RAF
10-15-2003, 08:29 PM
As many of you are aware of, the question of whether Qi exists or is of importance in the learning of Chinese martial arts has been argued and debated many times here on this forum.
For alternative viewpoint of who these debunkers, in particular, Randi and Paul Kurtz are, here is a website that is worth looking at:
http://www.alternativescience.com/csicop.htm
The Paradigm Police
In an imperfect world, we all suffer from a gap between how we see ourselves and how others see us: between what we'd like to be and what we are. But in 30 years of journalism I haven't found a more striking gulf between self-image and performance than CSICOP -- the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
Everything about CSICOP purports to be scientific -- objective, fair, independent, investigative, rational. In reality, CSICOP is the home of the Paradigm Police, a kind of Pseudoscience-Central that deals in fundamentalist prejudice, opinion and bias, informed by a single, central hidden agenda -- to debunk at any cost any phenomenon, evidence or theory that touches on the list of taboo subjects that CSICOP has drawn up as forbidden.
The contradictions start even with CSICOP's name. Any rational person would expect an organisation that calls itself a Committee for Scientific Investigation to actually involve itself in carrying out scientific investigations, but CSICOP conducts no such investigations, it merely makes ex cathedra pronouncements telling the public what it should and shouldn’t believe, without troubling itself about conducting experiments.
When it was first formed in 1976, CSICOP did attempt a foray into scientific investigation, which turned into a farcical scandal. It decided to target the statistical work of French mathematician Michel Gauquelin whose work appeared to suggest there might be something in astrology after all.
Within a short time however, CSICOP officer Dennis Rawlins, who was acting as the study's statistician and was the only astronomer on CSICOP's council, announced he was quitting and accused CSICOP of blatantly fiddling the figures to prove Gauquelin wrong. (Click here for full story).
Since then, CSICOP has quietly dropped any pretence of being an investigating body and acts instead as the spiritual home of scientific fundamentalism -- a church with many priests but few congregations.
CSICOP's founder and president is Dr Paul Kurtz, formerly a professor with New York State University. Perhaps surprisingly, Dr Kurtz is not a scientist but a philosopher. In a memorable TV interview, on the subject of 'aliens', he said, "If we are going to admit aliens, what are we going to admit next? Fairies? Elves? Where do we draw the line?"
In this spontaneous comment Dr Kurtz has unconsciously disclosed his entire philosophy of science. For him, science is not open, without boundaries, up for exploration and discovery without fear or favour. Science is closed like a classified or restricted area to which ideas and people are "admitted" by duly authorised guardians, and once inside must stick to the authorised boundaries.
It is the guardians who "draw the line" around the boundaries of science. And Dr Kurtz clearly considers himself to be one of these guardians because he says "Where do we draw the line"?
Its good to hear and see all side of an issue.
For alternative viewpoint of who these debunkers, in particular, Randi and Paul Kurtz are, here is a website that is worth looking at:
http://www.alternativescience.com/csicop.htm
The Paradigm Police
In an imperfect world, we all suffer from a gap between how we see ourselves and how others see us: between what we'd like to be and what we are. But in 30 years of journalism I haven't found a more striking gulf between self-image and performance than CSICOP -- the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
Everything about CSICOP purports to be scientific -- objective, fair, independent, investigative, rational. In reality, CSICOP is the home of the Paradigm Police, a kind of Pseudoscience-Central that deals in fundamentalist prejudice, opinion and bias, informed by a single, central hidden agenda -- to debunk at any cost any phenomenon, evidence or theory that touches on the list of taboo subjects that CSICOP has drawn up as forbidden.
The contradictions start even with CSICOP's name. Any rational person would expect an organisation that calls itself a Committee for Scientific Investigation to actually involve itself in carrying out scientific investigations, but CSICOP conducts no such investigations, it merely makes ex cathedra pronouncements telling the public what it should and shouldn’t believe, without troubling itself about conducting experiments.
When it was first formed in 1976, CSICOP did attempt a foray into scientific investigation, which turned into a farcical scandal. It decided to target the statistical work of French mathematician Michel Gauquelin whose work appeared to suggest there might be something in astrology after all.
Within a short time however, CSICOP officer Dennis Rawlins, who was acting as the study's statistician and was the only astronomer on CSICOP's council, announced he was quitting and accused CSICOP of blatantly fiddling the figures to prove Gauquelin wrong. (Click here for full story).
Since then, CSICOP has quietly dropped any pretence of being an investigating body and acts instead as the spiritual home of scientific fundamentalism -- a church with many priests but few congregations.
CSICOP's founder and president is Dr Paul Kurtz, formerly a professor with New York State University. Perhaps surprisingly, Dr Kurtz is not a scientist but a philosopher. In a memorable TV interview, on the subject of 'aliens', he said, "If we are going to admit aliens, what are we going to admit next? Fairies? Elves? Where do we draw the line?"
In this spontaneous comment Dr Kurtz has unconsciously disclosed his entire philosophy of science. For him, science is not open, without boundaries, up for exploration and discovery without fear or favour. Science is closed like a classified or restricted area to which ideas and people are "admitted" by duly authorised guardians, and once inside must stick to the authorised boundaries.
It is the guardians who "draw the line" around the boundaries of science. And Dr Kurtz clearly considers himself to be one of these guardians because he says "Where do we draw the line"?
Its good to hear and see all side of an issue.