CSICOP - from the Milton pages.
- In April, I sent a news article that appeared to be based on a news release
by either CSICOP and/or their investigator, Joe Nickell. This is as close to
all I know about CSICOP save for Mr Milton's pages and it is not very
impressive. He went off to debunk a number of supposed myths in the maritime
provinces of Canada. It appeared that the only bunk on offer was the story
itself, since it put a spin on things that was specious at the minimum.
Telling countrymen that they cannot tell woodland creatures swimming in a
lake, and having a city boy tell them at that, is not the most confidence
inspiring situation. That and telling people that an optical illusion -
clearly posted to be an optical illusion - is an exercise predicted to lose
friends and influence people to dispose of you at the nearest border with
clear indications of what will happen if you come back.
This might be a waste of time and resources, but it is not my time or
resources. I need not pay any attention to it if I do not choose to do so.
Mr. Milton gives us all reason to pay very close attention.
Mr Milton tells us that the president of the organisation, Dr. Kurtz, has
said on television:
"If we are going to admit aliens, what are we going to admit next? Fairies?
Elves? Where do we draw the line?"
This is a very common propaganda technique, not drawing the line so that the
line can be drawn to very close standards later. Lines that allow more than
they should on one side but less on the other. There is no significant body
of the population that claims to have seen fairies or elves, but there is a
sizeable number that think they have seen aliens. Until they are PROVEN to
be wrong, we cannot make these broad generalisations. It is unscientific.
Even this would simply tell me that the group is not to my taste, it is
simply an aside but they go much further, according to Mr. Milton. The
CSICOP's "Council for Media Integrity" is not there to put their view before
the public, but employ the tactics that are quite opposed to free speech.
If a story goes out that they do not like, they send out an alert to get
their members to "bombard" the media with complaints and even organise
boycotts of the sponsors. As an example, Mr. Milton said they targeted
Mysterious Origins of Man (NBC) where they tried heavy handed pressure
tactics against the programme.
It must be noted here that I agree with measured response to problems.
Amnesty International uses these tactics but have a very strict protocol
they follow. This is a case of killing flies with sledge hammers at the
least. Why not ask for rebuttal time? It is usually given. However, if all
you want to do is to restrict information, and muzzle those you do not agree
with, this is a good way.
There is an argument to be made that the creationists and others use these
tactics. Very true, but is victory worth the dishonour? Now you really do
have a problem with line drawing because they will not be made wider and
many more will be squeezed out and we will all be the losers.
If this is true, and I did say IF, then they are trying to censor the
information we get. They want to give us a one sided view. Their side. After
all, if we get to hear about alternatives, where will we draw the line? We
might all decide to abandon medical science and take up with seers and
fortune tellers. They may think we are all idiots, but I have my doubts.