Rawlins did accuse–with some foundation–Abell (an astronomer) and Kurtz (a philosopher) of incompetence regarding statistics. I don’t remember him making that a charge against Zelen (a statistician)–he just thought Zelen was a fool for not giving credence to the possibility of Gauquelin’s data being bad, and putting too much confidence in the Zelen Test as a means of refuting Gauquelin once and for all. Rawlins was certainly right about that, though I don’t think there’s a good case for Gauquelin’s effects today, after the CFEPP response.

In the “Mars effect” controversy, they did try to paper over some of their own errors with post hoc rationalization when the Zelen Test didn’t come out the way they expected, but they gave Dennis Rawlins several pages of unedited space to reply in the _Skeptical Inquirer_, and ultimately admitted their errors in the Zelen Test, as well as giving further space to Suitbert Ertel’s re-analysis of the U.S. sports champion test.

There were definitely some screwups by CSICOP leaders, and they’ve had others since then. But none of that makes a case that they seek or succeed in suppressing information. If anything, when the _Skeptical Inquirer_ publishes a critique of an idea, it makes that idea better known than it was before.

BTW, I think it’s a mistake to equate Paul Kurtz’s politics with Corliss Lamont’s. I believe Kurtz is a liberal with something of a libertarian streak, not a socialist.

I can understand why you would want people to be deflected from reading Dennis Rawlins account to “sTARBABY”, as the only competent person working on the CSICOP challenge, the one who first found out that the challenge was so incompetently designed that it would end up supporting the position of Gauquelin, much to the humiliation of Kurtz and his lackies. He wrote an honest account of both the incompetence of the CSICOP clique and the dishonest means they’d go to to cover themselves.

Debunkery of the sort you champion, if it was taken as a valid means of scientific disproof would probably effectively destroy the majority of experimental science. There are few effects that couldn’t be faked by a determined person with sufficient knowledge. Psychology, the field of many of the CSICOPS (those who aren’t professional entertainers and other show biz names that constitute the CSICOP glamour) would be destroyed if it was subjected to Randian style debunkery.

Yes, I am going to continue my researches into Corliss Lamont and Paul Kurtz, it’s hard going but there’s so much interesting material that sheds light on so much of the present day pop-atheism and “skepticism”.

Seriously, a lot of intellectuals were Communists in the 1930′s. Go ahead and blacklist them if you want, but I think it’s been done. Maybe this Lamont guy should have denounced Stalin earlier, but one of my favorite authors, Jessica Mitford, was a commie until late in the ’50′s so I’d be willing to cut him some slack.

Yes, I meant equation not equivocation.
Corliss Lamont’s opposition to McCarthyism is laudable. His disbelief of Stalin’s atrocities in the face of positive evidence isn’t. Far from being swept under the rug, articles about Lamont’s politics (the good and the horribly misguided) seemed easy to find via a quick Google.
From what I’ve read Paul Kurtz appreciated and promoted Lamont’s humanist ideals, but rejected his communist politics. I don’t see any idealogical or methodolgical connection whatsoever between CSICOP and Stalinism. This seems like guilt by association.

olvlzl said: “If you think I’m over the top about CSICOP you clearly haven’t been a long time reader of their propaganda, as I have. It would be very much in line with their activities to go after Harry Potter, they’ve gone after other novels they accuse of promoting parascience.”

Mikel already provided a link that answers the Harry Potter question in the negative. I’d be interested to see any links you might have about CSICOP going after other novels.

olvlzl said: “As I’ve mentioned here before the only “scientific investigation” they ever did was the disastrous farce “sTARBABY”, in which some of their more illustrious members proved that they were fully ready to lie and distort to cover up the fact that they couldn’t even come up with a competent challenge to astrology. Read the account by Dennis Rawlins, it’s available online. CSICOP is a fraud whose intent is to suppress free thought, not promote science.”

Here’s a brief article on the Mars Effect. The links at the bottom are to articles by those involved that talk about the various studies in depth, including comments that don’t always put CSICOP in the best light. I think that honesty, rigor, and a lack of bias (among other things) are necessities in the scientific investigation of any subject. I’m not sure those necessities were maintained by either side in the investigation of the Mars Effect.

