Examining Academic Relativists

As a professor of rhetoric, I read Sven Ove Hansson’s article (“The Hidden Connection between Academic Relativists and Science Denial,” September/October 2021) with great interest. I only wish he had highlighted more of the “excellent such research” that he intimated existed.

It is clear that rhetoric exists in many areas related to science, be it the funding received, the grants promoted, or even the manner in which scientific concepts are framed/promoted within science and when presented to the larger public. It is also clear that the rhetoric of science/inquiry engages science in a host of ways that his article either obscured or downplayed.

I also think Hansson missed at least two opportunities to bookend his discussion. The Alan Sokal hoax, as presented in the pages of Social Text and then announced in Lingua Franca (and then given further life in numerous articles and books), is the most obvious case. The more recent dustup involving former Portland State University professor Peter Boghossian and two colleagues is another. Both examples highlight the merits of Hansson’s thesis. I make mention of both in my upper-division Ethics of Rhetoric class.

While Hansson may be guilty of being a bit selective in the evidence he chose from his “extensive study of social science literature since the 1960s,” focusing primarily on the previous two decades, I still think that his overall point is well put. Perhaps he can follow this article up with one that extends a more amicable hand to those in rhetoric and allied fields/disciplines who share his concerns.

Mark J. Porrovecchio
Associate Professor of Rhetoric
Director of Forensics
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon

UFOs Hit the News

Kudos to Andrew Fraknoi and Kendrick Frazier for their attempts to reproach The New Yorker for its recent dalliance with pseudoscience (“Two Letters The New Yorker Didn’t Publish,” September/October 2021). Allow me to share mine as well.

The adjective “astrology-blue,” used by Rivka Galchen in “NASA’s New Telescope Will Show Us the Infancy of the Universe” (New Yorker, August 16), is mysterious on its own. (How did The New Yorker’s vaunted fact-checkers ascertain that astrology is blue and not orange or green?) But applied, as it was, to the eyes of the astronomer Marcia Rieke, it also seems insulting. What’s next? References to the “homeopathy-blond” hair of a physician or the “phrenology-dusky” complexion of a neuroscientist?

Glenn Branch
National Center for Science Education
Oakland, California

The latest sightings—in “How to Keep Your Mind on Solid Ground during the Latest UFO Excitement,” September/October 2021, photo on page 34—caused quite a stir with a UFO (UAP) apparently streaking across the sky at high speed, making sudden and extraordinarily rapid turns as tracked from above by a U.S. Navy pilot. It reminds me of people who use a laser pen to tease a cat by projecting a light spot onto a floor or wall, which also can make sudden and rapid turns. With Israel announcing it has had great success in destroying drones with a powerful laser, I wonder if there is a satellite carrying such a laser and perhaps testing it by projecting a holographic image of a spacecraft whose movements appear similar to that when using a laser spot to tease a cat. Just asking.

Robert Berliner
Sherman Oaks, California

Robert Sheaffer starts with “Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you have no doubt noticed that news media have been filled with gushing, uncritical articles, proclaiming the glorious new reality of UFOs” (“UFOs Explode in Credulous Media,” September/October 2021). Well, I haven’t noticed such a thing, but I am not living under a rock. But I do not live in the United States. I live in Europe, and while UFO stories are not completely unknown here, it’s safe to say that the USA is the world’s leader in UFO conspiracies.

Now to be fair, Sheaffer’s article was taken from his blog, which probably is mainly, if not exclusively, read by Americans. But the Skeptical Inquirer is an international magazine, and even with a strong focus on the United States, it would sometimes be helpful to remember that not all readers are intimate with American television programs or news articles or pop culture, etc., and at least offer a short recap for your international audience.

Peer Sylvester
Berlin, Germany

WHO’s  No-Drink Suggestion

Julia Lavarnway’s Commentary, “WHO’s Suggestion That Women of Childbearing Age Not Drink” (September/October 2021) lured me in with its interesting headline but left me wanting. It seems to have settled on a guilty verdict from the start, that the World Health Organization’s new plan is in fact sexist, without ever making a compelling case. I realize this is an opinion piece, but surely there’s still room for skepticism in the span of two pages. Even a mild skeptical investigation might lead one to ask, prior to condemnation, whether the WHO has done something similar to this in the past? Are they ideologically motivated? Could this be due to recent changes in leadership? Mistranslation to English? A grammatical error? Someone’s best attempt at describing the time period during which a woman might be bearing children?

The WHO is an important organization making decisions with far reaching consequences. If you are going to sow seeds of distrust, please make the effort to do so responsibly. Take note from the surrounding pages that penetrate through the surface of the story with careful examination. I hope the contributors to SI will remember that if you’re going to attribute malice in place of ignorance, you need to do so with a great deal of evidence.

Adam Spontarelli
Lynchburg, Virginia

Julia Lavarnway replies:

I did not say that the WHO is a sexist organization. The only time I even used the words sexist and sexism was in the concluding paragraph when I wrote, “So is the WHO’s action plan sexist?” (emphasis added) and “Bringing sexism into scientific guidelines does men and women alike a grave disservice” (emphasis added). I was writing a short commentary piece on one draft of a single action plan’s suggestion that women of childbearing age not drink. If I were writing an in-depth article on the organization’s attitudes toward women generally, then yes, I think it’d make sense to delve deeper into the WHO’s history, motivations, etc. However, that was outside of the scope of this piece.

‘I Was Wrong’

I thoroughly enjoyed Ted Goertzel’s “‘I Was Wrong’: Religious Prophesy and the 2020 Election,” (September/October 2021) as well as the memorable issue of SI it was published in. It could have had the title prefix, “Oops, We Did It Again,” because nothing could be much truer. This “I told you so” exposé was clearly sacrilegious, and I fear he may suffer the wrath of those total believers, but deservedly and gleefully so.

A thump on the Trump noggin is good medicine for the terminally ill-informed minions of chaos. The article makes clear the gullibility of those ignorant devotees. They will flock together and run off a cliff like a mob of doomed lemmings—with their banners waving. They know he’s coming back … maybe to save them from themselves? Nothing that contradicts their state of thought will convince them of their error or lack of critical thinking. Regardless of their fate, it’s worth reading about the willingness of the damned to accept it.

Edward Fisher
Chalmers, Indiana