Subversive Thinking responds to Mesner review of The Spiritual Brain

Jime Sanaka kindly writes to say:

I wrote in my blog a long reply to Doug Mesner's uncharitable review of your book Any feedback or comments would be much appreciated.

Sanaka has this episode in mind. He writes,

(Remember that Mesner's review was written for the Skeptic Magazine; thus, his rhetorical tactics explained in this post makes full sense if you keep in mind to what audience his review is presented to. He's trying to reach the audience of that magazine and prevent the readers to actually read the book. Given that most of the readers of that magazine are materialistic atheists or agnostics, and many of them openly hostile to religion, Mesner's rhetorical strategy to discredit the book associating it with creationism and religion will work for that audience)

Note that Mesner quoted part of the information in the inside flap of the book (an information likely added by the publisher, not by the authors; omitting this possibility, Mesner uses such information to cast doubts about the authors' intellectual honesty).

Sanaka is certainly correct about that. Authors have very little to say, usually, about the promotional copy written for their book, beyond correcting the most basic errors of fact. I have been formally advised by literary coaches to be cautious about bugging the publicist about anything else, because publishers' staff can lose interest in a book whose authors are a pain to work with.

Anyway, you are quite right: If someone wants to review a book, positively or negatively, it is best to focus on what the authors say in their own words, not what the publicist says.

For example, for the record, I am not Denis Leary (a man) and do not have a degree from MIT, as some have claimed on the Internet. I have an honours degree in English Language and Literature from Sir Wilfred Laurier University ('71). That's the level at which I have the right to protest what is said about me.

My main complaint about the approach of the Skeptics at Skeptic Magazine is that, so far as I can see, they major in one-way skepticism. They are skeptical about some things, but not others. So there is no internal check for their own biases.

For example, faced with a story about healing through prayer, they would immediately seek to debunk it, irrespective of evidence.

As a Catholic, I believe that healing through prayer happens - but that, of course, does not require me to believe every such story I hear - or even most of them. Mine is a two-way skepticism about such matters.

Again, thanks much, Mr. Sanaka, and by the way, your English is very good.

Straws in the wind: Why did “skeptics” society CSICOP change its name?

Call me slow, but I only recently twigged to the significance of the name change that Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP, founded in 1979) underwent in 2006, to become the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI). Various explanations are given, including that the former name was “too long” and

The change comes, in part, due to the prominence of the word “paranormal” in the well-known acronym. Executive Council member Kendrick Frazier, editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, said the reference sometimes led those unfamiliar with the group to narrowly limit their concept of the organization’s goals. Also, misconceptions of motives had to be continually corrected.

The November 30 press release also goes on to say that the problem was that the old name caused people to think that CSICOP promoted the paranormal.

Oh, I doubt anyone thought that about CSICOP. And few missed the significance of the "COP" part. No doubt, for many members, that was the real attraction.

I bet the real story (whatever it is) is entangled with something that Mario Beauregard and I discuss in The Spiritual Brain: Laboratory research confirms telepathy as a low level effect, and has done so for decades. As New Scientist's John McCrone noted in 2004,

In many ways, it is the skeptical community that is on the back foot, unable to explain away the results in terms of cheating, artefact or fluke. They are back to making suspicious noises about why believers get results.

Yes, that and changing the name of an organization to bury the problem?

Whatever causes the CSI people take up, they will remain unidirectional skeptics. But they seem to be backing off wholesale disproof of the non-material elements of our lives (the paranormal).

Here’s a further explanation from CSI/CSICOP and here from founder and chairman Paul Kurtz.

Thinkquote of the day: Skeptical of "skepticism"

In its March-April Newsletter, the Center for Naturalism (there is no mind, only matter) offers a variety of resources, including a link to an article by Ralph Dumain that attempts to explore the uses of the terms "naturalism" and "materialism." It appears that, for all practical purposes, the terms are commonly used in the same way.

In my previous book By Design or by Chance?, I used the term "naturalism" and in the present, co-authored book, Spiritual Brain, I called it materialism.

That said, author Ralph Dumain shares my, um, skepticism about the use of the term "skepticism" to cover the waterfront of materialism and naturalism:

I have a fundamental problem with adoption of the term skepticism. As represented in magazines like Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, the term is applied to paranormal and other claims deemed disreputable by these proponents of reputable science. I object to the term because some of the individuals involved themselves and their knowledge claims merit skeptical scrutiny, but more generally because "skepticism" is also a philosophical position which I would not want to adopt or see confused with the specific meaning adopted by the "skeptical" movement, which has ties to secular humanist and atheist circles.

Indeed. One possible difference between materialism and naturalism that occurs to me is this: A materialist must deny the existence and efficacy of the mind and therefore - to grab an example - use every tool available at his disposal to discredit psi/paranormal research. But, if he decides to start calling himself a naturalist, it is unclear why he must continue to do that. We don't know all that is in nature (think of the dark matter problem, for example). If some people can beat the odds on guessing remote information, well then they can.

I myself call these skeptical inquirers "unidirectional skeptics" because their skepticism (of psi research, for example) flows only one way. Their agenda is pretty obvious, and that's not surprising because they have a complex problem on their hands: Whereas a non-materialist like myself can readily conceded that some claims for psi are not validated in the lab, the materialist must insist that no such claim is ever legitimately validated. His entire system depends on no psi claim ever being true. So he is - understandably - in a constant state of agitation about such claims and must seek to discredit every one. The worst part of his being such a busy little bee is that he helps to winnow the better ones.

Plus, in a display of absurd pretension, the unidirectional skeptics also like to call themselves "freethinkers" and to announce to the world that they engage in "free thought." Oh really? Tell that to poor young Sam Harris, the non-materialist atheist. He can tell you how much free thought is allowed in such groups. And it's all the funnier because they represent such a small splinter of atheism.