Conference hydra::dejavu

    Although I am also in favor of looking before leaping to embrace
    paranormal claims, I must say that the society that publishes SE
    has a far from unblemished record.  Denis Rawlins wrote an article,
    "sTARBABY," that appeared in _Fate_ on the subject.  It's interesting
    reading, particularly since Rawlins stated in his article that he
    didn't believe in the paranormal, and he was one of the charter
    members of the society.
    
    A couplwe of the other charter members have done well writing their
    own books: James ("the Amazing) Randi, a stage magician, wrote two
    good ones: _The Magic of Uri Geller_, where he showed alternative,
    nonparanormal explanations for Geller's feats [an aside: Marvel
    Comics once had a special issue of one of their comics where Geller
    made a "guest star" appearance; Randi wrote to complain that nobody
    should take Geller _that_ seriously, which in itself seemed to me
    to be taking Geller too seriously], and _Flim-Flam!_ where he prtesents
    debunking material concerning several areas of the paranormal, suuch
    as Kirlian photography [interesting, but inconclusive].  Martin
    Gardner, whose _Fads and Fallacies In The Name of Science_ touches
    on this area, though, _alsoi_ wrote a not wholly tongue-in-cheek
    boojk that collected his "Dr. Matrix" numerology essays from
    _Scientific American_.  It was vaguely pro numerology.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    There are a lot of good things which can be said about SI and about
    CSICOPS; but objectivity is certainly NOT one of them.

    On the plus side -- SI frequently has insightful, informative articles.
    Meticulous research and deductive reasoning which sometimes borders
    on the brilliant are hallmarks of many of their articles.  A few of
    the people who contribute come close to what I would consider
    objectivity.

    On the other hand --

    SI pretty much only publishes one side of things.  Rebuttals are rare
    and very brief.  Many articles rely heavily on mockery, innuendo,
    misrepresentation, partial presentations, over generalization, and
    out-of-context quotations.  Possibly paranormal phenomena are only 
    reported when the "solution" becomes available, or when the concept is
    so obviously fraudulent or "flakey" (at least, as presented) that it can
    be safely be ignored.

    Occasionally, "nice" things are said about parapsychologists or other
    "opposition" investigators but only in one of the following situations:

	* Acknowledgment of something "nice" said about SI, CSICOPS or
	  one of the regular contributors.

	* Reporting on something said by the investigator which can be
	  interpreted as in the CSICOPS party line.

	* As part of relatively brief introductory comments before a
	  general attack on other investigators, thereby, "demonstrating"
	  objectivity.

    CSICOPS was set up to battle what its founders saw as public
    anti-science tendencies.  It is in essence adversarial rather than
    objective.  It has changed the official statement of purpose somewhat
    to play this down, but the attitude has remained.  Several of the
    founding members quit over this issue.

    I read SI when I can.  I don't subscribe to SI because I do not wish
    to support an organization which I consider as pseudo-scientific as
    any they oppose.

		Topher

    As it happens the following article came through this morning from
    the philosophy bulletin board of the USENET.
    
    		Topher
    
    
    Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Path: decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!tektronix!orca!tekecs!keithr
Subject: Real CSICOP purpose belies name???
Posted: 14 Apr 86 17:54:32 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
 
 
 
I came across an article in Fate magazine the other day that
purported to be a debunking of a CSICOP effort to debunk French
astrologer Michel Gauquelin's statistical study of birth date
and occupation. (Fate is a small pulp magazine that specializes
in occult and psychic articles.  Many of the articles are written
by authors whose books you find in a public library.  However, a
scholarly or scientific journal Fate is not!) 
 
The article by Dennis Rawlins in the October 1981 issue of Fate
is called sTARBABY.  Rawlins is "cofounder of [CSICOP] and
served on CSICOP's Executive Council from 1976 to 1979.  Until
1980 he was an Associate Editor of Skeptical Enquirer.
 
"He holds degrees in physics from Harvard University (B.A.) and
Boston University (M.A.). His researches have been published in
Nature, Astronomical Journal, American Journal of Physics,
[etc.,...] and was the first to release to the public news of a
major ESP scandal (in 1974) at the laboratory of the late J. B.
Rhine."
 
