Dingwall had an uneasy relationship with organized psychical research. For a short time he was research officer of the SPR, but that did not last. In his reminiscences on Dingwall, SPR president Alan Gauld described his mischievous and disruptive nature,48 and that is evidenced by the reports of the Annual General Meetings of the SPR, which frequently noted his complaints about how the society was run. In later years, D. J. West tried to convince others to elect Dingwall to the Council, but he was unsuccessful.
Dingwall was also a member of CSICOP and the Rationalist Press Association, and his numerous trickster elements seem to have been balanced by his almost rabid rationalistic beliefs. For instance in one of his essays he blamed parapsychologists for the rise of interest in occultism, and he also commented that “Christianity, unbelievable as it may be to the rational mind, has been supported by the occult superstitions of darker ages.” His strong beliefs may have provided him some structure when grappling with the paranormal.
Dingwall was seen as an “individual” rather than as one who found identity by holding a position in some institution. Although he was employed by several organizations, his private means allowed him to independently pursue personal interests. His anti-structural qualities can be seen in a variety of contexts.
I have referred to a number of Dingwall’s works in preparing this book, and in them I have found exceedingly rich detail, illuminating case studies, but lacking strong, explicit theoretical orientation. His emphasis was on the concrete rather than the abstract.51
Lessons of the Exemplars
None of these three personalities can be described as “normal”; they really are unusual characters. None have held long-term, prominent positions in structured institutions; they are known for individual achievements rather than for directing the work of organizations. All three could be described as disruptive and were known for rocking the boat. Unusual sexuality is prominent in their lives, and all have been intensely involved with magic and the paranormal. Shiels used trickery to fake paranormal events; both Randi and Dingwall spent much of their time exposing similar attempts. Randi and Dingwall display strong rationalistic beliefs which may afford some structure and protection; Shiels’ surrealist worldview perhaps does not furnish the same benefits.
The writings of Randi and Dingwall give much specific detail and rather little on theory, and this perhaps signals another similarity between magicians and mystics. Both are characterized by relatively low levels of abstraction. Magic books and magazines are filled with specific methods for tricks, but very little space is devoted to theoretical ideas. The major magic histories—The Illustrated History of Magic (1973) by Milbourne Christopher, The Great Illusionists (1979) by Edwin Dawes, and Magic: A Pictorial History of Conjurers in the Theater (1985) by David Price—give exceptional, sometimes excruciating, detail, but they offer scant theoretical perspective. At least in the open literature, there is relatively little theoretical work on deception per se (though there is much on the psychology of it). This is puzzling given the vast literature on conjuring and the practical applications (such as defense intelligence). The subject of deception appears somewhat resistant to useful abstraction and theorizing.52
Summary
Conjurors fake paranormal phenomena; illusions of the supernatural are their stock-in-trade. Major stage productions incorporate themes of death, dismemberment, and rebirth. Mentalists counterfeit ESP. None of this is new. Shamans in earlier cultures did the same thing. The paranormal has been affiliated with trickery for thousands of years, and this is an important clue to its nature.
Debates still rage whether famous “psychics” were really only magicians, and conversely, conjurors are often suspected of having psychic powers. They intentionally blur the lines between genuine-spurious and fact-fiction. Some encourage the public to believe in psi, even when they don’t themselves.
Many famous magicians in history believed in paranormal phenomena; others were among the most vociferous debunkers. For over a century conjurors have played major roles in the public debates on the paranormal. Their visibility often eclipsed the scientists. The controversy over the reality of psi rages even within the magic community, and that indicates an especially problematic condition.
Conjuring has trickster qualities in addition to deception and the paranormal. There are other liminal features. Magic is a marginal art. Unlike music or drama, there are no university departments devoted to it, and outside Las Vegas, there are almost no performance halls dedicated primarily to magic. Magicians often work solo; rarely do they use a large cast. Conjurors’ employment is generally temporary, and most are forced to travel from engagement to engagement. Marginality, solitariness, and travel are all associated with the trickster. Further, magicians have been among the most effective promoters of hypnosis—a liminal phenomenon par excellence.
Conjuring and deception are pertinent to theoretical issues addressed in later chapters, and it may help the reader to give some idea of the topics to come. Briefly, deception takes advantage of people’s assumptions. Assumptions are simply abstractions and representations of the world, and they are necessarily incomplete. The issues of abstraction and representation will be discussed later, in conjunction with literary theory and related topics. Deception is somewhat resistant to abstraction; so is mystical experience.
CHAPTER 12
CSICOP and the Debunkers
I am an enemy to all the gods.
