The Second Coming - Editorials - Australian Skeptics Sec… · how it affects our endeavours to encourage the media to take a more sceptical approach to all paranormal claims. To

THE SECOND COMING

Edited by Barry WilliamsCompiled by Richard Saunders

New Cartoons by Penny Rowe (Funny Penny)&

Richard Saunders

Editorials

THE SECOND COMING A l l the bes t f rom the Skep t i c , 1986–1990

1

THE SECOND COMINGAl l the bes t f rom the Skep t i c , 1986–1990 Editorials

Logo Winner

The National Committee is happy to announce thewinner of our Logo Competition.

We were delighted with the number and variety ofdesigns submitted and found it difficult to make thefinal choice.

The winner is Stephan Niekrash of Chadstone. Hesubmitted several designs, the one below being ourfinal choice. You’ll be seeing a lot more of it.

Many thanks again to all who entered.

Vol 6 No 1 - 1986

2


From the President

One of the more pleasant things in life is to have anoccassional win. As a Skeptic, it is particularly pleasingto find that what we are doing is having some impactin the wider world.

This is most evident in our dealings with the newsmedia. When Australian Skeptics started, it was alltoo common to see claims by “psychics” andproponents of crack-pot theories presented asestablished fact and without a trace of critical analysis.Our reaction was, as it had to be, to contact the mediaoutlet concerned and to voice our objections to thestory, with the result that our views were sometimestreated seriously, but frequently they were not.

It seems that the times are changing. It is now verycommon for journalists to contact Australian Skeptics,before the story is written or broadcast, to ask for ourcomments. Our side is not always presented, but thefact that we exist and that we have a point of view isusually mentioned. Members of the Committee arefrequently interviewed by TV, radio and print journalistsand our letters to the editor are usually published. Thusthe purveyors of the irrational are not getting things alltheir own way and that has to be taken as a turn forthe better. The fact that we are becoming successfulin this, one of our most important roles, is borne out bythe quality of the stories entered for our SkepticalJournalism Award for 1986 (covered elsewhere in thisissue). The number of stories was not great, but thestandard was high. We hope to make this award acontinuing thing, with an annual presentation toencourage the media to be as sceptical of paranormalclaims as they would normally be of political claims.

We will probably never reach the stage that nostories about paranormal phenomena are presentedas established fact, without scrutiny, but we havecertainly passed the stage where all such stories are.

As I said at the beginning, it is nice to have a winoccassionally.

Barry Williams

Vol 7 No 2 - 1987

From the President

This, the first edition of the Skeptic for 1987, reflectssome major changes that have occurred within theAustralian Skeptics during the past year.

As has been previously reported, the nationalcommittee responsibility was transferred from theVictorian to the NSW committee at the last convention.This edition of the Skeptic is the first to be publishedand edited by the new committee and some changesin layout and style will indicate this fact.

In its six years of existence, the Skeptic has grownfrom a four page newsletter into a 28 page magazineand a great deal of credit is due to the many peoplewho have had a hand in the metamorphosis. Inparticular, we should express our gratitude to AnneTuohy as editor, to James Gerrand and Graeme Wattfor the production and to all the many other peoplewho have contributed to the magazine’s success. Atthe same time, we must recognise the outstanding workof the members of the original national committee,under the inspired leadership of Mark Plummer (theclosest thing to a perpetual motion machine inexistence). It is a tribute to their dedication andenthusiasm that Australian Skeptics has beentransformed from a group of reactive individuals,seeking to promote rational analysis of paranormal andpseudoscientific claims, into a recognised organisationwhose views are sought by the media, and others, whensuch claims are made. Such successes are gratifying,but it would need a supreme optimist to imagine thatwe are going to eradicate all spurious ideas.

This is why we need to enlarge our contact base.In 1986, subscriptions to the Skeptic topped 600 forthe first time, which, while encouraging, must surelyrepresent only a small fraction of our potentialreadership. All readers are urged to encourage otherinterested people to become subscribers. While on thattopic, a number of the 1986 subscribers have not yetrenewed for ’87. We accept the blame as the last1986 issue was posted so close to the holiday seasonthat renewals probably were the last things on manypeople’s minds. That is why all ’86 subscribers willreceive this first ’87 edition, although if you do notrenew, you will not be receiving Issue 2 for 1987.

