Editing Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (section)

== Controversy and criticism ==
[[Image:Uri Geller.jpg|right|thumb|[[Uri Geller]] filed a number of unsuccessful lawsuits against CSICOP.]]

CSI's activities have garnered criticism from individuals or groups which have been the focus of the organization's attention.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/nicholls-prn.html| title = The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom| publisher = www.cfpf.org.uk| access-date = 13 August 2006| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060826014714/http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/nicholls-prn.html| archive-date = 26 August 2006| url-status = dead}}</ref>  Television celebrity and claimed psychic [[Uri Geller]], for example, was formerly in open dispute with the organization, filing a number of unsuccessful lawsuits against them.<ref>Truzzi, M (1996) from the Parapsychological Association newsletter {{cite web|url=http://66.221.71.68/psir.htm |title=PSI Researcher |access-date=2006-11-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080602021158/http://66.221.71.68/psir.htm |archive-date=2008-06-02 }}</ref> Some criticism has also come from within the scientific community and at times from within CSI itself. [[Marcello Truzzi]], one of CSICOP's co-founders, left the organization after only a short time, arguing that many of those involved "tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blavatskyarchives.com/zeteticism.htm|title=Parapsychology, Anomalies, Science, Skepticism, and CSICOP|work=blavatskyarchives.com|access-date=October 12, 2006|archive-date=October 7, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061007185135/http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/zeteticism.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> Truzzi coined the term ''[[pseudoskeptic]]'' to describe critics in whom he detected such an attitude.<ref>"Marcello Truzzi, [http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html On Pseudo-Skepticism] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110310113805/http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html |date=March 10, 2011 }}"  ''[[Zetetic Scholar]]'' (1987)  No. 12/13, 3-4.</ref>

=== Mars effect, 1975 ===
An early controversy concerned the so-called [[Mars effect]]: French statistician [[Michel Gauquelin]]'s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky. In late 1975, prior to the formal launch of CSICOP, astronomer [[Dennis Rawlins]], along with [[Paul Kurtz]], George Abell and Marvin Zelen (all subsequent members of CSICOP) began investigating the claim. Rawlins, a founding member of CSICOP at its launch in May 1976, resigned in early 1980 claiming that other CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science, and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin's claims. In an article for the pro-paranormal magazine ''[[Fate (magazine)|Fate]]'', he wrote: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism."<ref>{{cite web
| last = Rawlins
| first = Dennis
| year = 1981
| url = https://www.discord.org/lippard/rawlins-starbaby.txt
| title = sTARBABY
| publisher = FATE Magazine
| access-date = 2006-06-21
| archive-date = June 15, 2006
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060615224537/http://www.discord.org/~lippard/rawlins-starbaby.txt
| url-status = live
}} Rawlins's account of the Mars Effect investigation</ref> CSICOP's [[Philip J. Klass]] responded by circulating an article to CSICOP members critical of Rawlins' arguments and motives;<ref>{{cite web
| last = Klass
| first = Philip J.
| year = 1981
| url = https://www.discord.org/lippard/klass-crybaby.txt
| title = Crybaby
| access-date = 2010-12-03
| archive-date = July 21, 2011
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110721044611/http://www.discord.org/~lippard/klass-crybaby.txt
| url-status = live
}}</ref> Klass's unpublished response, refused publication by ''Fate'', itself became the target for further criticism.{{citation needed|date=August 2016}}

=== Church of Scientology, 1977 ===

In 1977, an [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] raid on the offices of the [[Church of Scientology]] uncovered a project to discredit CSICOP so that it and its publications would cease criticism of [[Dianetics]] and [[Scientology]]. This included forging a [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] memo and sending it to media sources, including ''[[The New York Times]]'', to spread rumors that CSICOP was a front group for the CIA. A letter from CSICOP founder Paul Kurtz was forged to discredit him in the eyes of parapsychology researchers.<ref>{{cite news|work=Toronto Globe and Mail|date=January 25, 1980|last=Marshall|first=John|title=Cult order sought to end scientists' criticism}}</ref>