Rawlins writes in the article:
 
"I used to believe it was simply a figment of the National
Enquirer's weekly imagination that the Science Establishment
would cover up evidence for the occult.  But that was in the era
B.C. -- Before the Committee.  I refer to [CSICOP], of which I
am a cofounder and on whose ruling Executive Council...I served
for some years.
 
"I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created
to debunk.  But I *have* changed by mind about the integrity of
some of those who make a career of opposing occultism. 
 
"I now believe that if a flying saucer landed in the backyard of
a leading anti-UFO spokesman, he *might* hide the incident from
the public (for the public's own good, of course).  He might
swiftly convince himself that the landing was a hoax, a delusion
or an 'unfortunate' interpretation of mundane phenomena that
could be explained away with 'further research'.
 
"The irony of all this particularly distresses me since both in
print and before a national television audience I have stated
that the conspiratorial mentality of believers in occultism
presents a real political danger in a voting democracy.  Now I
find that the very group I helped found has partially justified
this mentality."
 
And in conclusion, Rawlins says:
 
"The bottom line is:
 
"Every one of the Councilors [participating in the Gauquelin
investigation] who say they know something about the sTARBABY
[Gauquelin investigation] knows that it was a disaster.  Yet
Skeptical Inquirer readers are given to believe nothing went
wrong."
 
My questions as an outsider are:  What gives here?  Why does
something as well written as this, and apparently factual (in
almost excruciating detail -- 32 pages) appear in a publication
like Fate?  Do any of you CSICOP members have some background on
this?  I have been led to believe (from it being mentioned in
Scientific American and OMNI magazines) that CSICOP is on the up
and up.  Aren't CSICOP members really interested in the truth
about the paranormal, occult, etc., or is CSICOP primarily a
public relations outfit, which is the impression that Rawlins
leaves the reader with (at least, as far as this one investigation is
concerned)?  What gives?
 
Probably, Dennis Rawlins is just a disgruntled former CSICOPer
and his reasons for writing the article are not at all what they
seem to be, right?  Well, I'm not so sure about that...
 
The March/April 1986 issue of Columbia Journalism Review published
"GhostBoosters: the press and the paranormal" by Philip Meyer.
("Philip Meyer is the William Rand Kenan, Jr. professor of
journalism at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and
a media consultant.")  
 
Toward the end of the article, he states:
 
"Diversity is also found among the militant skeptics.  One of
them, Marcello Truzzi, a sociologist at Eastern Michigan
University, pulled out of CSICOP and founded his own journal,
"The Zetetic Scholar", and a competing organization, the Center
for Scientific Anomalies Research.  Truzzi criticizes CSICOP for
ridiculing those who are less skeptical.  Science, he says, is
self-correcting in the long run, and 'the worst sin anyone can
commit in science is to do anything that might block inquiry.'
Though himself a skeptic, he thinks CSICOP should be more
open-minded, and that it sometimes goes to extremes, as when it
asked newspapers to abandon their horoscope columns or at least
run a disclaimer with them....'I'm all in favor of debunking
bunk,' says Truzzi, 'but this is like shooting at fleas with a
cannon.'"
 
Actually, I'm guilty of being disingenuous above since I have
made up my own mind about CSICOP.  But it did take a few years of
reading the writings of CSICOPers like Philip Klass, Robert
Scheaffer, Paul Kurtz, and others, and the writings of others
who have tried to respond to the accusations, allegations, etc.,
of CSICOPers.
 
I have perused the UFO literature for about ten years now and
have come to believe that the primary purpose of CSICOP is
public relations NOT serious investigation.  In fact, the groups
that CSICOP labels variously the UFO believer, UFO enthusiast,
UFO proponent, groups (MUFON, CUFOS, BUFORA, FUFOR, etc.) are
actually the organizations that believe in serious investigation
however amateurish their efforts sometimes are.  I am genuinely
interested in serious, competent scientific and scholarly
investigation of the UFO phenomenon.  Whenever I see the often
obstructionist activities of CSICOP, I am greatly dismayed.
 
I guess the upshot of all this might be that when something is
controversial, you really are on your own when it comes to
finding out the truth.  You will find naturally diverging
opinions -- reasonable people legitimately disagree on many
things -- but you will also find individuals and groups that may
be actively trying to prevent you from knowing the truth,
whether through ignorance, willful cover-up, or believing they
know what is best for you to know.  With respect to
the UFO phenomenon, isn't the phenomenon obscure enough without
the "noise" introduced by CSICOP?
 
