Electronic Version

If you like what you see, please help us continue by sending in a subscription. See the end of newsletter for details.

In This Issue:

From the Editor -- Bob Ladendorf
From the Chairman -- David Bloomberg
The Five "Laws" of Quack Science -- Roy Auerbach Pseudo-Science Terminology -- David Bloomberg REALLity Check -- David Bloomberg

Purpose:

The Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land (REALL) is a non-profit educational and scientific organization. It is dedicated to the development of rational thinking and the application of the scientific method toward claims of the paranormal and fringe- science phenomena.

REALL shall conduct research, convene meetings, publish a newsletter, and disseminate information to its members and the general public. Its primary geographic region of coverage is central Illinois.

REALL subscribes to the premise that the scientific method is the most reliable and self-correcting system for obtaining knowledge about the world and universe. REALL not not reject paranormal claims on a priori grounds, but rather is committed to objective, though critical, inquiry.

The REALL News is its official newsletter.

Membership information is provided elsewhere in this newsletter.

Board of Directors: Chairman, David Bloomberg; Assistant Chairman, Prof. Ron Larkin; Secretary-Treasurer, Wally Hartshorn; Newsletter Editor, Bob Ladendorf; At-Large Members, Prof. Steve Egger, Frank Mazo, and Kevin Brown.

Editorial Board: Bob Ladendorf (Newsletter Editor), David Bloomberg (electronic version editor), (one vacancy).

REALL
P.O. Box 20302
Springfield, IL 62708

Unless stated otherwise, permission is granted to other skeptic organizations to reprint articles from The REALL News as long as proper credit is given. REALL also requests that you send copies of your newsletters that reprint our articles to the above address.

The views expressed in these articles are the views of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of REALL.

From The Editor -- Bob Ladendorf

Since February, when REALL was started, we have published an issue a month. At the risk of patting ourselves on the back, it's an accomplishment rarely done in my experience. More often than not, newsletters have been more "periodic" than regular.

With 1994 about to burst upon us, I wanted to thank our readers, supporters, and colleagues for encouraging our skeptical inquiries. I also want to let you know that the best is yet to come_we're planning a special, 12-page anniversary issue in February, a full index of the first year's writings, and lots of new articles on a range of subjects, from "alien suckers" to an encouraging update on the CBS/Sun "documentary" controversy.

Speaking about the coming year and REALL's second year, I wanted to mention that there is a third constant besides death and taxes_it's renewal time! Yes, please save some of that holiday money for a renewal to The REALL News. Just check the expiration date on your newsletter label and renew as early as you can.

With the start of the new year, we are making our January newsletter as the first issue of Volume 2. So don't look for a Volume 1, #12. You won't miss an issue.

Happy Holidays!

/s/ Bob Ladendorf

From the Chairman -- David Bloomberg

Membership renewal time is drawing near for many of us. I can tell because the REALL bank account is steadily getting tinier and tinier (it was never very large). Also, my renewal date is stamped on my mailing label. This will be an important time for REALL, since the number of you who renew will tell us how good a job we've been doing and will determine what kind of activities we can engage in next year.

We'd like to continue to bring you a high-quality monthly newsletter, help educate the public through outreaches such as the Illinois State Teachers Association conference, and bring in speakers and presentations of interest to our members. We'd also like to expand our membership, become an official non-profit organization, and engage in special projects to help educate the public. For all of these things, we need money. (Yes, we even need to pay to become a non-profit organization!)

I don't want to turn this column into a plea for extra donations, and I've never even considered sending out fund- raising letters (you probably get enough of those pleas and letters during this season anyway). I just want to ask you to remember to renew your membership if you have enjoyed this newsletter and/or our meetings and share our goals. If you have the capability, I'd also like to ask you to consider becoming a Patron member of REALL. As the membership form says, we will be eternally grateful!

On a related topic, REALL is always looking for ways to expand our membership to include everybody in Central Illinois who is interested, but may not even know we exist. Our members are probably the best judges of who may or may not be interested. We have offered a gift or trial subscription from our inception, but have not talked much about it. Recently, a few people have taken advantage of it to let their friends know about REALL.

