Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com/tag/csicon/
10 min read
CSICON – Marmalade
According to Wilson, it was founded by Irishman Timothy F.X. Finnegan, who wrote,
“The normal consists of a null set which nobody and nothing really fits.” The
committee claims that there is no such thing as “normal”, and there are no existing
“normal” people (i.e., people existing in the average). For example, no one has 2.3
children.
The Board of the College of Patapsychology, Wilson writes, offered one million Irish
pounds to anyone who can produce “a normal sunset, an average Beethoven sonata,
an ordinary Playmate of the Month, or any thing or event in space-time that qualifies
as normal, average or ordinary.”
The committee’s name is a parody of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
Claims of the Paranormal, and the million-pound challenge a parody of the prize
offered by James Randi for evidence of paranormal abilities.”
“In Wilson’s account, CSICON began with a conversation Finnegan heard in a pub
between two men named O’Brian and Nolan. They were discussing the strange
weather. Another man named Sean Murphy interjected, “Ah, Jaysus. I’ve never seen a
boogerin’ normal day. And I never met a fookin’ average man neither.”
This inspired Finnegan, and the next day he wrote a two-page outline on a new
science he dubbed patapsychology. The paper began with the sentence, “The average
Canadian has one testicle, just like Adolf Hitler-or, more precisely, the average
Canadian has 0.96 testicles, an even sadder plight than Hitler’s, if the average
Anything actually existed.””
———
“Patapsychology is the philosophy that there is no such thing as ‘normal’. Its name is
derived from parapsychology as a catch-all for paranormal studies, but it is not
limited to purely psychological phenomena.
The term first appeared in the writings of Robert Anton Wilson, who credited it to
Timothy F.X. Finnegan, founder of CSICON.”
———
———
“This is why I prefer to call myself a zetetic (as did the late sociologist Marcello
Truzzi) rather than a skeptic, perhaps especially because the term skeptical is being
abused by organizations such as SI.
Here is how I see the difference: given paranormal claim A, there are three categories
of people with regard to the claim.
The Zetetic, as Truzzi noted, neither accepts A uncritically nor assumes a priori that
A cannot be, but simply keeps gathering the evidence which leans toward one
possibility or the other.
As I view it, Forteans are Zetetics – not Skeptics or True Believers. And that is why I
call myself both. And hate being labeled a True Believer, since, as John Keel declared,
Belief is the Enemy. Or, as Robert Anton Wilson put it, Convictions Create Convicts.”
———-
Whereas ‘academic’ skepticism, with as its most famous adherent Carneades, claims
that “Nothing can be known, not even this”, Pyrrhonian skeptics withhold any assent
with regard to non-evident propositions and remain in a state of perpetual inquiry.
According to them, even the statement that nothing can be known is dogmatic.
For example, Pyrrhonians might assert that a lack of proof cannot constitute
disproof, and that a lack of belief is vastly different from a state of active disbelief.
Rather than disbelieving in God, psychic powers, etc. for instance, based on the lack
of evidence of such things, Pyrrhonians recognize that we cannot be certain that new
evidence won’t turn up in the future, and so they intentionally remain tentative and
continue their inquiry. Pyrrhonians also question accepted knowledge, and view
dogmatism as a disease of the mind.
“Truzzi founded the skeptical journal Explorations and was invited to be a founding
member of the skeptic organization CSICOP. Truzzi’s journal became the official
journal of CSICOP and was renamed The Zetetic, still under his editorship. About a
year later, he left CSICOP after receiving a vote of no confidence from the group’s
Executive Council. Truzzi wanted to include pro-paranormal people in the
organization and pro-paranormal research in the journal, but CSICOP felt that there
were already enough organizations and journals dedicated to the paranormal.
Kendrick Frazier became the editor of CSICOP’s journal and the name was changed to
Skeptical Inquirer.
After leaving CSICOP, Truzzi started another journal, the Zetetic Scholar.[2] He
promoted the term zeteticism as an alternative to skepticism, because the term
skepticism, he thought, was being usurped by what he termed “pseudoskeptics“. A
zetetic is a “skeptical seeker.” The term’s origins lie in the word for the followers of
the skeptic Pyrrho in ancient Greece and was used by flat-earthers in the 19th
century. Truzzi’s form of skepticism was pyrrhonism, as opposed to the Academic
tradition founded by Plato, which is followed by most scientific skeptics.[3]“
———
Some skeptics and critics have frequently called Fort credulous and naïve, a charge
his supporters deny strongly. Over and over again in his writing, Fort rams home a
few basic points that were decades ahead of mainstream scientific acceptance, and
that are frequently forgotten in discussions of the history and philosophy of science:
Fort often notes that the boundaries between science and pseudoscience are
‘fuzzy’: the boundary lines are not very well defined, and they might change
over time.
Fort also points out that whereas facts are objective, how facts are interpreted
depends on who is doing the interpreting and in what context.
Fort insisted that there is a strong sociological influence on what is considered
‘acceptable’ or ‘damned’ (see strong program in the sociology of scientific
knowledge).
Though he never used the term “magical thinking“, Fort offered many
arguments and observations that are similar to the concept: he argued that
most (if not all) people (including scientists) are at least occasionally guilty of
irrational and “non scientific” thinking.
Fort points out the problem of underdetermination: that the same data can
sometimes be explained by more than one theory.
Similarly, writer John Michell notes that “Fort gave several humorous instances
of the same experiment yielding two different results, each one gratifying the
experimenter.”[6] Fort noted that if controlled experiments – a pillar of the
scientific method – could produce such widely varying results depending on
who conducted them, then the scientific method itself might be open to doubt,
or at least to a degree of scrutiny rarely brought to bear. Since Fort’s death,
scientists have recognized the “experimenter effect“, the tendency for
experiments to tend to validate given preconceptions. Robert Rosenthal has
conducted pioneering research on this and related subjects