Barry Williams

Vol 7 No 1 - 1987

3


From the President

What is, or what should be, the attitude of AustralianSkeptics to religion? This vexed question is provokedby some correspondence we have received inresponse to my answer to a letter in the Spring ’87issue of the Skeptic.

Australian Skeptics has, since its inception, aimedto investigate scientifically and systematically, claimsof a paranormal or pseudoscientific nature. It isimportant to note that our primary aim is to investigateclaims, not individuals or organisations. Of necessity,in the course of investigating claims, we sometimesare required to investigate the background of theclaimant, if that has a bearing on the claim.

Claims that we have investigated that may beperceived to be of an overtly religious nature includecreation “science”, faith healing, the Shroud of Turin,miraculous visions, levitation and many others. Thesehave been investigated precisely because, by their verynature, they are amenable to scientific testing.

It is quite consistent with our aims to continue toinvestigate such claims, whether they emanate fromfringe cults or from mainstream religious organisations.On the other hand, there are areas of religious beliefor faith that are not, in any way, testable by scientificmeans. Such areas as the existence of a deity, oruniversal spirit or the existence of Heaven and Hellmay well be, and are, proper subjects for philosophicalor theological discussion, but would seem to fall outsidethe area of interest of Australian Skeptics.

To put it bluntly, physical manifestations can (andwill) be scientifically tested; the truth of metaphysicalbeliefs cannot.

On a purely practical level, Australian Skeptics seeksto promote rational thinking, and seeks to promote it tothe widest possible audience. To do this we need touse the popular news media. This requires us to usethe language understood by the consumers of the newsmedia, the general public. Finely tuned philosophicalarguments are generally not couched in terms that laypeople, including myself, can understand.

While we would maintain that a sceptical outlook isthe most healthy attitude any intelligent person shouldtake to any unsubstantiated claim, be they religious,political, commercial or anything else, we would ignoreour own best interests if we were to chase down everyhare that crossed our path.

My answer to the question I asked at the beginningof this piece is that Australian Skeptics should haveno attitude to religion per se, just as we should haveno attitude to politics, sex or cricket.

Barry Williams

Vol 7 No 4 - 1987

From the President

Since the last issue, when I reported on our improvedrelationship with the news media, there have been anumber of interesting occurrences that have focusedattention on that relationship.

The first example is the Dankbaar/Colossus ofRhodes fiasco, or “Psychicgate” as we like to refer toit (see story this issue). Some media outlets reportedthis story uncritically, while others sought our viewson the matter. Being as unaware of the facts as anyoneelse, we counselled caution and also mentioned ourinterest in the affair. When it became apparent thatthe so-called “fist” was a rock that had been submergedfor a very short time, the media organisations that hadexercised cautious skepticism told the true story withrelish, while those that had played the story as fact,recanted, as would be expected, with much smallerstories. NSW Skeptics were astonished by the factthat, when the “fist” was recovered, it did not bear theinscription “We are building better Colossi” and signed“Laurie Brereton, Minister for Public Rhodes.

Now the good news. Australian Skeptics has beeninvited to provide a regular “Skeptics Column” for anumber of media outlets. For instance, we have beeninvited to conduct a regular “Skeptics Column of theAir” on Peter J. Shield’s World of UnexplainedMysteries, each Sunday night on Radio 2UE, Sydney.

These are most encouraging events in ourendeavours to bring our message to a mass audience,and we will certainly capitalise on our opportunitiespresented.

We were delighted to entertain Mark Plummer,former president of A.S., and current executivedirector of CSICOP, who returned home for a visit atthe end of a world tour of Skeptics groups. During histour, Mark assisted in the formation of a number ofnew national groups, and it was encouraging to hearhim tell of the growing interest in scepticism in manycountries. It seems to be a case of “Skeptics of theworld, unite! You have nothing to lose but yoursuperstitions!”

