Dr. Ray Hyman is a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon where he taught the psychology of belief and self-deception. He is a CSICOP Fellow and has been involved with CSICOP since its formation in 1976. CSICOP stands for Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal, and they are the publishers of Skeptical Inquirer Magazine. There is an entire movement of these idiots, obsessed with "debunking" and "education" of the masses to not believe anything that isn't officially sanctioned by, well...them.

I have a serious problem with these sorts of people, who act as science missionaries, out to convert us from our own stupidity and gullibility about what these obsessed nutcases have branded "pseudoscience". The original article linked to, sounded the warning bells for me for a number of reasons.

First, which I mentioned above, was the disingenuous and manipulative way the author suggested the courts should not have allowed the drug industry's "solid science" supporting the use of the drug Bendectin to be challenged by "experts" who weren't sanctioned by the drug industry.

The second warning bell set off by this article was #3:

"The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there."

Well, that one sounded the "missionary skeptic" alarm bell for me.

Getting back to Dr. Hyman, who also is a member of "Oregonians for Rationality" (yes, they are for real), he was quoted in a fairly recent article in the Skeptical Inquirer saying:

"That gets into another thing, which is, what skeptics' target should be. There are some, such as Martin Gardner, who say it is useless to try to reach the extreme believer, that we should focus on people who haven't committed themselves and who honestly want to know both sides. Others say, no, that we should be targeting skeptics. We need to immunize them against falling to the other side; basically, that we should be preaching to the converted. Although most skeptics and skeptics' groups don't articulate their goals.

Another task is deciding what to do and how. When CSICOP first formed in 1976 it called itself a "committee for the scientific investigation." Some thought we should do experiments. But experiments are very costly and difficult conduct. Even getting to the public is very costly. Here is what I think should be done. It is much cheaper to get to public opinion-makers, such as journalists and teachers. If you can convince a journalist to use your story, he will multiply your efforts many times over. CSICOP does a lot of good when the press picks up one of its stories. Teachers, also, multiply your efforts. We should focus on getting to teachers in school systems and science museums. Skeptics need to think about costs and what can be done for very little money."

Where I sit, that sort of thing is known as propagandizing, not science.