 
Keith Rowell
 
 
 
P.S.
 
I urge any of you interested in UFOs to investigate the subject
at your local LARGE metropolitan library.  Librarians as a group
ARE genuinely interested in promoting a fair and unbiased
understanding of virtually all controversial subjects.  Because
of this you will find a good selection of the range of opinion
on UFOs at a LARGE public library.  After you have spent the
year it will take you to digest most of the books in the
library, you are ready to begin your real understanding of the
phenomenon.  Now you are ready for your own original
investigation.  To be fair you need to test out the ideas of
everyone involved with UFOs.  This turns out to be a prodigious task.
No, you don't need to subscribe to the National Enquirer (:-)), but
perhaps you should become a member of CSICOP, become a member of
MUFON (Mutual UFO Network), join a local UFO contactee group
"channeling" *information* from the space brothers, write to the 
CIA about UFOs, visit a local farmer, truck driver, university
professor, etc., and investigate their sighting on your own, etc.
 
On second thought, simplify your life -- AVOID the UFO
phenomenon!  It really is a can of worms.

    re .3 text:
    
    The question was asked why "sTARBABY" appeared in _Fate_.  The answer,
    unfortunately enough, is that appears to be the only place Rawlins
    could get it published.
    
    Somewhere in my files, I have a copy of this article (which also
    can be purchased from _Fate_ directly), and indeed, the detail is
    stunningly exhaustive: it would have taken someone with tremendous
    amounts of creativity to come up with something like this out of
    whole cloth.  Such a person would also be subject to libel/slander
    laws.
    
    _Fate_ is, however, a fairly open journal; however, its current
    editors (the Fullers) are more skeptical than previous editors,
    so the magazine (not a journal by a long shot) is gaining some
    integrity it previously didn't have.
    
    The article is fascinating reading, not only for the apparent
    suppression of evidence, but also for the internal political workings
    of a small society.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

I called Fate magazine to find out about obtaining a copy of the sTARBABY
article.  It may be obtained from:

		FATE
		500 Hyacinth Place
		Highland Park, IL. 60035

The cost is $1.00 + $.50 postage and handling -- this is a reasonable price
for a 30+ page reprint.

		Topher

The following was a response which appeared to the posting in net.philosophy
which I reposted in .3:

		Topher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Path: decwrl!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!gsmith
Subject: Re: Real CSICOP purpose belies name???
Posted: 17 Apr 86 09:27:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Xref: decwrl net.philosophy:5079 net.sci:768
 
In article <7207@tekecs.UUCP> keithr@tekecs.UUCP (Keith Rowell) writes:
 
>I came across an article in Fate magazine the other day that
>purported to be a debunking of a CSICOP effort to debunk French
>astrologer Michel Gauquelin's statistical study of birth date
>and occupation. (Fate is a small pulp magazine that specializes
 
>The article by Dennis Rawlins in the October 1981 issue of Fate
>is called sTARBABY.  Rawlins is "cofounder of [CSICOP] and
>served on CSICOP's Executive Council from 1976 to 1979.  Until
>1980 he was an Associate Editor of Skeptical Enquirer.
 
>"The bottom line is:
 
>"Every one of the Councilors [participating in the Gauquelin
>investigation] who say they know something about the sTARBABY
>[Gauquelin investigation] knows that it was a disaster.  Yet
>Skeptical Inquirer readers are given to believe nothing went
>wrong."
 
 
    Many of you may have heard about a recent research project
conducted here at Berkeley and published, I believe, in the 
December issue of Nature. This tested whether astrologers could
accurately determine the psychology of individuals from birth
information, and came up with a negative result. I went to a 
lecture by the fellow who did this research, and he *totally
trashed* the CSICOP investigation in *very strong* terms. So
more than one presumably informed opinion agrees that this
particular investigation was useless ("disaster" "disgrace"
and "coverup" were words I recall this guy using).
 
>Probably, Dennis Rawlins is just a disgruntled former CSICOPer
>and his reasons for writing the article are not at all what they
>seem to be, right?  Well, I'm not so sure about that...
 
   Having heard this lecture, neither am I.
 
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith            "When Ubizmo talks, people listen."