Prometheus1
The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP, pronounced “sigh cop”) is the most aggressive antagonist of the paranormal today. As such, analysis of the group provides a wealth of insight. CSICOP’s personnel, its organizational structure, its operations, and its demographics tell us much about the paranormal and its status in our culture.
The Committee was founded at the 1976 convention of the
American Humanist Association. It quickly grew, and its magazine
2
The Skeptical Inquirer has a circulation of over 50,000. A survey of its readership found that 54% have an advanced degree and 27% hold a doctorate. CSICOP’s Fellows have included Francis Crick, Murray Gell-Mann, Leon Lederman, Glenn Seaborg, and Steven Weinberg, all Nobel laureates, as well as paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, psychologist B. F. Skinner, astronomer Carl Sagan, writer Isaac Asimov, zoologist Richard Dawkins, and philosopher Sidney Hook, among others. CSICOP is headquartered just off the Amherst Campus of the State University of New York at Buffalo in a new 25,000 square foot office building costing $4,000,000, a figure they surpassed in their fundraising for the project. The Committee has spawned more than 65 local and international groups with similar aims. All this is an impressive accomplishment, and CSICOP is highly visible within academe and elite culture. Its success is in marked contrast to scientific parapsychology. The circulation of the Journal of Parapsychology is 757.5 Understandably, many see the Committee as a legitimate scientific authority on the paranormal.
While it purports to be impartial, CSICOP’s early rhetoric revealed its actual agenda. In an interview for Science magazine, Lee Nis-bet, Executive Director of the Committee, articulated its position: “It’s [belief in the paranormal] a very dangerous phenomenon, dangerous to science, dangerous to the basic fabric of our society … We feel it is the duty of the scientific community to show that these beliefs are utterly screwball.” Since the early days, CSICOP has slightly tempered its rhetoric but not its stance. It still aggressively denounces the paranormal and labels it as irrational. CSICOP serves as a force for marginalizing the supernatural, and that is its primary function.
Parapsychologists, not surprisingly, sometimes see CSICOP as the enemy. However, such an attitude keeps them from recognizing the larger picture. The Committee only exemplifies pervasive patterns and personifies social forces at work today. CSICOP benefits parapsychology because its antagonism is explicit rather than hidden, and detached examination can clarify issues. The Committee should become an
object of study and contemplation.
CSICOP can be profitably compared and contrasted with those who intentionally attempt to elicit paranormal phenomena. A number of such groups will be covered in later chapters, including parapsychologists, spiritualists, the New Age movement, and modern-day witchcraft. Please remember CSICOP when reading about them, because they provide stark contrasts with the Committee and its constituency. CSICOP upholds the status quo. It is structural rather than anti-structural; it values hierarchy over communitas; it desires stability rather than liminality. Nevertheless, because it directly confronts the paranormal, it cannot escape a certain influence from it, and as I will show, the trickster manifests with both the supernatural and its opponents.
In 1992 I published a 45-page overview of CSICOP. I identified four distinguishing features of the Committee: association with high status scientists, heavy dominance by males, pervasive anti-religious sentiment, and an active role by magicians. That paper was largely descriptive; it had extensive documentation but little interpretation. The presentation here is more interpretive. Those wishing greater detail about specifics of CSICOP might seek out my earlier paper.
CSICOP and Science
CSICOP purports to be scientific, but for many years it had an official policy against conducting research itself. The genesis of that policy is amusing. In 1975, before CSICOP was founded, philosopher Paul Kurtz produced a manifesto denouncing astrology, and 186 scientists signed it. That generated intense media coverage and served as a springboard to establish the Committee. Kurtz went on to urge newspapers to label their astrology columns as follows: “ Warning: If taken seriously, this column may be dangerous to your health!” (Kurtz’s emphasis). At that time, Kurtz was editor of The Humanist, and he had allowed some scientifically erroneous attacks on astrology to be published in the magazine.
Under pressure to defend his position, Kurtz was challenged to undertake a scientific study to confirm or dispute some astrological findings of Michel Gauquelin. He and a few colleagues accepted the challenge. Very early on, Dennis Rawlins, an astronomer and member of CSICOP’s Executive Council, warned them of serious problems with their approach, and he later volunteered to assist with the calculations for the project. Data were collected and analyzed, and the results supported Gauquelin’s findings that the position of Mars at a person’s birth was related to sports ability. Rawlins understood that Kurtz’s method was flawed and was unconvinced by the data, but he also said that the outcome, favorable to Gauquelin, should be frankly acknowledged. Kurtz was enraged by that advice, and he refused to heed it. Rawlins charged Kurtz with covering up the mistakes, and he repeatedly tried to bring the problems to the attention of other CSICOP members. Rawlins was rebuffed and eventually forced out of the Committee, and a number of other CSICOP members resigned because of the cover-up. Rawlins published a 32-page exposé in the October 1981 issue of Fate magazine, and that same month CSICOP adopted a formal policy of not conducting research.
