought, or we, who teach it?
 
You say "Martin Gardner, James Randi, and other luminaries of the
skeptical movement are mercilessly logical in their pursuit of
superstitious bunko, but they're uncritical to the point of
servility when it comes to science and instrumental technology. And
when high technology is at issue, artificial intelligence and
nuclear power plants, skeptics are prone to an optimism both naive
and credulous...."  Well, I have ALL the back issues of "Skeptical
Inquirer" and "BASIS" (our newsletter), and I can't find that
ANYWHERE.  Where, sir, might I find it?
 
You certainly won't find it in our organization, and certainly not
in ME.  I'm no Feyerabend or Roszak, but I am a critic of science
institutions and of technology, particularly of the type you
mention.  In addition, like most skeptics, I respect other
approaches to knowledge (such as anthropology, non-scientific
psychology, and mystical experience), where they are appropriate.
 
The skeptics' movement has had two good tactical reasons to remain
silent on political issues of all kinds:  1. The movement caters
to very diverse sorts.  There's a significant (but definitely
minority) libertarian contingent, an almost equal number of genuine
lefties (the chair and vice-chair of BAS are, respectively, a
"Black Scholar Magazine" worker/Black Panther hanger-on and a
dedicated union activist), some Norman Rockwell Reaganites, and the
rest are all over the map.  ANY political alignment would
drastically restrict our appeal, and so be unwise.  2. In the
opinion of many, it would diminish our credibility, reduce our
impact, and diffuse our efforts.  For similar reasons, we stay
clear of purely philosophical/ethical disputes.
 
So, those of us who DO advocate political change do so outside of
the skeptics' movement, and hope that in the long term, less public
credulity toward channeling, UFOs, psychic surgery, and other
opiates will stimulate more interest in real societal change.
 
Notwithstanding the fact that it is not our chosen field to examine
epistemological problems, the psychology of belief, and so on, you
WILL find such examination in the pages of "Skeptical Inquirer" and
"BASIS".  Thus I find your allegation of its absence to be
mystifying.  I refer you in particular to "SI" XIV.1 pp. 25-34,
XIII.4 pp. 365-90, XIII.1 pp. 70-75, XII.4 376-85, XI.4 pp 44-50,
IX.1 pp 36-55, and "BASIS" of June 1987 (on metaphysics) for
starters.
 
Even if all we did was "debunk", a world with less bunk would be
a better place, no?  However, that is NOT all we do!
 
Your further comments would be most welcome, if you have time.  If
you would like to write an article for "BASIS" on problems of
skepticism or most any topic, I'm sure it would be warmly received.

-- Rick Moen, Secretary, Bay Area Skeptics
(Rick_Moen@f27.n125.z1.fidonet.org)
Sysop, The Skeptic's Board, 415-648-8944, 1:125/27, 8:914/207