For only $3, you can get a 3-month subscription for your child's science teacher, your friend who shares your views but keeps forgetting to borrow your issues of The REALL News, your younger brother who is just starting to learn about science, or anybody else you think might be interested. The gift recipient will receive a letter from me telling them who bought it for them and explaining what REALL is all about. Gift subscriptions are probably the best way to reach potential new members, as you can act as the judge of who may be interested, rather than the "usual" method of simply taking names off a mailing list.

Well, I think I've preached to you long enough. So, bye for now, and I'll talk to you again next year!

/s/ David Bloomberg

A Nod to Our Patrons

REALL would like to thank our patron members. Through their extra generosity, REALL is able to continue to grow as a force for critical thinking in Illinois. Patron members are those giving $50 or more. To become a patron of REALL, please see the membership form at the end of this issue. Patron members are:

Alan Burge, D.D.S., Pekin Wally Hartshorn, Springfield David Bloomberg, Springfield Bob Ladendorf, Springfield

The Five "Laws" of Quack Science

[Editor's Note: This article is a summary of remarks given by Roy Auerbach, a member of the Executive Committee of The Association for Rational Thought in Cincinnati, Ohio. Permission to edit the remarks for readers of The REALL News was given by the organization.]

Quackery and sound science are not clearly distinguishable categories. Although some sciences are easy to assign to one category or the other, some contain elements of both, and sorting them out requires careful investigation. Mere weirdness does not automatically consign a science to quackery -- legitimate science considers such far-out topics as alternative universes and wormholes.

The first law of quack science is *Think Big*. Quack sciences rarely concern anything less expansive than a theory of the origin of the universe, or least the solar system. Another favorite target of quack science is the discovery of extraordinary significance, for example, an anti-gravity device, or cold fusion, touted as the solution to the world's energy problems. Quack sciences are also likely to take on the giants of sound science, rarely attacking the lowly assistant professor, preferring instead to claim that Einstein (or Newton, Pauling, or Feynman) was wrong.

The second law of quack science is *Think Difficult*. The laws of a quack science are usually claimed to be very difficult to verify. Some researchers may be able to detect the effect, others are not. The effect appears to be sporadic for undetermined reasons. Equipment that detects the effect reliably seems to be hard to come by. The claim is often made that the effect is just beyond the reach of current scientific technology. These same problems occur in sound science, too. But in time, they vanish from sound science as better methods are developed. Quack science is rarely blessed with such progress, and the difficulties persist.

The laws proposed by quack science may be difficult to verify for other reasons -- equipment may be unavailable for inspection, procedures may be unobservable, raw data may be missing, and summary data may not be published in a usable form. Such weaseling occurs in legitimate science, too. It is occasional rather than systematic, however, and is not tolerated by an alert scientific community. Research which is unavailable for thorough inspection and replication is eventually discarded by sound science.

The third law of quack science is the *Rule of Paranoia*: "I'm a genius and they're out to get me." Often the quack scientist views himself or herself as brilliant, which may explain the characteristic tendency to take on the giants of science like Einstein. They are also likely to view themselves as victims of persecution. Fellow scientists are seen as dishonest blockheads who reject the quack scientist's papers, grant applications, and requests for promotion. Huge organizations--the government, business, the "Eastern Establishment," the Trilateral Commission_repress his work. This is a fairly reasonable position to take, considering the reaction of sound scientists to quack efforts. The quack may not be a genius, but legitimate scientists may very well be out to attack her or his research. The uproar over cold fusion is a good example of this characteristic of quack science.

Fourth, quack science is likely to adhere to a characteristic law of dissemination: *No Criticism Allowed*. A typical maneuver is to release the astounding findings to the press before they are available to the scientific community in standard refereed journals. The refereed journals may be passed over in favor of self-publication, where no hyper-critical fellow researchers can slow the flow of information by objecting to the methods used. Publication in conference proceedings, also unrefereed, is another typical path for the dissemination of quack science. The common effect shared by these methods is the production of citable, quotable, published research unimpeded by peer review. This allows the public to absorb the new alleged findings in the absence of immediate critical response.

