ABC kirjoitti:^^ Luitko ollenkaan sitä linkin juttua?
Ja jos luit, niin ymmärsitkö lukemasi?
Luin ja ymmärsin ja itse asiassa se samoin kuin muukin Mars-efektiin liittyvä keskustelu on minulle tuttua jo tuolta jostain parin vuosikymmenen takaa, joten siinä mielessä tuo kiinnostuksesi aiheeseen on jo vähän post festum
Sen sijaan epäilen kyllä hiukan, luitko SINÄ ne lähettämäni linkit ja ymmärsitkö niitä, koska niin kovin yksisilmäiseltä ja yksipuoliselta tuo suhtautumisesi asiaan vaikuttaa...
Skeptikon, jos kenen, olisi syytä olla omissa tutkimuksissaan nuhteeton ja osaava, koska hän katsoo asiakseen arvostella muita; olkoonkin, että nämä tekevät valtavirrasta poikkeavaa tutkimusta. Rawlinsin, joka itse teki hyvän analyysin Mars-efektin mahdollisista syistä, kritiikki paljastaa vakavia puutteita CSICOPin toimintatavoissa ja jopa tieteellisessä rehellisyydessä.
Niin ehkä Rawlinsin itsensä mielestä, mutta eikös kriittiseen ajatteluun juuri kuulu eri näkemysten ja osapuolten kuuleminen. Tuo oma lähestymistapasi ei kyllä oikein sellasiselta vaikuta. Kyseiset artikkelit ovat suhteellisen pitkiä, mutta luotin asiasta kiinnostuneiden sisälukutaitoon ja siksi en niitä lähtenyt sen pitemmälle kommentoimaan, mutta kun näköjään asiassa ongelmia tuntuu olevan, niin otetaan tähän sitten muutama näkökulma tuolta Klassin vastineesta:
The first of the two tests was performed by Gauquelin himself, with
results that generally were supportive of the Mars effect hypothesis by
eliminating a possible objection that first had been raised by others,
i,e, not CSICOP. 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.
Eli missäs se CSICOP:in synti tässä on? Eikä siis varsinainen kokeiden tekijäkään tuntunut olevan pahoillaan.
HOWEVER, GAUQUELIN DID PUBLICLY ACCUSE RAWLINS OF DISTORTION AND
MISREPRESENTATION, with implied criticism of CSICOP because Rawlins then
was a member of its Executive Council. There would be other occasions
when CSICOP would be criticized because of Rawlins' intemperate
statements and actions.
Eli jos tarinalla on "paha skeptikko", niin yllätys yllätys, se taitaakin olla juuri tuo suuri sankarisi Rawlins...
According to "sTARBABY," CSICOP Chairman Prof. Paul Kurtz was the
principal architect of the alleged cover-up. Yet in reality it was
Kurtz, then editor of THE HUMANIST magazine (published by the American
Humanist Assn.) who printed the lengthy paper by Gauquelin describing
the seemingly favorable- for-him results of the first test in the
Nov/Dec,l977 issue (p. 30). What kind of doubletalk is this when Rawlins
and FATE charge that Kurtz's decision to publish test results favorable
to an "adversary" represents a "cover-up"? Rawlins might better have
waited until "l984" to resort to such "double-speak" accusations.
Ja tämä sitten siitä Kurtzin kauheasta sensuroinnista ja peittelystä...
This April 6, 1978, letter clearly shows that while Rawlins suspected
that Gauquelin had manipulated his European champions data ("Soal
trick") he found no evidence of wrong-doing by Zelen/Kurtz/Abell. On
April 26, 1978, in another letter to Kurtz, following his visit with
Rawlins in San Diego, Rawlins wrote that he "was certain" that
Gauquelin's original data "was biased, but not sure how." Rawlins
concluded this letter on a cordial note: "Now, wasn't it great visiting
sunny, funny, California -- and getting to see a real live nut religion
launch itself in San Diego? ... hope you'll get back this way soon
again."
