Its been an age since I've posted this thing. I shoudl note that this
derives almost entirely from Jim Lippard's comments and materials
available from the links page at www.skeptic.com.

And before Mitzen makes any snide remarks, Lippard is no friend of CSICOP.

A sTARBABY, Mars Effect Mini-FAQ

This mini FAQ centers around the controversy involving
Gauquelin/Rawlins/sTARBABY controversy that many paranormal advocates have used
and misrepresented over the years in order to smear and attack CSICOP and
skeptics in general.


Q: Who was Gauquelin?

Gauquelin was a psychologist/statistician who has put forth the 'Mars Effect'
idea and tested it with his collected data. It is around his work that the
controversy centers.


Q: Is the 'Mars Effect' for real?

Doubtful, but murky. Nevertheless the purpose of this FAQ is to clear up
misrepresentation of the controversy centering around his work. Not the
validity of his work.


Q: Who was Dennis Rawlins?

A former member of CSICOP,astronomer and the writer of the article sTARBABY.
Rawlins is a skeptic who broke with CSICOP over the Gauquelin issue.


Q: What was sTARBABY?

An article by Rawlins that appeared in FATE magazine October 1981. It is very
critical of the members of CSICOP and accuses them of cover-up. However, this
is quite misleading and even more misleading are the lines (not written by
Rawlins) preceding the article 'They call themselves the Committee for
the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. In fact they are a
group of would-be debunkers who bungled their major investigation, falsified
the results, covered up their errors and gave the boot to a colleague who
threatened to tell the truth.' This misleading intro was written by
Jerome Clark, not Rawlins.


Q: Did CSICOP fake data?

No. Despite the claims of many paranormalists, CSICOP had not faked data on
the Mars Effect . In fact, Rawlins never made this accusation.


Q: So who did fake data?

No one. As far as is known.


Q: Was Rawlins ordered by CSICOP to do a study on the Mars Effect and get
results that 'falsified the Mars Effect by any means'?

No, Rawlins did the data crunching for a study done by Zelen, Kurtz and Abell.
He, Gauquelin, and the three above all wrote reports on the results. Rawlins'
report was probably the most accurate but was hindered by Rawlins unneeded
use of ad hominems.


Q: So why was there a problem?

The problem started when the results of these studies re-affirmed the validity
of Gauqulein's baseline for chance. This had been in dispute and was the
reason for all of these reports. Basically, it had been proposed (by Zelen
in 1975) that Gauquelin's 'Mars Effect' was the same for both normal
folks and athletes that the study was checking on. But the studies came
back saying that Gauquelin's baseline was proper.

But then, Zelen,Kurtz, and Abell started to criticize the subsamples of
the sports champions. But in doing so they reduced the samples to numbers
too small to test any significant Mars Effect. This is where they erred, and
Rawlins took them to task for it.


Q: Isn't that the same as data faking?

No. Its poor analysis and bad criticism. That is what the are guilty of and
the ignoring of criticism of their criticism.


Q: Didn't they cover this whole thing up?

No. Because they admitted their mistakes in _Skeptical Inquirer_ in 1983. Late,
certainly, but hardly the result one would expect after something has been
allegedly 'swept under the rug'.


Q: Didn't Rawlins call them out on their bad analysis?

Yes, but he handled it poorly. Also of note is that he more vociferously
attacked Gauquelin's analysis of the data. In fact Rawlins was also
attacking Gauquelin. Many paranormalist advocates tend to conveniently forget
that part.


Q: Didn't CSICOP censor his criticism of CSICOP's work in the _Skeptical
Inquirer_?

No, the only 'censoring' was the deletion of inappropriate _ad hominem_ attacks
on Gauquelin and others. These were appropriate deletions and the scientific
criticism of CSICOP *and* Gauquelin was still fully intact.


Q: Doesn't _Skeptical Inquirer_ quash or censor articles and letters
that disagree with their status quo?

No, several articles critical of CSICOP have been printed in _SI_. Rawlins
article was intact, as were several articles on the Mars Effect from Gauquelin.
While _SI_ does have a bias (as do most magazines), they certainly gave plenty
of airplay to the Mars Effect controversy from *both* sides.

In addition, _SI_ let Rawlins have 5 1/2 pages, completely uncensored to show
that they were not covering anything up. Rawlins wasted the effort in order to
rant. So much for the 'cover-up'.


