Reader Response

Also, as a NZCSICOP newcomer, I’d like to respond to Carl Wyant, who asked why skeptic groups rarely attack the Big Groups. Firstly, skeptics challenging religious beliefs or their legal implications do so elsehere as atheistic or political groups. Secondly, religious belief is untestable, so a skeptic cannot point to refuting evidence. The argument reduces to philosophy. Thirdly, pseudoscience is a lot more irritating than something not even pretending to be scientific.

I would like to comment on a note in the #22 Hokum Locum column. Dr Welch called tinted lenses developed (in 1983) by a “marriage guidance counsellor” a “quack” treatment. Firstly, Irlen is a psychologist and I haven’t heard of her being a counsellor.

It is true that favourable studies have not usually been judged to be up to full scientific scratch (see pro and critical papers in the Dec 1990 <I>Journal of Learning Disabilities<D>, including an experimentation validity paper by R. Parker). Criticisms I find in the literature are: a) the lenses do reduce distortion, but orthodox treatment may work better; b) longer term scientific studies have not been done; c) no complete mechanism has yet been found.

These valid points mean the onus is on the Irlen lens proponents to scientifically demonstrate their worth. But I feel the label “quack treatment” is unjustified.

Matthew Hobbs, Wellington

No Crusades

The letter from Carl Wyant (Forum, March 1992) asks, “…why the Skeptics are so quick to pounce on relatively trivial paranormalities … yet never appear to say anything about the seriously dangerous personalities, such as Christians, Muslims, among others.”

Like many, I started subscribing to The Skeptical Inquirer (the parent skeptical publication) after reading the famous “Metamagical Themas” article by Douglas P. Hofstadter in Scientific American around ten years ago.

It was refreshing and novel to encounter a skeptical approach to claims of the paranormal. Organised skepticism did not provide some sort of substitute religion without a god. Hofstadter wrote that the aim was “simply to combat nonsense”, while the methods used were the testing of claims coupled with rational debate.

Carl Wyant seems to suggest some sort of crusade against organised religion.

Now although I would agree with Bertrand Russell that the “great religions” have, on the whole, done more harm than good, I would not wish to belong to an organisation that set out to tackle what Carl Wyant calls “these Big Groups”. Past experience shows that enthusiasts who do so set out, quickly turn into just another religious group themselves.

While as for crusades, many will be skeptical as to the benefits provided by such endeavours.

It is fine to be skeptical about all religious claims, but let us not aim to try to destroy belief — this would be sheer folly. But when people make testable claims, whether religious or otherwise, let us test them.

Do not imagine that people will suddenly abandon irrational modes of thought, but let us try to increase the amount of rational discussion in New Zealand. These aims may be more modest than some would like, but they have the advantage of being attainable.

Jim Ring, Nelson

Environmental Skepticism

Dr Vincent Gray has written a very pertinent and timely article in “The Skeptical Environmentalist” (Skeptic #23).

Dr Gray’s criticisms of environmentalists are very much in line with a re-appraisal of the so-called greenhouse effect by American climatologists, meteorologists and geophysicists.

In February, the Washington-based Science and Environmental Project released a public statement signed by 43 prominent scientists. It said, in part:

We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science.

They further spoke of:

…the unsupported assumptions that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.

The tragedy of “Green” scare stories is that their public credibility decreases each time a hoax is exposed. However, the media (Skeptic excluded) can always be relied on to seize the chance to scare the public out of their wits.

Mike Houlding, Tauranga

Recommended Posts