Barry Williams

Vol 7 No 3 - 1987

4


Vol 8 No 1 - 1988

The Carlos Hoax- a personal view

It is not my intention to canvas the ethical implicationsof the 60 Minutes Carlos hoax, nor particularly totake sides in the media furore that resulted from it.My concern, as president of Australian Skeptics, ishow it affects our endeavours to encourage the mediato take a more sceptical approach to all paranormalclaims.

To me, it is regrettable that the very TV currentaffairs programs that were largely the victims of thehoax were those programs that have, in recent times,displayed more skepticism to paranormal claims thanhad hitherto been the case.

These programs have often sought the views ofAustralian Skeptics on stories, and we, as anorganisation, have developed a good workingrelationship with them. This is largely because webelieve in fair dealing and are prepared to present ourcase in a reasonable and non dogmatic manner.

Certainly, 60 Minutes proved its point that acharlatan can gain free media publicity by theperpetration of stunts. I am however dubious of thetruth of the old axiom “Any publicity is good publicity,as long as they spell your name right”. The mediamay well have a duty to protect the public from falseclaims, and I believe that the great majority of thereasonable public would have been protected by theclearly skeptical manner in which most of the media(see cover story) covered Carlos.

Those sections of the public who are terminallygullible, and who are prepared to believe everything,are surely immune to protection, regardless of howthe media treat any such story. There is an interestingphilosophical point here as to whether we should eventry to protect such people, or whether we should presentfair and reasonable comment that allows reasonablepeople to draw reasonable conclusions, and in the endinvoke the legal concept of caveat emptor - let thebuyer beware.

In this particular case, I was approached by anumber of people with the question, “is this a Skepticsset-up?”. It is a view I probably would have takenmyself, except that I knew it was not.

I do not decry hoaxes on principal, believing thatthey do have their place in the exposure of psychicfraud. In this instance, I believe that, in its own terms,this hoax was not particularly successful, but that the

ensuing media furore may have produced the usefulresult of focusing media attention more clearly on theease with which ‘genuine’ charatans can manipulateour uncritical media.

My primary concern is that those current affairsprogram with which we have developed a goodrelationship, having been bitten by the hoax, will nowvacate the field altogether and leave reportingparanormal claims to the entirely credulous sectionsof the media. For this to happen would be a disaster.This personal view may be coloured by my proximityto the story. We would be most interested to hear theviews of you, our readers.

Barry Williams

“Carlos” & James Randi

5


Vol 8 No 2 - 1988

Alternative medicine andquackery

In this issue, we publish a number of articles onalternative health practices and quackery. These issuesof health must be of fundamental concern to allskeptics.

A common cry among alternative practitioners isthat orthodox medicine treats only the symptom andnot the “whole” patient. This dubious claim may containsome small grain of truth, in that surveys have shownthat, on average, the alternative practitioner spendsmore time with each patient than does the scientificallytrained medical practitioner. The placebo effect gainedby telling one’s troubles to a sympathetic listener shouldbe familiar to all. Perhaps the bedside manner is aneglected subject in our medical schools. But it shouldnot hide the fact that, while a sympathetic ear may bea useful tool for a doctor, its curative value is limited.We must be careful, in any consideration of alternativepractices, not to dismiss their claims out of hand. Somesuch practices have been proven to have somebeneficial effects. Hypnosis and acupuncture areamong these, although the benefits have often fallenfar short of the wildly exaggerated claims made forthem by proponents whose concept of evidence owesnothing to science.

Against these, we should consider those practicesfor which the evidence is vanishingly small. Crystalhealing, psychic surgery, faith healing, iridology,reflexology and hundreds of other such practices owefar more to wishful thinking than to any scientific viewof the human condition. Studies of these practices haveshown them to be at best useless and at worstdangerous. Largely, the danger lies in the unquestioningacceptance of the efficacy of the “treatment” and theconsequent neglect of proper medical treatment. Inother cases, the treatments themselves are inherentlyharmful, as evidenced by the massive overdoses ofsome vitamins advocated by some practitioners.

There are, tragically, many documented cases ofpeople dying from treatable conditions after receivingthe ministrations of alternative practitioners. It will, ofcourse, be argued that there are also manydocumented cases of people dying after treatment byorthodox practitioners. The difference lies in the factthat, in the latter cases, the causes may have beennegligence or that medical science, in common withall other areas of human knowledge, is imperfect. In

the former cases, the deaths all too frequently followthe “correct” application of “treatments” that have noscientific foundation and are demonstrably noteffective.

