Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00077)

"Daniel H. Caldwell" wrote:
> I have studied the "skeptical" movement (CSICOP and similar groups)
> for more than 20 years. I have compiled [see below] an extensive
> list of links showing the arguments used for and against the
> paranormal.

First of all, thanks. I am putting together a web site on how to do
research on the Internet, and would like permission to use this as a
listed resource.

I have agreed for a long time that most CSICOP'er are scoffers rather
than skeptics. I remember one article in particular they put out about
the testing of Therapeutic Touch in a Pentagon-funded study. The only
credentials of the authors were that they were active skeptics, and
their sole argument was: We already know that Therapeutic Touch was
nonsense, so we don't want taxpayer money spent proving it (and the
unstated, "and possibly proving us wrong and disrupting our
world-view").

The people behind these two sites (to which you also refer), I have
found to be superior, and useful.

http://www.skepdic.com/
The editor frequently has intelligent opposing points of view, and
documents very well.

http://www.skeptic.com/
Somewhat better than CSICOP, they print opposing viewpoints, and are
willing to admit that they might be wrong. They fall into some of the
same traps that are pointed out in
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/skepticbibliobysubject.htm but, if you
keep this in mind while reading their articles, they contain valuable
information in separating true pseudo-science from possible
proto-science.

Bart Lidofsky