I found something curious that someone forwarded to me taken from usenet
    newsgroups talk.religion.newage... and I figured it might fit in
    here to start people thinking.  It brings up some interesting
    questions.  I am not a devout skeptic, just a curious person.
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Does psi exist?
Date: 27 Oct 87 15:25:11 GMT
Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu
 
The starting point was to recall an old argument: the existence of
language effectively disproves telepathy.  The reason is, that a
group of telepaths would have such an advantage over the rest of
us, that natural selection would ensure our extinction.  Hence we
can be pretty sure that telepathy has never existed.
 
Well, are there other things in our world that would be impossible
if psychic powers existed?  I believe so.
 
Casinos.  A casino takes bets, and pays winners, largely according to
mathematical odds.  It pays marginally less than the odds - about 3% less
for (European) roulette, about 2% less for chemmy, and typically between
3% and 6% for other games.  That is a small margin.  Now imagine a
roulette table, with 30 or so players, just one of whom is psychic.
Whether by clairvoyance or telekinesis, she wins consistently.  Not in
a spectacular way, merely a bit less than the big winner of the night.
That alone will wipe out the house advantage, and the table will lose.
 
Moreover, the amount of money that the gamblers take into the casino
each night far exceeds the house float.  A small team of psychics could
bankrupt any casino in the world in a week at most.  Hence, every casino
owner, every week, bets his business on the Law of Large Numbers, and,
in effect, on the nonexistence of psychic powers.  And they win, every
week, year in and year out.
 
Life Insurance.  The insurance companies work from actuarial tables, that
give the life expectancy of various groups.  What makes them interesting,
is that they will accept either end of the bet, at your option.  Thus,
they will offer insurance (betting you'll live), or an annuity (betting
you'll die) from the same tables.  Naturally, they have a small spread,
but it is only a few percent.
 
This scheme relies absolutely on the randomness of the customers' choices;
that is, on the assumption that people going to die sooner won't selectively
buy insurance, and people going to live longer won't selectively buy
annuities.  And hence, on the assumption that people cannot have foreknowledge
of either inevitable death or avoidable accidents, since then they would
indeed behave selectively.  And again, only a small fraction of the population
need do this, to offset the companies' spread and bankrupt them.
 
An alternative explanation is that all the psychics in the world are too
pure, or unworldly, or whatever, to use their powers to win money for
their favourite charities, or to ensure their children are well provided
for at their death.  That doesn't seem very likely to me; perhaps other
readers might comment.
 
Finally, a request for information.  Precognition of disasters is one of
the most familiar psychic stories; part of our folklore.  "George, I had
that awful dream again last night.  Do we HAVE to sail on the Titanic?"
If there is some substance to this, then ships that sink, or aeroplanes
that crash, ought to show an anomalous pattern of bookings and cancellations,
as the truly psychic do indeed bail out.  I know of one study that looked
at this (it was part of the investigation into the de Havilland Comet),
and found nothing.  I heard that a similar study was done by a US railway
(railroad, I guess) company, but know nothing more than that. 

re:  Note 109.7                   


This begins with an unproven and (to my way of thinking) untrue premise.
That being "the existence of language effectively disproves telepathy".
The existence of one form of communication does not "disprove" the 
existence of another.  We do not even know what telepathy is, how it 
works or *under what set of conditions*.  

Psi is not an ability (like being able to walk), it is more like a talent 
predicated on unknown conditions.  Actually, no one knows what it is.  
It appears that whatever psi ability one has is sometimes catalyzed by danger.
Perhaps greed is not enough of a catalyst for those who's priorities keep them 
from intense involvement in gambling casinos, stock exchanges and insurance 
companies.  Perhaps the communication feeds through from an outside source..
only when conditions are right.

The statistics seem meaningless as one who has senses danger may not make 
travel arrangements at all instead of making them - having the experience - 
and canceling them.  This puts limitations on the psi experience (you can 
only know something is going to happen X days before it occurs) that may not 
be there.


Regardless,... those who have experienced psi often have little interest in 
convincing others of the validity of their experiences....a pointless ritual
at best.  

    Re .7:
    
    >The starting point was to recall an old argument: the existence of
    >language effectively disproves telepathy.  The reason is, that a
    >group of telepaths would have such an advantage over the rest of
    >us, that natural selection would ensure our extinction.  Hence we
    >can be pretty sure that telepathy has never existed.
                         