As is the case with many other areas of theparanormal or pseudoscience, it is the role of the skepticto demand of the alternative practitioner, loudly andfrequently, “Where is your evidence?” Alternativeswithout evidence are no alternatives at all.

Barry Williams

Barry Williams trying out a few “treatments”

6


Vol 8 No 4 - 1988

From the President

I988 has been a successful year for Australian Skepticsand for skepticism generally. We have increased oursubscriptions by 20% over our 1987 numbers,continuing the trend of the past several years. Thenew-look Skeptic, with its broadened scope of articlesis, with the exception of the Skeptical Inquirer, thelargest sceptical magazine produced worldwide.

The year began with the Carlos hoax, an event aboutwhich I must confess to having had mixed emotions atthe time. The results from this however seem to havebeen positive as there has been a noticeable diminutionin the free media publicity given to visiting and localpurveyors of irrationalism and an increase in the criticalmedia analysis of their inflated claims. My initialreaction to the Carlos affair seems to have been wrong.On the broader scene, we have seen the final scientificrefutation of the Shroud of Turin myth, the reductionin official support for the puerile fallacies of creation“science” and the exposure of the fraud of the lateDoris Stokes. Conversely, we have seen little or noreduction in the spread of the mindless philosophies ofthe New Age, nor any indication that people are lesswilling to fall for the blandishments of any new psychichuckster that comes on the scene. I suspect that thiswould be asking too much of fallible human nature.

the Skeptic, in its new format, has received manycompliments from our readers. In 1988, we haveproduced a much more professional magazine thanwe have in previous years, as well as producing thelargest ever edition. Much of the credit for thisimprovment is due to the outstanding professionalismof our editor, Tim Mendham, who has, for the pastthree years, combined this role with that of secretaryand treasurer.

The increase in the activities which we haveundertaken has seriously overheated our willing horseand Tim has stepped down as National Secretary, whilecontinuing as Editor and Treasurer. His secretarialduties will now be shared by Harry Edwards and DickChampion.

Tim Mendham is a remarkable individual whosecontribution to the success of Australian Skeptics cannever be overstated. I believe that we all owe him atremendous debt of gratitude and, on behalf of allSkeptics, thank him for his past work as Secretary, forhis continuing endeavours as Editor/Treasuer and forbeing a good bloke. (Readers are asked to excuse any

Vol 8 No 3 - 1988

The Shroud and the Hydra

So the Shroud of Turin is a medieval fake. That won’tcome as a surprise to skeptics; there have been morethan strong indications for some years that such wasthe case. But to believers in the shroud’s links withChrist the revelation must be quite a shock.

The question to be considered is “What now?”. Ifthe past record of debunked paranormalities is anythingto go by, what was once the most important holy relicin the world and a major example of the reality of theparanormal will quickly become totally irrelevant. Whenused as an example by skeptics of how easily fooledbelievers can be, it will be shrugged off as unimportantand not to be bothered with, as if that were always thecase.

Those who put faith in the paranormal, and this isespecially true of New Age adherents, are amazinglyresilient when it comes to passing off past failures.Hydralike, the paranormal raises new heads in otherareas, letting those subjects that have let them downin the past wither and disappear.

Whether paranormalists ever learn a lesson isdoubtful. It seems that it doesn’t matter what theybelieve in, as long as they believe in something, Thepast is littered with discarded theories - BermudaTriangle, von Daniken, Velikovsky, etc. Tomorrow theywill probably be joined by Uri Geller, Doris Stokes andpyramid power. Some time in the future will be addedcrystals, channelers and UFO abductions.

It is not the job of Australian Skeptics to reform theworld; it will never be a totally rational and sensibleplace in which to live. Rather we should concentrateon the potential believers, those with still enoughcommon sense not to fall for the next two-card trickthat comes along. They are the ones who will learnfrom the experience of the shroud’s fall from grace.

So if you ever feel like it is an uphill battle, rememberthat if just one person is stopped from making a fool(or worse) of himself by the efforts of sceptics, thenthat makes the whole skeptical approach worthwhile.