Tässä vaiheessa kaikki oli siis vielä mitä sydämellisintä, eikä mistään sensuroinnista puhettakaan. Kannattaa myös huomata, että edelleen juuri Rawlins vetää tiukimmin skeptistä ja siis Gauquelinin tuloksiin nähden kriittisintä linjaa, täysin päinvastoin kuin sitten myöhemmin.
Rawlins' actions were reported in the Canadian magazine SCIENCE FORUM
July/August 1978, in an article written by Lydia Dotto. The article,
entitled "Science Confronts 'Pseudo- Science'", began; "It was after
midnight on a Saturday night when University of Toronto astronomer Bob
Garrison was awakened by a phone call. The caller identified himself as
a member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of
the Paranormal, and according to Garrison, he spent the best part of the
next hour urging the U of T scientist not to participate in the
conference on astrology...Dennis Rawlins, a California astronomer and
science writer and a member of the Committee, acknowledged in an
interview that he made the call, but denied he was trying to talk
Garrison out of attending the conference...this and other incidents
surrounding the conference have become something of a cause celebre,
particularly since the event was cancelled shortly before it was to have
taken place in mid-March. Predictably, ACCUSATIONS BEGAN TO FLY THAT
SCIENTIFIC OPPONENTS OF ASTROLOGY WERE ENGAGED IN A CAMPAIGN TO SUPPRESS
FREEDOM OF SPEECH." (Emphasis added.)
Indeed they did, much to CSICOP's embarassment. Britain's New Scientist
magazine, in its June 29, 1978, issue, quoted the Canadian magazine in
an article that began: "Earlier this year an astronomer at the
University of Toronto, Dr. Bob Garrison, was awakened by a phone call
from a member of Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of
the Paranormal. The caller allegedly spent most of the next hour trying
to dissuade Garrison from taking part in a conference on astrology."
Tässä alkoi sitten tulla säröjä suhteeseen, ei ehkä niinkään vielä sisällöllisiä vaan enemmänkin tyyliin ja toimintatapoihin liittyen. Moiset öiset puhelinsoitot tiukkaavassa äänensävyssä eivät ole erityisen kannatettavaa käytöstä, olipa asia sitten mitä tahansa.
On Sept, 18, 1978, Rawlins prepared a four-page report describing the
procedures he had used in his calculations and a summary of the results.
But Rawlins could not resist including some denigrating charges against
Gauquelin. For example: "Gauquelin was well known in his teens for his
casting of horoscopes (a practice he has since disowned)..." The
comments were both gratuitous and inappropriate.
Ja sama linja jatkui...
Further evidence of Rawlins' wounded ego is his complaint that "not only
was Abell being invited to the press conference (at the upcoming Council
in Washington, D.C.), he was to be the CSICOP spokesman on astrology in
Washington." (P.81) Rawlins said he "strongly protested the
high-handedness of the choice of Abell as the speaker at the annual
meeting...I emphasized that CSICOP had plenty of astronomers associated
with it (Carl Sagan, Bart Bok, Edwin Krupp and others), all of them
nearer Washington than Abell who lived all the way across the country,
in the Los Angeles area." (In fact, Krupp also lived in Southern
California, Bok lived Arizona, and Sagan then was working in California
on his "Cosmos" television series.)
Eli taidetaan päästä itse ongelman ytimeen. Ah niin kovin inhimillistä, mutta hiukan surullista tietysti myös. Samanlainen egojen loukkaantuminenhan ei ole mitenkään vierasta muillakaan foorumeilla, eipä edes Minfossa...
Despite my efforts to understand Rawlins' allegations, it was not clear
to me (and to many other Council members) just what it was that he now
was claiming had been"covered-up." After three years of working with
Rawlins I was well aware of his proclivity for making harsh, exaggerated
charges. Most often these were directed against supporters of the
para-normal, but sometimes also against Council members who disagreed
with his proposals for intemperate actions against "the believers." For
example, Rawlins had charged that Truzzi was involved with the "Church
of Satan."