And finally, the quack scientist is typically a *Lonely Hero of the Laboratory*, isolated in his or her discovery. Scientific advances normally are produced through a social process that involves communities of scientists over time--new findings are often not unexpected and are usually compatible with earlier work. The quack scientific discovery, however, is likely to arrive out of the blue, unsupported by previous research. The isolation of the work is often apparent in the exclusive lingo used to clothe the research--terminology unheard of in mainstream science.

==============================

Several months ago, we here at The REALL News heard from some REALL members that we were tossing around terms that weren't necessarily commonly known. Our original intent was to provide a glossary of terms. Due to the size of the project, and the size of other projects at the same time, we haven't been able to put this together yet. However, the reader may consider this the first of an irregular series of articles discussing terms used frequently in the skeptical literature and debate.

While we have a tendency to paint all creationists with the same brush, they are actually quite a varied bunch who often argue as much among themselves as they do with scientists. They can generally be broken down into two main groups: young-earth and old-earth.

Young-earth creationists generally believe that the universe was created exactly as the Bible states. They are also often referred to a Bible literalists. In other words, the universe, earth, man, etc. was created in six days. Period.

Old-earth creationists are not as literal. They still believe that man was created as-is, without evolution, but they admit the scientific evidence showing that the earth is a great deal older than 6,000 years or so. They generally reconcile this with their religious beliefs by assigning each "day" of biblical creation to an "age" lasting millions of years.

To some young-earth creationists, old-earth creationism is simply a "cop-out." This was the response I received when talking to the young-earth creationist I met at the Illinois Science Teachers Association annual conference in October. Indeed, as I mentioned, young-earth creationists often spend as much time attacking the old-earth creationists as they do evolution.

It should be noted that both of these groups are totally against evolution and differ mainly in their acceptance or rejection of geological evidence. Both reject fossil and biological evidence.

I hate to further confuse things, but I feel I must make one rather long side note. A well-known creationist recently polled American citizens and claimed that 80 percent of them were "creationists". The survey's question, however, was something similar to: "Do you believe in a creator God?" He assumed that anybody who answered positively was a creationist. This is a false assumption. It is quite possible to believe in a creator God without rejecting evolution. There are many people who believe that God created the universe through the Big Bang (or a similar method) and then created man through evolution. Creationists, both young-earth and old-earth, would certainly never accept this. But this is a belief, and as such, has no place in scientific argument. Did God create the Big Bang? It is quite impossible to say scientifically. Since REALL only deals with scientifically-testable claims, this falls outside the boundary of our area.

There are mounds of scientific evidence to support evolution. There is no scientific evidence to support creationism. The Supreme Court has ruled that the teaching of creationism is tantamount to the teaching of religion, and thus forbidden in public schools. When creationists, whether young-earth or old-earth, attack evolution as "another belief system," they ignore these simple facts.

REALLity Check

For a welcome change, there are a lot of "hurrahs" to go around in this edition of "REALLity Check."

The first of our "hurrahs" goes to the Illinois Times, which reported about the Champaign-Urbana Church of Christ (Oct. 21), a group widely considered to be a cult. 20/20_ also did a similar story a few weeks earlier on the national group related to the C-U one. The article discussed some of the methods used by the group to ensnare new members, along with the general spread of cults on college campus.

Name: _________________________________________________________

Address: ______________________________________________________

City, State, ZIP: _____________________________________________

Phone: ________________________________________________________

Interests: ____________________________________________________

		___      Regular Membership ($20/Year)
		___      Student Membership ($15/Year)
		___      Family Membership ($30/Year)
		___      Patron Membership ($50 or more/Year)
		___      Subscription Only ($12/Year)
		___      Trial or Gift Subscription ($3 for 3 issues)

Bring to a meeting or mail to:  REALL, P.O.
				Box 20302




REALL
About Us
Newsletter
Letters
Calendar
Links
Search
E-Mail