Barry Williams

PS. In case you were wondering, I am still president,despite a rather surprising promotion given to WilliamGrey in an article credit last issue. William should havebeen listed as president of Canberra Skeptics, althoughhe is no longer there. I hope that’s clear. I know oneof the editors is very confused, but that goes withoutsaying.

7


Perpetrators of ignorance

My normal attitude of bemused tolerance of irrationalbelief was recently shattered by the showing on TVof a video tape taken of the birth, and subsequent death,of a baby whose arrival was attended by all theshibboleths of the New Age. My anger is not directedat the people personally involved in these tragic events,but at the perpetrators of the specious mythologyencompassed by the term, New Age.

The New Age is but one of many manifestations ofan anti-intellectual tendency in the human mind, thatfinds further expressions in the spurious dogma ofcreation “science” and the return of fundamentalismin various religions. A widely read columnist in anational newspaper recently sought to support hisreasoned opposition to experimentation on humanembryos with a wide ranging and unreasonable attackon science.

The promoters of these simplistic solutions quiteunashamedly use techniques and technologies, whichare the fruits of knowledge, to peddle the benefits ofignorance. It is not difficult to understand why manypeople seek solace in the superficial attraction of simplesolutions to the complex problems attendant upon lifein a technological age, but they ignore history if theybelieve that it is possible to go back into some mythical“golden age”.

Knowledge is often uncomfortable. It can be, andoften is, misused. But ignorance is never a realalternative. Regardless of how the results ofknowledge may have been abused, any study of historywill show that ignorance has always caused more pain,suffering and death than knowledge ever has.

Skepticism may not be the most comfortable ofpositions, but it is the only position a rational being canafford to take. In this argument, we are on the side ofthe angels.

Barry Williams

Obituary Don Laycock

It is a sad duty to report the death of Don Laycock,one of the founding members of the Canberra Skeptics,who died after an illness on December 27, 1988.

Don was a graduate of Newcastle University,working as a researcher in anthropology at AdelaideUniversity and undertook his PhD at the Australian

Vol 9 No 1 - 1989typos that appear in this panegyric because Tim, asEditor, will have to typeset it.) [Editor’s comment -No comment]

The need for a continuance of a skeptical approachto paranormal and pseudoscientific claims is asimportant now as it was when Australian Skeptics wasformed eight years ago. We cannot continue unlessyou, our readers, continue your support by renewingyour subscriptions, by encouraging others to do so andby submitting articles and letters for publication.

I wish all our readers the best for the holiday seasonand for a skeptical 1989.

Barry Williams

Barry Williams on some of his many TV appearances

8


Vol 9 No 2 - 1989

Fighting the New Ignorance

This issue of the Skeptic contains several of the paperswhich were presented at the fifth annual conventionand will allow those subscribers, who were unable toattend the event, an opportunity to consider some ofthe matters which were discussed. The fifth conventionmust rank as one of the most successful of all ourannual gatherings, and was a tribute to theorganisational skills of the Canberra Skeptics branchwho provided all the hard work. Quite obviously, someCanberra residents are capable of organising things,the evidence of the recent ACT local electionsnotwithstanding.

We were almost overwhelmed by the amount ofmedia interest in our convention and in the awardsthat were to be presented. There is little doubt that themedia are now taking a much more sceptical approachto unsubstantiated claims than was the case a fewyears ago.

This is not to suggest that we in Australian, Skepticscan afford to relax. We have not won the battle yet,nor are we likely to ever claim victory.

The siren song, promoted by the New Agers andthe Creationists (New Earthers?), is seductive in itssimplicity. The anti-intellectualism implicit in their easyanswers is often difficult to counter because the pathof reason is not always a comfortable one.

They will continue to preach their New Ignorancewhile there are financial rewards and power to begained from it. We have the harder row to hoe, but itis a worthwhile task because knowledge is alwayspreferable to ignorance.

Barry Williams

National University, where he later became a seniorfellow in the Research School of Pacific Studies. Hewas also a Fellow of the Australian Academy of theHumanities and vice president (1985-87) of theAustralian Linguistic Society.

