Abstract

During the mid 1970s, a host of philosophers, scientists, authors, and "rationalists" formally responded to what they felt was a growing social problem: the rise in paranormal and occult beliefs. Under the leadership of professor Paul Kurtz of the State University of New York at Buffalo, they formed the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal . This group encouraged a "scientific approach" to investigate paranormal and fringe claims, which included "pseudosciences" and belief systems such as astrology, parapsychology, creationism, and UFOlogy. For over twenty years, they have provided a forum for the discussion, analysis, and evaluation of fringe fields. They have also promoted a practical skepticism, which advises a preliminary orientation of doubt, especially when a claim seems inconsistent with the results of science. ;Drawing source material mainly from the organization's chief publication, The Skeptical Inquirer, this study identifies and examines the ideas that guided CSICOP. This includes how its efforts have affected the larger discussion about the quality of public knowledge, particularly with respect to the application of reason to social problem solving. ;The study shows that CSICOP immediately faced two "threshold questions"---decisions about what claims should be investigated and how should they be evaluated---and that their implicit answers determined the group's direction. It identifies key areas of the CSICOP's contribution to public knowledge: promoting principles of inquiry and evaluation, addressing the problem of belief acquisition, connecting a truth claim with a theoretical mechanism, and clarifying the values of skepticism and critical thinking in practical terms. In addition, detailed case studies explore the group's skeptical reply to claims from three fringe fields: UFOlogy, parapsychology, and astrology. Criticisms of the group's orientation, arguments, and judgments are also presented and analyzed. Some values of studying the fringe sciences have been proposed, including how they might help identify errors within the more subtle discussions of science