    That's an invalid conclusion.  A group of telepaths might have _less_
    advantage than a nontelepathic person in prehistory.  One might
    well assume that the telepathic function can take place only in
    a state of relaxation, and those times that it would be a "survival
    tool" would be few (while you're concentrating on reading the other
    guy's mind, for instance, he can bop you one with a club).  Further,
    telepathy does not preclude language.  The symbol-richness of language
    would augment telepathic contacts.
    
>Moreover, the amount of money that the gamblers take into the casino
>each night far exceeds the house float.  A small team of psychics could
>bankrupt any casino in the world in a week at most.  Hence, every casino
>owner, every week, bets his business on the Law of Large Numbers, and,
>in effect, on the nonexistence of psychic powers.  And they win, every
>week, year in and year out.
    
    Again, inconclusive.  A small team of nonpsychic engineering/math
    students worked out a way to determine statistical anomalies of
    a casino's various roulette wheels.  They won consistently.  So
    the casino barred them (this happened about 20 years ago, as I recall).
    
>An alternative explanation is that all the psychics in the world are too
>pure, or unworldly, or whatever, to use their powers to win money for
>their favourite charities, or to ensure their children are well provided
>for at their death.  That doesn't seem very likely to me; perhaps other
>readers might comment.
 
    Another strong possibility is that people with psi powers have them
    sporadically.  Yet another is that the really good ones can cover
    their traces.  Lots of possibilities.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.   
    

RE: .7
    
    I run into these arguments a lot.  They are plausible but they make
    a lot of assumptions, mostly about the consistency, reliability
    and amount of psi.
    
    If telepathy existed and were widespread *AND* acted like the telephone
    frequently portrayed in science fiction, then it would most certainly
    act as a brake on the development of language -- assuming that language
    were not a prerequisite of this type of telepathy.  This shoots
    holes in the "Before humans discovered speech, they were telepathic
    but speech destroyed the ability."  The rejoinder I've heard is
    that speech was invented not to communicate but to limit communication
    since "lying" is impossible with telepathy.  (Personally I don't
    think that telepathy exists as distinct from clairvoyance -- telepathy
    is not a "mind-telephone" but clairvoyant "observation" of or PK
    influence on brain-state.
    
    Steve has mentioned the roulette wheel bias stuff (this, by the
    way, can no longer be done at major casinos.  They now remove each
    wheel every few days and reset the bearings to change the
    characteristics.  They do something (weights on the arm maybe) to
    also cause the spinners characteristics to change).
    
    As is commonly known is that blackjack is a game which can be won
    by "card-counting".  Teams can and do take advantage of this (I
    have made some money helping to bankrole a professional blackjack
    card-counting team.  Teams are used because they are harder to spot).
    What is less well known is that simple, non-card-counting play in
    blackjack confers a slight advantage over chance -- if you play
    ideal strategy (which involves memorizing a bunch of tables) you
    can expect to win an average of $2.01 for each $2.00 bet (Las Vegas
    rules).  Neither Las Vegas nor Atlantic City have gone broke.
    
    The major phenomena which is not taken into account in these arguments
    is psi-missing.  Roughly speaking, given general populations, more
    people do much better than would be expected by chance, AND more
    people do much poorer than would be expected by chance on laboratory
    tests (which are not dissimilar to gambling games -- though generally
    much duller).  The two groups cancel out so the *mean* is the same
    as if there was no psi.  Its the *variance* (to use a mildly technical
    term) which is anomolous.
    
    There are many other implicit assumptions in these arguments, but
    I have to get work done sometime.
    
    					Topher

    
    	About the evolution arguement against telepathy;
    
    So many persons have been persecuted for abnormal abilities
    over the years, that the ability to conceal one's telepathy
    would have a lot of survival value.
    
	On gambling odds, etc...