It was his linguistic skills that represent some ofthis writers warmest memories of Don. At the firstSkeptics convention in Sydney in 1985, he performeda rendition of “speaking in tongues” and a trancepossession by spirits that were easily highlights of theconvention. He was also an expert in divinationtechniques (particularly Tarot cards).

He will be sadly missed by his family and all hisSkeptical friends.

Tim Mendham

9


Vol 9 No 4 - 1989

Sincerity is not enough

A question frequently posed to skeptics concerns thesincerity with which beliefs in the paranormal andpseudoscience are held. Experience suggests that thevast majority of believers hold their beliefs sincerely.That being so, it may well be asked why should skepticsbe so concerned with challenging sincerely heldbeliefs? To answer this, we should understand thenature of the emotional attribute “sincerity” and itsrelevance to the matters under discussion.

The dictionary has it that sincerity means “freedomfrom deceit, duplicity, dissimulation or hypocrisy”, yetwe are all aware that the fields in which we investigateare full of these negative characteristics. How thencan we consider any believers to be sincere?

The problem is that the presence or absence ofsincerity can tell us much about the holder of a beliefbut nothing at all about the belief itself. For a belief tohave any real substance, it does not need to besincerely held but it does need to be rationally held.Do we sincerely believe in relativity or evolution?Probably not, but we rationally believe that thesetheories describe the real world.

A person is not culpable if he holds a belief that isirrational when he has no knowledge that wouldconvince him of its irrationality. In this case, sincerityis understandable but meaningless. A person who holdsto an irrational belief, despite being aware of evidencefor its irrationality, may or may not be held equallyblameless. His sincerity might be called into question,yet we should remember that because self delusion isalso a well known human trait, we should perhapsinstead question his rationality. The person who doesnot believe at all, yet manipulates others who do, maybe totally rational and entirely insincere. He is acharlatan.

A recent historical example, from outside our field,which shows the irrelevance of sincerity in thejudgement we make of actions, is the case of AdolfHitler. His actions were abhorrent to any thinkingperson, yet we have no reason to dispute the sinceritywith which he held the views which led to those actions.That is why, as skeptics, we should continue to striveto expose irrational beliefs to the light of reason whilebeing prepared to be tolerant of many of the peoplewho hold those beliefs and why we should, at the sametime, continue to expose the charlatans who prey onthe gullible. Sincerity is largely irrelevant in determiningwhich beliefs are valid, only in determining whichpractitioners are worthy of condemnation. As withmany human attributes, sincerity is not enough.

Barry Williams

Vol 9 No 3 - 1989

Science & the Paranormal

Science is not a body of knowledge science is theway we attain knowledge. It involves experimentation,observation, publication and replication. It is all of theseaspects, but especially the last two, which normallydifferentiate science from pseudoscience.

In the Skeptics investigation of the paranormal, theserigours should be applied equally to all claims, boththose of the pro-paranormal fraternity and those withinthe “established” scientific community, includingSkeptics. It is not good enough to accept an anti-paranormal claim purely because it is such. This journalis dedicated to publishing a wide range of items, all ofwhich are open to discussion and dispute.

In this issue, we look at a number of subjects whichinvolve the scientific method. They cover devicessupposedly tapping energy fields, a proposal thatmeditation and Tarot cards contradict probabilitytheory, the lack of scientific rigour among creationists,and various religious claims. On this latter subject, it isinteresting to see that at least one letter writer hasresponded to an anti-supernatural item in the previousissue.

This sense of peer review is vitally important in allareas of science. It was rapidly and efficiently, if notharshly, applied to the recent claims of nuclear fusion“in a jar” by Fleischman and Pons. It can equally beapplied to Skeptical arguments, and this journal - theonly one of its type in Australia - is more than happyto serve that purpose. Dogmatism and conservatismare comfortable but not productive. Discussion anddebate are what it’s all about, and on that note, pleaseaccept our invitation to use these pages for your viewof pseudoscience, the paranormal and skepticism.

