 |
Two Articles and a Book Review from the November-December, 2003 issue Space Cadet
Reprinted from the Nov-Dec, 2003 BASIS The American space program was born out of conflict. We simply had to beat the Russians. Quite aside from national pride, there was the very real concern about weapons delivery. Drop a nuke; go to the moon; same technology!
Oh yes, when they fail, we are embarrassed, but we don’t have to ask the president to make a speech or attend any funerals. Robert L. Park of the American Physical Society and author of Voodoo Science (Oxford University Press, 2000) is a longtime friend of skeptics. He favors robotic exploration and, in his weekly column “What’s New” for the APS (http://positron.aps.org/wn/), he has repeatedly criticized continuing programs, notably the shuttle and the International Space Station, to send or keep human beings in space. He argues that it takes too many resources away from needed projects and is, bluntly, unnecessary to do good science. Furthermore, if we have to orient projects around human manipulation, such as the Hubble telescope fitting into the cargo bay of the shuttle and being limited to the craft’s low-orbit range, we’re not getting the greatest scientific productivity that our knowledge or dollars allow. Park is absolutely right, but misses an important point. Space is not just for science. Science is a critical part, surely, but if we limit space to what a small fraction of people (scientists) want, the program will die on the vine even more swiftly than it seems to be doing now. Even if the Chinese decide to devote sizable resources into their manned program, a cold war-like race is unlikely to be revived. The Chinese are commercial rivals only (Communist, seemingly, only because they like the color red), wanting only access to our markets. They don’t want our enmity. Every nation in every age, if not unduly troubled by outside challenges, seems to look for purpose. It can be religion, ideology, or nationalism (which can all get pretty nasty at times). We seem to have decided on the ideology of the marketplace. If it can’t be justified in the sacred marketplace, it is somehow not valid. Why the same standards which are ideal for distributing soda pop must also apply to national policy is not something I fully understand. The space program has contributed to the economy through fallout technologies that I do not doubt exceed its cost by magnitudes. But no accountant can pin down exactly by how much. The benefits were distributed widely, including to other nations, and not to specific stock holders or even the US Treasury. So the space program doesn’t easily fit into anyone’s market model. Somehow, such collective benefits seem to have become disreputable, like controlling the cost of pills distributed to senior citizens through a mechanism other than the “pure” market. We should stop apologizing, frankly, and bang on the table for more bucks. If Bob Park wants more robots, he can certainly make the case for them. He knows what he is talking about and I don’t want to wait until we can send someone to Pluto to get information on that planet. I’m with him all the way. The case for manned exploration can also be made. Maybe it can only be made outside the market model with its focus on a particular outcome. Instead, we should make it from the point of view of human adventure, “because it is there.” It is one more canvas ready to be painted. The fallout technologies cannot be imaged because you have to know ninety percent of the answer to ask the right question. After all, did the builders of medieval cathedrals ever imagine the skyscrapers the technology they pioneered would eventually produce? Buzz Aldrin recently made the case for a permanent station at a Lagrange point where escape velocity is like pushing away from shore in a canoe as opposed to a Moon colony where payloads are costlier. Wonderful! That’s the kind of debate that we need. Not whether we ought to do it, but how we’re going to do it.
