Editing Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (section)

=== 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>