Barry Williams

10


Vol 10 No 2 - 1990

An open letter to Nicholas Joyce,born May 2,1990

At the moment you were born, the Solar System hada unique configuration. This fact is unlikely to haveany effect on your future life. Your name contains acertain selection of letters. Apart from being a labelyou will wear for life, or at least until you decide youwould prefer to be called something else, there is nohidden, esoteric significance in the letters which makeup your name. You will live on a planet that is severalbillion years old and in a universe that is somewhatolder. You are a member of the species homo sapiensand your distant ancestors were of different species.You are not the descendant of purpose-built humanswho were designed to dominate our planet, nor areyou the result of experiments by spacefaring aliens.Your childhood ills will not be cured by quartz crystals,vibrations given off by coloured threads, or appeals tosupernatural entities.

The world you will live in is a strange, complex place,full of contradictions. You will encounter superstition,fear, ideologies, hatred, dogmas and many otherunpleasant things. You will also encounter knowledge,love, joy, beauty and lots and lots of people. I hopethat you will be wary of superstition, fear, ideology,hatred and dogma, that you will seek out knowledge,love, joy and beauty and that you will be tolerant ofpeople. I hope that you will be sceptical, becauseskepticism insulates, you from all those things whichare the fruits of unreason.

I will do everything I can to make it that way foryou, and why not? That’s what grandfathers are for.

With much love,Barry Williams

This sort of self-indulgence would never have beenallowed when Mendham was editor. Ed.

New grandfathers are allowed to be self-indulgent.Pres.

Vol 10 No 1 - 1990

Believing and thinking

We are all believers to some extent. As skeptics, wewould all like to think that the beliefs we hold arerationally arrived at and defensible. I neverthelesssuspect that even many skeptics hold some beliefsthat would not really withstand the cold light of criticalanalysis. Such is the perversity of human nature, thatthe beliefs that we hold least rationally are those thatwe are likely to defend most vociferously (or so Ibelieve).

What then of the people who are less inclined toskepticism than we are? The people whose beliefs incompletely irrational ideas amount to obsessions?Whether these ideas be of a paranormal,pseudoscientific, religious, political or philosophicalnature, can we ever hope to convince all people to beskeptical? We try to hold beliefs which are arrived atbecause the evidence supports them, but what of thosewho believe, despite the evidence? Can we ever hopeto communicate the idea that the real world is muchmore exciting, when viewed rationally, than it ever canbe when viewed through the blurred lens of prejudice?That knowledge is always superior to ignorance?

Several articles in this issue address unsubstantiatedbeliefs, yet it would be surprising if any of them weresuccessful in convincing the adherents of irrationalideas. That does not mean that we should not continueto strive to achieve that objective. Scepticism is anessential tool for all who seek to live in a complexworld and we should always be aware or the importantmessage that lies at the heart of skepticism- DO NOT BELIEVE - THINK!

Barry Williams

11


Editorial changes

As from this edition, the Skeptic has a new editor,Barry Williams. Tim Mendham, after several years ofunremitting toil, has asked to be given a break fromeditorial duties. Of course we agreed to Tim’s request,although filling his shoes will be a most onerous task.Tim Mendham has always been one of the mainstaysof Australian Skeptics. For several years, he filled theroles of Secretary and Treasurer of the NSW Branch,continuing in those positions for the National Committeewhen we took over from the Victorian Branch. Healso assumed the position of Editor at that time, a rolein which he has made his greatest contribution.

Tim is a professional Editor who has brought greatprofessionalism to this publication. I am sure that allof our readers will agree that the Skeptic has becomean outstanding platform for the exposition of theskeptical viewpoint during Tim’s stewardship. He willremain as a valued member of the national committeeand source of wise counsel and advice to Harry andmyself as we endeavour to maintain the standards ofexcellence which he has set.

From all the Skeptics I say, “Thanks Tim. You are agreat Australian.”

Barry Williams

Honours & awards

Five prominent Skeptics were awarded honorary LifeMembership of Australian Skeptics at the 1990 AnnualConvention, held in Melbourne on June 9-10, 1990.Announcing the awards, national president, BarryWilliams said, “In many organisations, LifeMemberships are awarded to people when they haveceased to take an active role in the organisation orwhen they have reached such an age that their livesare not expected to last much longer. In AustralianSkeptics we do things differently. Not only are ourrecipients still active, but this award cannot be takenas an excuse for them to reduce their activity. Thisaward, presented during the tenth year of our existence,recognises the outstanding contributions made by theseindividuals to the formation of, and to the continuingsuccess of Australian Skeptics. We all owe them ourutmost gratitude for their work.”

