RE: psychoceramics: Kook-bashing.

[Tom Easton <easton @ terrier1.thomas.edu>]

See A. K. Dewdney's _Yes We Have No Neutrons_ for a lengthier version of
this objection to SETI (as well as put-downs of a number of other areas
of fringe science).

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Michael T. Richter [SMTP:m--@m--.on.rogers.wave.ca]
> Sent:	Tuesday, October 07, 1997 10:46 AM
> To:	p--@z--.net
> Subject:	psychoceramics: Kook-bashing.
> 
> >Now I think I was wrong. Letting people bash science and spew
> nonsense as
> >fact degrades us all and over time gives creedence to the next loonie
> that
> >takes one step further out of reality. Read the Skeptical Inquirer,
> 
> 
> I do.  I learn a lot of useful material from it.  And I often laugh at
> it as
> well.  Frankly, I think several of the more prominent skeptics rank
> almost
> as highly as our Plutonium-oriented friend in kookery, if in a fashion
> which
> is much more subtle (and, at least, scientifically accurate for the
> most
> part).
> 
> For a perfect, subtle example: read _The Demon-Haunted World_ and look
> up
> Sagan's "baloney detection kit" (a kit introduced to me in high school
> by a
> teacher as a "bullshit detection kit"...).  In my edition the 'kit is
> on
> page 210.  Now apply Sagan's own baloney detection kit to SETI, one of
> Sagan's pet projects.  Count the failures.  In a quick pass I found:
> 1) Arguments from authority.  Most SETI fans, if you challenge their
> ideas,
> will reverentially speak of the Great Carl Sagan and how he supports
> SETI,
> ironically unaware that Carl Sagan Himself (sic) disapproves of this
> very
> argument form.
> 2) Falsifiability.  SETI has no negative condition.  If, after an
> exhaustive
> search of the sky using existing SETI facilities we don't find
> anything,
> there is SETI II and METI (I think those are the names -- I'll hunt
> further
> if needed) lurking in the wings for even more comprehensive sweep of
> the
> sky.  At no point can anyone say "this experiment has failed -- there
> is no
> extra-terrestrial 'radio civilization' in our galaxy".  Why?  Because
> the
> instant response will be "we just need more sensitive equipment --
> they're
> out there".
> 
> Other failures include the following (which I won't expand upon unless
> asked
> to):  lacking multiple hypotheses, attachment to personal hypotheses,
> argument from adverse consequences (in extreme cases of SETI-philes),
> special pleading, begging the question.
> 
> Given that one of the most prominent (former) skeptics features a
> toolkit
> which overturns his own pet project (obsession?), just how different
> are
> skeptics from our kooks here?
>