And what of all the 'reputable' folks with reputable academic credentials who promote "The Secret"?
Then again, John Gray promotes it as well....listed as one of the teachers on their website....anything for a buck, I guess. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:23:47 -0400 >From: "Allen Esterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [tips] Re: The myth of consistent skepticism >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> > >Re "The Myth of Consistent Skeptism", Paul Okami wrote: >> Leave us not forget Linus Pauling and Vitamin C. > >Nor Alfred Russel Wallace and spiritualism: >http://tinyurl.com/yttzw5 > >Not to mention Sir William Crookes, one-time president of the Chemical >Society, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, the Society of Chemical >Industry, the British Association, and the Royal Society – and >spiritualist: >http://www.bookrags.com/biography/william-crookes-woi/ >http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/icl/heyes/LanthAct/Biogs/Crookes.html > >Personal confession: I was once prepared to give credence to Uri Geller's >spoon bending abilities - as was John Taylor, Professor of Mathematics, >Mathematics, >Physical Sciences & Engineering, Kings College London: >http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/ppro/experts/expert/168/printversion > >April 1976 - Science Digest - John Taylor. - "Uri Geller's Powers Are >Genuine" >http://66.221.71.68/sdigest.htm > >1976 "The Geller Effect and Physics": John G. Taylor - King's College, >London >http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/ > >1980 March/April - Second Look - "The Rise and fall of Uri >Geller"/Interview: Why John Taylor Changed His Mind About Uri Geller. >[Not available online] > > >Allen Esterson >Former lecturer, Science Department >Southwark College, London >http://www.esterson.org/ > >------------------------------------------ >Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:36:14 -0400 >Author: "Paul Okami" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: The myth of consistent skepticism > >> Leave us not forget Linus Pauling and Vitamin C. >> >> Paul Okami >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Allen Esterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:24 PM >> Subject: [tips] The myth of consistent skepticism >> >> >> > There's an interesting article in the current (May/June) issue of >> > Skeptical Inquirer with the title: "The Myth of Consistent Skepticism: The >> > Cautionary Case of Albert Einstein." >> > >> > The authors, Todd C. Riniolo and Lee Nisbet, conclude: >> > >> > No one is once and for all a skeptic. Skeptism is an ongoing process, not >> > an end to be achieved. It is continually possible to not only backslide >> > but to apply our skepticism inconsistently. We are all selective skeptics. >> > Ironically, calling ourselves skeptics may make us less skeptical in >> > objectively evaluating claims because it may create a false sense of our >> > willingness to subject all of our beliefs to the principles of inquiry. >> > Self knowledge concerning our limitations is useful in two ways: it >> > encourages intellectual humility and honesty and it keeps the daunting >> > task of not falling prey to our particular certainties forthrightly in >> > view. >> > >> > The case of Einstein is cautionary in another respect. Too often, we find >> > skeptics paying rapt attention to the views of scientific celebrities >> > regarding topics to which those celebrities' occupational expertise and >> > accomplishments are totally irrelevant. From a logical point of view, what >> > a renowned physicist, astronomer, or evolutionary biologist has to say >> > about psychology, politics, economics, religion, etc., has no special >> > status whatsoever (just like the Hollywood celebrity who speaks out on >> > these issues). Scientists' claims regarding these issues must stand on >> > their logical and substantive merits alone. Too often, the irrelevancy of >> > scientific celebrity is lost on those who (like all of us) love to be told >> > what they want to hear, especially by people famous for their intellectual >> > accomplishments. Yet, the love of misplaced authority is but another step >> > in the direction of obliviousness to our own selective skepticism. >> > >> > Simply calling ourselves skeptics is no guarantee that we will objectively >> > apply the methods of skepticism. Self-awareness that we have limitations >> > in expertise combined with built-in biases that hinder our consistent >> > application of skepticism may help to minimize our own selective >> > skepticism. However, if we ignore our own selective scepticism and >> > inconsistently apply the method of scepticism, we run the risk, like >> > Einstein, of deluding ourselves in certain areas like the "true believer" >> > that every skeptic despises. >> > >> > Allen Esterson >> > Former lecturer, Science Department >> > Southwark College, London >> > http://www.esterson.org/ > >--- >To make changes to your subscription go to: >http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english >