I don’t think this controversy negates the positive effects of the debunking of paranormal claims that CSICOP has done before or since. Of course, CSICOP’S scientific findings should be up for review the same as any other organization’s. I don’t know how good a job they’ve done on every single investigation, or if they’ve always chosen their targets well, but I haven’t seen anything that indicates they’re the reincarnation of the Evil Empire.

So, I am finding a really difficult time in taking you seriously in any claims that it would be consistent for the Center for Inquiry to try to squelch the reading of Harry Potter. They don’t appear to me to have too much trouble telling fact from fictional entertainment. I tend to agree with steelman: “someone is on a mission here.”

As far as the stuff being taught in the library is concerned–I think invisible ink and cryptology are fascinating, and I think there is nothing wrong with yoga as such and that Zen gardens are pretty cool actually. As for the others, numerology and such, I’m not so sure–I’d still hold judgment until I know exactly what they are telling the kids.

Edit:
Oh, speaking of Harry Potter:
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/harrypotter/

If you think I’m over the top about CSICOP you clearly haven’t been a long time reader of their propaganda, as I have. It would be very much in line with their activities to go after Harry Potter, they’ve gone after other novels they accuse of promoting parascience. As I’ve mentioned here before the only “scientific investigation” they ever did was the disastrous farce “sTARBABY”, in which some of their more illustrious members proved that they were fully ready to lie and distort to cover up the fact that they couldn’t even come up with a competent challenge to astrology. Read the account by Dennis Rawlins, it’s available online. CSICOP is a fraud whose intent is to suppress free thought, not promote science.

Considering the wide diversity of subcultures in the U.S., and the laws that protect beliefs as well as speech, it appears the freedom to “believe in all manner of things” is still intact. I don’t, however, think anyone has a right to not have their beliefs challenged, especially if they are using publicly funded programs to teach them to young people. My tax dollars are spent on a dizzying array of things, sometimes quite wastefully, and I have a right to have my say (legally, and in a civilized manner) about those expenditures. It’s my money.

olvlz said: “They [CSICOP] have probably had more success in suppressing ideas and even scientific research that falls on its Index of Prohibited Ideas. I’m not sure if they’ve gone after Harry Potter but it would be in keeping with the rest of their neo-Stalinist activities.”

I think this is taking us a bit off topic, and I’ve got a feeling you’re a bit over the top about all of this (saying CSICOP would probably go after Harry Potter seems silly to me). However, I want to be fair. So, if you have a blog entry that details the results of your research into CSICOP, I would be interested in reading it.

olvlzl said: “Oh, and Steelman, that list in your comment, you drew that up, not me. I have never endorsed any of them. To bring them up in relation to what I said is dishonest.”

You were lamenting how some people interfere in other people’s beliefs. You did this in response to an article about local opposition to a library’s reading program that included the items of pseudoscience and fortunetelling that I named. I agree that people should be allowed to believe what they want, but I disagree with them teaching it to kids as true using public money. I never said you endorsed those things. I did, however, question what seemed to be your lassize-faire attitude of giving tacit approval to the situation (hence the question mark ending that list).

I should say here that if the attitude of it being a “light-hearted look at the topics”, which was applied to the invisible ink and what’s your sign series, was also applied to the list I found objectionable, then I would be fine with it. This is what I said in my earlier comment. As written, the second list was called “another program.”

olvlzl said: “Where in the United States, or anywhere else do you find Lysenkoism being taught. Actually, since during the period when it flourished in the Soviet Union Corliss Lamont was one of the biggest promoters of Stalinism in the United States, I wonder if he ever expressed an opinion about it. It would be interesting to know.”

Neither Lysenkoism, nor Lamarckism, are being taught in any publicly (or privately) funded program that I’m aware of. I brought them up as an (obvious, I thought) analogy of the nature and level of objectionableness to teaching pseudoscience and superstition to school children as fact. Remarkably, you managed to somehow redirect that comparison back into your seeming equivocation of Stalinism and CSICOP. Someone is on a mission here…