=== Natasha Demkina, 2004 ===

In 2004, CSICOP was accused of scientific misconduct over its involvement in the [[Discovery Channel]]'s test of the "girl with X-ray eyes", [[Natasha Demkina]]. In a self-published commentary, Nobel Prize-winning physicist [[Brian David Josephson|Brian Josephson]] criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive" rather than judged in the negative. Josephson, the director of the [[University of Cambridge]]'s [[Mind–Matter Unification Project]], questioned the researchers' motives, saying: "On the face of it, it looks as if there was some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic by setting up the conditions to make it likely that they could pass her off as a failure."<ref>{{cite web |last= Josephson |first= Brian |author-link= Brian Josephson |title= Scientists' unethical use of media for propaganda purposes |url= http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/propaganda/ |access-date= 2006-08-31 |website= tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk |archive-date= June 15, 2006 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060615023610/http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/ |url-status= live }}</ref> [[Ray Hyman]], one of the three researchers who designed and conducted the test, published a response to this and other criticisms.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.abelard.org/briefings/bayes.htm#testing_for_rare_conditions |title= Cause, Chance and Bayesian Statistics: A Briefing Document |access-date= 2006-09-11 |website= abelard.org |archive-date= August 31, 2006 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060831185909/http://www.abelard.org/briefings/bayes.htm#testing_for_rare_conditions |url-status= live }}</ref><ref name="Statistics-Natasha">{{cite web |last= Hyman |first= Ray |author-link= Ray Hyman |title= Statistics and the Test of Natasha |publisher= CSICOP |url= http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/statistics_and_the_test_of_natasha |access-date= 2013-08-31 |website= csicop.org |date= June 7, 2005 |archive-date= April 19, 2013 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130419011638/http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/statistics_and_the_test_of_natasha/ |url-status= live }}</ref> CSI's Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.csmmh.org/ |title=Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100925212414/http://www.csmmh.org/ |archive-date=2010-09-25 }}</ref> also published a detailed response to these and other objections, saying that the choice of critical level was appropriate, because her claims were unlikely to be true:<ref name="Statistics-Natasha" /><ref>{{cite web |publisher= CSMMH |url= http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/answerstocritics.html |title= ''Answer to Critics'' |access-date= 2006-09-11 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20050204152650/http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/answerstocritics.html |archive-date= 2005-02-04}}</ref> <blockquote>I decided against setting the critical level at seven because this would require Natasha to be 100% accurate in our test. We wanted to give her some leeway. More important, setting the critical value at seven would make it difficult to detect a true effect. On the other hand, I did not want to set the critical value at four because this would be treating the hypothesis that she could see into people's bodies as if it were highly plausible. The compromise was to set the value at five.</blockquote>

=== General criticism and reply ===

On a more general level, proponents of parapsychology have accused CSI of [[pseudoskepticism]],  and an overly dogmatic and arrogant approach based on ''[[A priori and a posteriori|a priori]]'' convictions.{{citation needed|date=August 2016}} A 1992 article<!--Or perhaps an editorial? I have no way of knowing. ([[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]], 16:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)).--> in ''[[The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research]]'', an organ for the [[Parapsychological Association]], suggests that CSI's aggressive style of skepticism could discourage scientific research into the paranormal.<ref name=JASPR>''[[The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research]]'', Volume 86, No. 1, January 1992; pp. 20, 24, 40, 46, 51</ref> Astronomer [[Carl Sagan]] wrote on this in 1995:<ref>{{cite book
 | last = Sagan
 | first = Carl
 | author-link = Carl Sagan
 | title = The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
 | url = https://archive.org/details/demonhauntedworl0000unse
 | url-access = registration
 | publisher = [[Random House]]
 | isbn=0-394-53512-X
 | year = 1995
}}</ref>

<blockquote>Have I ever heard a skeptic wax superior and contemptuous? Certainly. I've even sometimes heard, to my retrospective dismay, that unpleasant tone in my own voice. There are human imperfections on both sides of this issue. Even when it's applied sensitively, scientific skepticism may come across as arrogant, dogmatic, heartless, and dismissive of the feelings and deeply held beliefs of others&nbsp;... CSICOP ''is'' imperfect. In certain cases [criticism of CSICOP] is to some degree justified. But from my point of view CSICOP serves an important social function – as a well-known organization to which media can apply when they wish to hear the other side of the story, especially when some amazing claim of pseudoscience is judged newsworthy&nbsp;... CSICOP represents a counterbalance, although not yet nearly a loud enough voice, to the pseudoscience gullibility that seems second nature to so much of the media.</blockquote>