    	The concensus reality seems to rule most events, such that
    the statistics will show nothing out of the ordinary took place.
    I have seen single events that might seem to be unlikely, but
    single events are not ruled by chance and concensus reality the
    way the aggragate of events is.
    	I have a theory that all *publically* demonstrated esp or
    paranormal talents will appear trivial or easily dismissable,
    because the *public* observers subconsciously enforce the
    rules of the concensus reality.   I call such trivial or
    unconvincing paranormal events "fringe phenomena".
    	On the other hand, the most profound and disturbing paramormal
    events seem to only happen in isolated situations where the beliefs
    of the people involved seem to allow or accept the unknown or
    unexpected.    If a group of believers were to get their own
    roulette wheel, they might be able to trigger some real distortions
    in the probability, however, when they open their own casino to
    the public I think the statistics would return to "normal".
    	I base this belief on observations of playing cards with
    my mother in the game.   If there are only family members playing,
    my mother will always get the lucky deal (unless she decides to
    let someone else win!).   When there are guests the probabilities
    seem more normal.

    	Alan.

    Reply to .9; Kallis,
    
    Another possibility is that the 'other senses' get overwhelmed by
    the strongest five.
    
    John Lily, Tim Leary's bud, did some experiments with drugs and
    with isolation chambers. Working with a group of people, Tim and
    the group could agree that there were some 28 different senses,
    maybe more.
    
    So I tend to think that we all have these abilities. The trick is
    to overcome the socitial training we've all had, and reporgram the
    brain to 'allow' access to these senses.
    
    I agree. The existence or nonexistence of one does not confirm or
    deny the other.

.12 Mikie?

>   So I tend to think that we all have these abilities. The trick is
>   to overcome the socitial training we've all had, and reporgram the
>   brain to 'allow' access to these senses.

I tend to agree. And, the 'trick' is difficult, but not impossible. I
think the time is right for it to happen for some.

Jay

    I agree Jay... the time is right.

       
    re: 109.7
    
         What you are saying makes sense. It stands to reason that any
    such ability of being able to see into the future and "converse"
    telepathically that some individual had would tend to be used for
    gain or preservation of life or health etc... What you've ignored
    however, is the true nature of 'psi' activity--the "why's and
    wherefores" of it.
    
         If the totality of everything were no more than birth, day-to-day
    living, sickness, desire to make money, pain, ordinary pleasures,
    then death-as-the-end and that's it, then what you have written
    in .7 would effectively disprove psi. the truth is we're focussed
    in the ordinary modes of existence (most of us) I listed above,
    most of the time. As you touch, as you experience "higher states
    of consciousness", however, you begin to become aware of a greater
    and greater spiritual vastness; the realms which inspired Einstein,
    Gandhi, Mozart, da Vinci, Socrates and from which Christ and all
    of the others who have "walked with God" (for lack of a better ex-
    pression) have come forth. If you have any beliefs in, or intuition
    toward any type of higher existence, you can immediately surmise
    that there is meaning to our existence.
    
         If you accept that there is a greater beyond, then you must
    also accept it as guiding the lives we lead and the events of this
    world, even though the causes, the rationale of things are beyond
    our current understanding. I guess the ultimate argument is "if
    you had psychic abilities why would you not use them to prevent
    your own misfortune, illness or death?" Well, ifhte events of our
    lives, our crises, death, etc. have, symbolically, high spiritual
    significance--and--if death is not the end but merely a transition,
    why is it so critical that death and other misfortune not occur?
    these are all very meaningful events that we don't even understand.
    It therefore seems quite incorrect to expect psi to act to prevent
    everyone of those events. In this world therefore, psi con really
    be no more than a mystery to us.
    
         Psi (and most of that we would call paranormal, occult, or
    religious experience) it seems, must exist in our mundane world
    as a "tip-of-the-iceberg" piece of the greater beyond, whose entire
    existence cannot be encompassed in 3 dimensions of space, time and
    the rules of reason operative in the same domain. So, to say "well
    is telepathy existed, then x,y, or z" is to assume that it operates
    purely within "this world", and that there is no "greater beyond".
    There is one other point; predicting the future, as any psychic
    or "entity" would say, is tricky if not impossible because there
    are so many possible futures all of which are affected by the con-
    sciousnesses of everyone. There is no absolute set of events, only
    trends.
    
         In a roundabout, haphazard way I'm trying to say that much
    of the paranormal, and most "religious experiences" etc., cannot
    be made to fit the simple motives and methods by which we live our
    lives.
                                          
    
    
    Roy

    Unfortunately, the Skeptical Inquirer is somewhat unreliable. Theyre
    mind set is so closed as d to produce intellectual dishonesty. This
    is documented in Robert Anton Wilson's book The New Inquisition.
    
    
    John                                                           
                                                                   
                                                                  yo