Hieman kuumaverinen persoona siis mitä ilmeisimmin...
"sTARBABY" reveals that Rawlins imagines many things that simply are not
true, such as his charge that I was involved in a plot to suppress his
discussions of the Gauquelin test at the 1978 Council meeting. His
article implies that Council meetings are characterized by attempts to
suppress dissenting views. In reality one usually hears almost as many
different viewpoints as there are Council members present. And Kurtz is
the most unconstraining group chairman I have ever known in the many
organizations of which I have been a member.
Tähän on tietysti vaikea ottaa kantaa kun en ole itse paikalla ollut, mutta sikäli kun Kurtzia tunnen hänen kirjoitustensa pohjalta ja kerran itsekin naamakkain hänen kanssaan keskusteltuani, pidän kyllä tuota Klassin arviota hänestä huomattavasti uskottavampana kuin Rawlinsin pitkälti painokelvottomia purkauksia...
Returning, chronologically, to the fall of 1979, CSICOP was preparing to
publish the results of the U.S. champions test in the Winter 1979-80
issue of THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. Rawlins demanded the right to revise
and expand his original Sept, 18, 1978, paper, and was given that
opportunity. Furthermore, according to "sTARBABY," Rawlins informed Ken
Frazier, editor of THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, "that if there were any
alterations not cleared with me, I wanted a note printed with the paper
stating that deletions had occurred over the author's protest and that
the missing portions could be obtained directly from me." (P. 92.)
Niin missäs ne sensurointi ja peittely taas olivatkaan...??
Frazier (who had been recommended for the position by Rawlins himself),
acting on the recommendation of Prof. Ray Hyman, a Council member who
reviewed the Rawlins paper and the others, and on Frazier's own long
editorial experience, decided to delete the sentence referring to
Gauquelin's earlier interest in traditional astrology. Frazier also
opted to delete another sentence that read: "In this connection I must
also say that, given the self piekill upshot (sic) of their European
(nonchampions) adventure plus their failure to perform independently the
U.S. study's technical foundations (sector position, expectation curve),
I find it amusing that ZKA (Zelen, Kurtz, Abell) are the main
commentators on this test in THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER." Once again
Rawlins' wounded-ego had manifested itself.
Ja tässä siis koko "sensurointi"väitteiden ydin eli poistettu yksi potentiaalisesti loukkaava virke, jolla ei jutun sisällön kanssa ollut mitään erityistä tekoa ja joka kaiken lisäksi kohdistui Gauquelinia VASTAAN eli siis skeptikkojen kannan mukaisesti, mutta vihjailevasti ja ikävällä tyylillä ilmaistuna. Ja tämä siis oli sitä suurta CSICOP:in salaliittoa ja peittely-yritystä...!
Sitten tuli vielä ne matkakuluriidat ja muuta vähemmän ylevää kinaa. Klassin lopputulema kannattaa myös lukea ja sisäistää. Samasta asiastahan minäkin viimeksi huomautin:
If the Mars effect, or any other paranormal hypothesis, should ever be
demonstrated using rigorous scientific procedures, there simply is no
way in which the small group of individuals involved in CSICOP could
ever hope to suppress such evidence. Nor have I found any CSICOP Council
member or Fellow who is so foolish as to try.
Joten eiköhän olisi rakentavampaa lähteä seuraavaksi pohtimaan itse "Mars-efektin" perusteita ja yrittää selvittää, onko sillä perusteita vai ei. Jos se voidaan todella kunnon normaalilla tieteellisellä työllä verifioida, niin silloin kyllä vaikutukset niin tieteen sisällä kuin sen ulkopuolellakin ovat sen verran mittavat, ettei moisiin lillukanvarsiin enää paljon kiinnostusta piisaisi...