Those receiving the awards were, Drs MartinBridgestock and Ken Smith of the Queensland branch,Co-editors and producers of Creationism - anAustralian perspective, now into its fourth printing,Mark Plummer, foundation member and inaugural

president of Australian Skeptics, former executivedirector of CSICOP and currently president of theVictorian branch, James Gerrand, Inaugural Secretaryof Australian Skeptics and mainstay of the Victorianbranch and Tim Mendham, Inaugural Secretary andTreasurer of the NSW branch, continuing in thesepositions when the branch became the nationalcommittee and, for four years, Editor of the Skeptic.

The National Committee extends its congratulationsand its gratitude to the new Life Members.

12


Vol 10 No 4 - 1990

From the President

With this issue, we complete ten years of publishingthe Skeptic. In this time, the magazine has grown froma four page broadsheet format, going to less than twohundred readers, to a 30-40 page magazine, havingover 1,000 subscribers and a considerably largernumber of readers. The magazine which was originallyproduced on a typewriter and collated and assembledby a team of loyal volunteers, is now produced on acomputer and printed by professional printers.

As with the technicalities, so with the content. Wehave published articles and news stories on almostevery facet of the paranormal and pseudosciencewhich has relevance to Australia, as well as manybook reviews, opinion pieces and, most importantly,letters from our readers.

Our stories have been taken up many times by themedia in Australia and our message, that a skepticalattitude to extraordinary claims is the best way todiscover the truth, is now well recognised by manycommentators.

Other stories have been reprinted in overseasskeptical publications and we recently gave permissionfor one of our articles, on pyramids, to be translatedand published in the magazine of the Spanish skepticsgroup. We intend to continue producing a quality productfor our readers but we would like to print more ofyour views. Letters to the Editor allow us to gauge theareas our readers find most interesting and, while wecannot guarantee that we will publish everything wereceive, we will certainly consider every submission.We are constrained by the laws of defamation and aswe have not been sued in ten years, we would like tomaintain that record. This is not to suggest that lettersshould not be contentious; some of the long runningcorrespondence in our columns certainly fit thatcategory; but they should not be libellous. And, aboveall, they should be interesting to other readers.

We would also like to expand the range of articles,and their authors, published in the magazine. Yoursubmissions or ideas would be very welcome.

We thank all our loyal supporters and wish everyoneall the best for the holiday season. And despite all theeconomic gloom, we hope that you all have a happyand skeptical 1991.

Barry Williams

Vol 10 No 3 - 1990

From the President

It is not my intention to continue to use this page forthe promulgation of my personal affairs, however, justas in the last issue I sought the indulgence of ourreaders to celebrate the birth of my grandson, I againask you to bear with me as I mourn the death of myfather.

Bill Williams was born in Barry, Wales in the closingmonths of the nineteenth century. He arrived inAustralia in 1921, finally, in the mid 1930s, settling atMt Tamborine in Queensland, where he lived for therest of his long life. At his death on September 5, hewas just six weeks short of his 90th birthday.

A man of firmly held opinions, he was alwaystolerant and moderate in his dealings with people. Hewas a voracious reader and his failing eyesight in hislater years was a great trial to him. He was alwaysinterested in, and conversent with, events in the worldat large. The views he held were those he arrived atafter rational consideration of the facts and wereexpressed with vigour, though never dogmatically.

He taught me that knowledge was worthwhile in itsown right; that to read is one of the great pleasuresthat life holds; that the other person’s point of viewshould be respected, even when you disagree with itand, above all, that one should always think for one’sself. He was a skeptic in the best possible meaning ofthe word.

I wish to thank all those members of the Skepticswho have been so kind with their condolences. I willcontinue to try to live up to all of those good examplesmy father gave me.

Bill Williams was a gentleman and a gentle man.My mother, my brother and our families will miss him.We all loved him very much.

Barry Williams

Documents

The Second Coming - Editorials - Australian Skeptics Sec… · how it affects our endeavours to encourage the media to take a more sceptical approach to all paranormal claims. To