 Return to Menu Reprinted from the Nov-Dec, 2003 BASIS  Margaret Singer Dies
Reprinted from the Nov-Dec, 2003 BASIS Long time Bay Area Skeptics member Dr. Margaret Singer died at 82 on November 23rd, 2003 after a long illness. We will miss her sharp wit and keen intellect. Margaret was an outspoken critic of quack psychotherapy and her book Crazy Therapies remains the standard text on this subject. Her remarkable research on schizophrenia in the 1950s and 60s remains relevant but she is best known for her work on undue influence. She was, without question, the world’s preeminent authority on cults and thought reform. And she was fearless.In the early 1950s, as a clinical psychologist at Walter Reed Institute of Research in Washington, D.C, she counseled American serviceman who had been prisoners of war during the Korean War. These servicemen had been subjected by prison camp guards to what was then called “brainwashing.” She was one of the pioneers in this research and this research served as the basis of her later work on cults and thought reform. As a U.C. Berkeley professor in the 1960s, she saw cults proliferating, many of which were actively recruiting on the Berkeley campus. She realized that the methods these groups used were similar to the processes used on the American POWs. Her remarkably detailed research on cults was based on this realization. Her book Cults In Our Midst, published in 1995 and co-authored with Dr. Janja Lalich, is the culmination of her four decades of research on thought reform. Cults in our Midst is a direct, easy to understand and profound explanation of what a cult is, how cults recruit new members and the psychological processes cults use to hold onto these new members. Dr. Singer remained forever curious and in the last decade, she turned her intellectual curiosity to the subject of elder abuse. He research, writings and court testimony regarding elder abuse were extensive She presented her research findings to police departments, district attorney offices and psychological associations and testified in court proceedings throughout the country. She tirelessly advocated for increasing and protecting the rights and dignity of elderly Americans. She remained actively involved in this work until shortly before she died. Margaret was a frequent Bay Area Skeptics lecturer. It was common to see cult members with picket signs outside of the Bay Area Skeptics lecture hall protesting her talk. This never failed to delight her and invariably made her talk more amusing and personal. Because of her professional stature, her Bay Area Skeptics appearances always attracted high school and college students and this gratified her. Despite the many groups who were threatened by her professional work, she never backed down. Her home phone number was listed in the phone book and she answered the phone herself. She was a warm, friendly, down-to-earth person who would gladly talk to anyone and she was unquestionably, a gifted, brilliant teacher. Margaret was every bit as content to spend an hour explaining the meaning of elder abuse to a 14 year old high school freshman as she was to spend an hour lecturing on the subject to a room full of district attorneys.
Dr. Margaret Singer was a warm, wonderful and generous person and we at Bay Area Skeptics will miss her.
 The Final Séance Book Review by Ms. Tully McCarroll Reprinted from the Nov-Dec, 2003 BASIS A marvelous book! I absolutely recommend this book to those who have an interest in the relationships of historical figures, and particularly to anyone who has ever loved reading Sherlock Holmes and/or been intrigued by stories of the Great Houdini. Palidoro has expertly recreated the friendship between Houdini and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. During their five year association, although respectful of each other, their relationship was a bit strange. A bit strange also was the popular belief of the day in Spiritualism. Parlor séances were arranged in the hope of contacting the spirits, especially those of deceased loved ones. Houdini and Doyle both attended séances. A mutual interest in Spiritualism was to be the thread that drew them together. They first met in 1920. They attended each other’s public appearances, corresponded and visited one another. The author notes: “Houdini kept his skepticism to himself…not wanting to end a nice friendship at the onset.” Conversely, Sir Arthur was an outspoken believer that some people possessed the ability to make contact with spirits, conducting public speaking tours on the subject. Also believing himself to be quite the capable critic, he was fond of saying” “I am a cool observer and don’t make mistakes.” Yes, he judged these “psychics” Quite forgivingly. Even when he knew that they used some trickery he proclaimed them “true,” as long as they were able to demonstrate any (to him) unexplainable phenomena. Amazingly, Doyle believed that Houdini possessed spiritual powers even after Houdini assured him that he had been fooled. Their difference in belief came to confrontation after the publication of the 1922 December issue of The Scientific American offering an award of $5,000.00 “for conclusive psychic manifestations” under the scrutiny of a “specifically established committee.” Houdini was on that committee. Conan Doyle was not. This is an altogether great read, with fascinating insights into the lives of two our favorite historical personalities. Thank you Massimo! Massimo Polidero is the executive director of the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, editor of Scienza and Paranormale and author of twelve books on the paranormal. We hope to entice him to schedule a talk for BAS when he is next in the U.S.
[Tully McCarroll is chair of Bay Area Skeptics]
|
|
|
If you would like to be informed by e-mail of upcoming events, contact the webmaster by e-mail.
Just put in Bay Area Skeptics Notify in the subject box so his filter doesn't mistake you as spam. |
Return to Main Page
Return to Articles Menu
Incidental to all this, but certainly on the minds of scientists and engineers, was research and exploration. Early on, it was discovered that robots did a more than adequate job. They were cheaper and, considering that even humans had to pretty much stick to a script, they usually made more sense. On top of this, we didn’t have to wait. The technology to send a team to Mars or to orbit Jupiter is slow to come. We still don’t completely have it. The costs are, well, astronomical. Robots are ready to do the job, and we can simply wish them well, afterwards, on their journey away from our solar system.