After the scandal became public, sociologists Trevor Pinch and Harry Collins published a study of CSICOP. They explicitly warned the Committee that if they actually conducted research, they would no longer be able to hold the views of science that they did. Scientific processes are not nearly as objective as commonly thought, and social factors play a significant role in interpreting results. This is entirely counter to CSICOP’s ideology. If one does research, one runs the risk of obtaining uncongenial results, a danger Kurtz by then undoubtedly understood. In any event, the Committee’s policy accorded with the advice of Pinch and Collins to not undertake research.
Instead of scientific investigation, CSICOP’s primary efforts are directed to influencing public opinion. Its magazine carries innumerable articles decrying the media’s treatment of the paranormal and describing CSICOP’s attempts to combat the favorable coverage. The priorities are particularly striking in its Manual for Local, Regional and
National Groups (1987). Seventeen pages are devoted to “Handling the Media” and “Public Relations”; in contrast only three pages are given to “Scientific Investigation.” No scientific references are cited in that section, and the reader is referred to Paul Kurtz’s book The Transcendental Temptation for an explanation of the scientific method. That volume is by no means a scientific handbook, and among other things, it suggests that Jesus and Lazarus had a homosexual relationship. This is an example of promoting an essentially religious work as a scientific text, a tactic CSICOP frequently accuses their opposition of using.
CSICOP’s actual function can be seen by contrasting it with scientific organizations such as the American Physical Society, the American Anthropological Association, and the American Chemical Society. These and hundreds of others share some common characteristics. Their goals, organizational structure, operations, and demographics indicate how scientific societies advance their fields. Table 6 lists some contrasts between them and CSICOP.
Table 6, by itself, should alert any reader that scientific research is not a high priority of the Committee. This is not surprising, given that of the four members of its board of directors, only one, James Alcock, is a scientist.
Though it has a building worth several million dollars, a paid staff, and a good size library, CSICOP has no research program. In fact for the first 15 years of its existence, none of the scientist-members of its Executive Council ever published a report of a parapsychology experiment in a refereed journal. CSICOP has not established a laboratory in which researchers might attempt to elicit paranormal phenomena; it makes no effort at research similar to that of a scientific organization. However, occasionally a member conducts an ad hoc test of a psychic during an afternoon and writes up a brief report for a popular periodical.
The Committee should not be criticized too harshly for all this, because scientists firmly ensconced in the academic establishment rarely if ever explicitly address paranormal claims, but CSICOP does. Their willingness to confront the paranormal acknowledges its importance, at least indirectly, and this has consequences. To some extent, CSICOP holds a betwixt and between status. It is headquartered just off a university campus, and that is symbolic of a larger pattern. CSICOP serves as a buffer between the academic establishment and claims of the paranormal. The claims are not brought inside academe but handled at its border. The most eminent scientist-members have
Scientific Societies
CSICOP
Scientific societies publish technical,
CSICOP publishes no journal. It
peer-reviewed journals that are primar
produces a popular magazine carrying
ily geared for specialists in the disci
cartoons and caricatures and recom-
pline.
mends that technical papers be submit-
ted to scientific periodicals.
Scientific journals are edited by spe-
The Skeptical Inquirer is edited by a
cialists who have training in the disci-
journalist.
pline and who have made technical
contributions to that field.
Scientific societies are headed by emi-
CSICOP is headed by a philosopher-
nent scientists who have made major
businessman who has never published
contributions to their fields.
any empirical research on the para-
normal in a refereed scientific journal.
Heads of scientific societies typically
The chairman of CSICOP has held his
serve for a year or two.
position for over two decades.
Scientific societies’ governing boards
Many members of CSICOP’s board of
are typically elected, and their mem-
directors and executive council have
bers serve for a few years.
maintained their positions for decades.
Scientific societies’ governing boards
Many mem
bers of CSICOP’s board of
are typically elected, and their mem-
directors and executive council have
bers serve for a few years.
maintained their positions for decades.
Scientific organizations arrange confer
CSICOP puts on conferences for the
ences for specialists. Calls for papers
general public with particular emphasis
are printed in journals, and submitted
on the media. Calls for papers are not
papers are refereed.
issued. Presentations are geared for the
general public rather than technical
specialists.
Scientific organizations promote pro-
CSICOP promotes lay organizations.
fessional development among students
in academic departments.
Status in scientific organizations de-
Status in CSICOP is dependent upon
pends upon publication of papers in
The Trickster and the Paranormal Page 17