Q: Didn't CSICOP kick Rawlins out after a secret meeting because he wasn't
keeping the status quo?

No, the 'secret meeting' as claimed by some was actually the CSICOP
annual meeting. Rawlins did not attend this meeting and claims it was
because he was not sent airfare.

During this meeting Rawlins was not re-elected to the executive coucil. This
was mostly likely due to his absence. Rawlin's however, maintains that
'Mars Effect' was the sole reason for his not being re-elected. Doubtless it
did play a part but mostly because Rawlins was apparently behaving way out of
line at this point. Nobody wants such a person in charge, controversy or no.

Later, the vote for the CSICOP Fellows was held by mail. In this ballot
Rawlins' name was on the ballot but you had to read carefully to realize it
said that it was adding Paul Edwards to replace Dennis Rawlins. This
led to him not being re-elected to the CSICOP fellows.

There is some controversy around this decision. But CSICOP maintains that
they did this because Rawlins refered to CSICOP as a 'fraud' on BBC's 'Horizon'
but this was not apparent from anything on the ballot.

Rawlins writes that "Abell doesn't add that this tape was an out-take & so not
properly in Kurtz's possesion" in a footnote to his phone transcript, 10/6/81
p.f3. Rawlins doesn't deny that he said it; surely such a remark was the
business of CSICOP to know about whether or not it was actually aired -JJL

Q:But Rawlins claims that he was kicked out!

Rawlins claims his resignation was conditional on publication of his
resignation letter, but his resignation was accepted without such publication.


Q: Isn't Rawlins behavior due to frustration with CSICOP lack of response to
his criticism?

Yes, partially at least.


Q: Doesn't that show how bad CSICOP is?

No, it shows that CSICOP can have internal problems and politics just like
every other organization in the world. This was the problem mentioned in
sTARBABY for the most part. But paranormal advocates prefer to stick with the
misleading 'data fakery' attack since that lie tends to put the CSICOP internal
politics in a nastier light.

CSICOP has had problems in dealing with criticism especially from
*skeptics*. There can be no denying this. But it is a matter for CSICOP and
other skeptics to deal with. Not a subject for inaccurate cat-calls from
paranormal advocates.

However, the fact remains that there was no fakery of data. Only bad scientific
criticism. Hardly something to condemn CSICOP over. Especially considering that
they have admitted their mistakes and have given all critics their say in the
manner.


Q: Wait! You can't be right, because Robert Anton Wilson said in 'The New
Inquisition' the it happened like this... (blah, blah, blah)

R. Wilson has often been wanting for facts in many cases he talks about. A
case in
point would be where he comments in 'T.N.I.' that Randi's criticisms of the
Targ-Puthoff experiments consisted of just shouting complaints in writing.
Wilson seems to have completely ignored the several *chapters* in Randi's
'The Truth about Uri Geller' where Randi systematically takes apart the
experiments performed with diligence and research into the methods of T & P.


Q: Well then who does know about this stuff?

Jim Lippard has probably the best insight to the whole mess. You can visit his
ftp site at ftp.skeptic.com/pub/lippard and read more thorough articles on
this affair. The information on this FAQ comes predominantly from the work
J. Lippard has done on it. He welcomes reasonable inquiries on the subject.

Other people who are quite well informed on this issue include psychologist
Suitbert Ertel, Ken Irving (both pro-Gauquelin) and Mathematician Jan
Willem Nienhuys of the Dutch skeptics -JJL

Q: So why didn't he write the FAQ?

I'm only guessing here, but my guess is that Lippard only had to answer this
problem about once a year. More recently, however, this sTARBABY misinformation
has been popping up again and again. Lippard's work in the meantime has
shifted more over to alt.religion.scientology from sci.skeptic. So it goes.

A final word from Jim Lippard:

I'm not afraid to criticize CSICOP where it is merited. And they did do
some criticizable stuff regarding the Mars effect and its handling of Dennis
Rawlins. But in general, they have not gotten a fair shake in descriptions of
this controversy by advocates of the paranormal. -JJL

Matt Kriebel
gothic@netaxs.com

--
Matt Kriebel * The Hessian Web Page:
gothic@netaxs.com* http://www.netaxs.com/~gothic/Hessian.html (Who's computer is this?)
*********************************************************************
The truth is out there, but the speculation is way, *way* out there.