I see from the archives that (natch) Atlantis Rising magazine is pretty well known on the forums. I've had cause to pay a small fee for a recent issue containing an article I needed for my own research, and though that article was relatively sound in terms of scepticism, that seems largely because it's part of a spat between pseudo-historians. And the rest of the issue is positively barking.
My favourite chortle-worthy article is entitled "Can We See the Future? Scientists, Citing New Research, Say the Answer Is Yes", by John Kettler. You know you're in for a fun ride when you encounter the line "There are skeptics, and there are “skeptics.”" That's right folks, a real skeptic is open to new ideas, whereas "skeptics" like CSICOP and James Randi (for tis he mainly being pilloried) simply pretends to be open minded. The oldest of old chestnuts.
The best this guy can manage is ad hominem, but what ad hom it is! He accuses Randi of, having failed to derail a psychic experiment, orchestrating a "black magic attack" upon good ol' Uri Geller. It's all here. Quite, quite odd. He then claims that had Geller won the prize
Which (bizarre accusations of psychic sabotage notwithstanding) I suppose is quite true. It would also rewrite history, win Geller a Nobel Prize, and usher in a new era of science etc etc. There's a pretty big "if" attached to that, which must be where the crazy claims come in. If you buy into woo, this sort of conspiracy makes perfect sense.
It's a bit of a tutorial in logical fallacies, including a false appeal to the authority of Jesse Marcel re the Roswell crash, and a false dichotomy of "parachute-equipped dummies" (one explanation for a Roswell sighting) vs "it really was aliens!". Then, as if by magic (ha ha), Victor Zammit makes an appearance later on in the article, with a link to his skeptic "debunking" page. Blah blah, "entrenched belief systems", yackety schmackety.
Luckily, "Dr" Danny Penman is a "real" skeptic, and was able to see the true power of the dreaded Sally Morgan (several threads on her already). Never mind that his PhD is in biochemistry and his career in tabloid journalism. What matters is that he has a qualification and drank Morgan's kool-ade after being suckered by one of her cold-readings, and therefore "skepticism" is somehow discredited. His revelations are outlined here. Apparently he "..decided to accept a paranormal explanation for Sally’s powers only after ruling out all conventional ones.” By this he means he did some Googling and archive searches and concluded, as does the writer of the article, that "she’d either plucked it from his mind or had
gotten it through psychic and/or mediumistic means." By "plucked" they mean via hypnosis, staggeringly. No mention of Cold Reading, even as a "discounted" possible explanation, is made.
And then, just when your spinal chord is about to leap up and strangle your brain in frustration, here comes the punchline:
At last we come to the supposed scientific evidence for clairvoyance, and it's (you've guessed it) Dean Radin et al's "conscious universe" guff. Bit of an anticlimax really, but +1 for your woo bingo scorecard.
This thing only cost me £1.50 for literally seconds of top-quality amusement. It's like woo porn. The advertisements alone, including one for libido-enhancing braces (yes, you read correctly), make The Onion seem redundant, and the desktop publishing skills used to create it surpass even those of Viz. My only real worry is that my own confirmation bias is making me think that the article I wanted it for actually makes sense. Because the rest of it makes none whatsoever.
Perhaps I should just give up being sceptical and join in the fun. How can something so wrong feel so good?
My favourite chortle-worthy article is entitled "Can We See the Future? Scientists, Citing New Research, Say the Answer Is Yes", by John Kettler. You know you're in for a fun ride when you encounter the line "There are skeptics, and there are “skeptics.”" That's right folks, a real skeptic is open to new ideas, whereas "skeptics" like CSICOP and James Randi (for tis he mainly being pilloried) simply pretends to be open minded. The oldest of old chestnuts.
The best this guy can manage is ad hominem, but what ad hom it is! He accuses Randi of, having failed to derail a psychic experiment, orchestrating a "black magic attack" upon good ol' Uri Geller. It's all here. Quite, quite odd. He then claims that had Geller won the prize
Which (bizarre accusations of psychic sabotage notwithstanding) I suppose is quite true. It would also rewrite history, win Geller a Nobel Prize, and usher in a new era of science etc etc. There's a pretty big "if" attached to that, which must be where the crazy claims come in. If you buy into woo, this sort of conspiracy makes perfect sense.
It's a bit of a tutorial in logical fallacies, including a false appeal to the authority of Jesse Marcel re the Roswell crash, and a false dichotomy of "parachute-equipped dummies" (one explanation for a Roswell sighting) vs "it really was aliens!". Then, as if by magic (ha ha), Victor Zammit makes an appearance later on in the article, with a link to his skeptic "debunking" page. Blah blah, "entrenched belief systems", yackety schmackety.
Luckily, "Dr" Danny Penman is a "real" skeptic, and was able to see the true power of the dreaded Sally Morgan (several threads on her already). Never mind that his PhD is in biochemistry and his career in tabloid journalism. What matters is that he has a qualification and drank Morgan's kool-ade after being suckered by one of her cold-readings, and therefore "skepticism" is somehow discredited. His revelations are outlined here. Apparently he "..decided to accept a paranormal explanation for Sally’s powers only after ruling out all conventional ones.” By this he means he did some Googling and archive searches and concluded, as does the writer of the article, that "she’d either plucked it from his mind or had
gotten it through psychic and/or mediumistic means." By "plucked" they mean via hypnosis, staggeringly. No mention of Cold Reading, even as a "discounted" possible explanation, is made.
And then, just when your spinal chord is about to leap up and strangle your brain in frustration, here comes the punchline:
At last we come to the supposed scientific evidence for clairvoyance, and it's (you've guessed it) Dean Radin et al's "conscious universe" guff. Bit of an anticlimax really, but +1 for your woo bingo scorecard.
This thing only cost me £1.50 for literally seconds of top-quality amusement. It's like woo porn. The advertisements alone, including one for libido-enhancing braces (yes, you read correctly), make The Onion seem redundant, and the desktop publishing skills used to create it surpass even those of Viz. My only real worry is that my own confirmation bias is making me think that the article I wanted it for actually makes sense. Because the rest of it makes none whatsoever.
Perhaps I should just give up being sceptical and join in the fun. How can something so wrong feel so good?
