CSI(COP) on the Rebound
Posted by Greg at 13:35, 26 Jan 2010Once upon a time, the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) was the big dog of the modern skeptical movement. But in recent years, the rebranded 'Committee for Skeptical Inquiry' (CSI) seems to have struggled to remain a vital force in skepticism, eclipsed by internet favourites such as The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, and the James Randi Educational Foundation (though the organization's magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, has remained its flagship).
Perhaps in a bid to put its name back on the skeptical marquee, this month CSI announced the election of 16 new 'Fellows'. The line-up features a who's who of modern Internet skepticism, including James 'The Amazing' Randi (welcoming him back into the fold after a long absence due to legal issues), Phil 'Bad Astronomy' Plait, Steven 'Skeptic's Guide' Novella, Chris 'UK Skeptic' French, and Seth 'SETI' Shostak (joining fellow SETI scientist Jill Tarter, finalising SETI's embrace of the Dark Side), as well as notable scientists including Robert T. Carroll and Kenneth Miller. It's a list that makes a lot of sense - plenty of personable people able to reach big audiences. The question for me is: will these people end up besmirching their (mostly) decent reputations by linking themselves to an organization noted for it's pseudo-skeptical, vitriolic approach to 'defending' established science? Or will they lead CSI(COP) to a kinder, gentler approach to skeptical activism that transforms the organization into something much better than it started as?
I suspect the former...it's tough to teach an old dog new tricks. And, unfortunately for the newly elected Fellows, there's an old saying about lying down with dogs...


Comments
18 September 2007
20 hours 14 min
With the advent of the intenet and the manifold ability to share imagery and observation which have led to immense evidence for the existence of the fortean, organizations like CSICOP really do look antiquated now. They studiously and tendentiously constrict "allowable evidence" to such an extent that it is laughable.
27 July 2009
1 year 13 weeks
Most intelligent people have no need of these organisations.
26 June 2005
2 days 15 hours
Most intelligent people have no need of these organisations.
Does that suggest that the not so intelligent do have a need for such an organisation? Wouldn't that be how the church found its congregation? Prof. Dawkins might agree with you in that he seems to believe that no intelligent people believe in God or the paranormal. Thus, CSI(COP) must be aimed at those of us who might be considered a bit thick?
Of course, that automatically eliminates all Daily Grail readers:)
Dave.
Wanted: More White Crows ... http://whitecrows.davidsmuse.co.uk
27 July 2009
1 year 13 weeks
I'm just having a dig at CSICOP.
26 June 2005
2 days 15 hours
I'm just having a dig at CSICOP.
Of course, I'm all for that :)
Wanted: More White Crows ... http://whitecrows.davidsmuse.co.uk
18 September 2007
20 hours 14 min
The problem as I and many others see it is that "The Amazing Randi" has brought a carnival atmosphere to the research. If you listen to Randi's rhetoric, which is sometimes just shy of the expletive excesses of "Penn and Teller," you can't help speculating that there is a large emotional complex tainting everything they touch, and that they are too often running an Inquisition.
http://www.naturalnews.com/025627.html