Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jan -> Article from Emory University Web Site

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: skywatch@wic.net (SKYWATCH)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 16:31:11 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:27:40 -0500
Subject: Article from Emory University Web Site

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:          Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:11:11 -0800
From:          Judy Tuttle <lotus144@usa.net>
Reply-to:      lotus144@usa.net
To:            skywatch@wic.net
Subject:       Article from Emory University Web Site

Posted by TRUTH on January 21, 1997 at 11:59:22:

The Courtney Brown affair and academic freedom

Academic freedom -- the right of faculty members to pursue and discuss
whatever interests they wish, no matter how outlandish or repugnant
others might find them -- is a cornerstone of institutions of higher
learning. Without it, the very rationale undergirding that remarkable
democratic organization we call a university crumbles. Nevertheless,
there are inevitably times when academic freedom conflicts with a
university's best interests. When this occurs, vexing pragmatic and
ethical questions arise.

The most recent example of this conflict at Emory involves Dr. Courtney
Brown, an associate professor in the political science department.
Brown's actions and words have, to put it mildly, aroused considerable
ridicule and controversy at Emory and in the broader academic community.
In his new book, Cosmic Voyages: A Scientific Discovery of
Extraterrestrials Visiting Earth, Brown claims to use powers of "remote
viewing" (an alleged psychic ability permitting individuals to "see"
objects at enormous distances) to visit Mars and observe the actions of
aliens. He purports to have uncovered indisputable evidence that two
races of extraterrestrials, Martians and Greys, left the red planet
centuries ago and have taken up residence in the dark recesses of Earth.

But Brown does not stop there. His remote viewing methods, which are "as
rigorously controlled as those used in any solid social science text,"
have revealed that Adam and Eve were architects of a genetic engineering
project and that numerous Star Trek episodes were written with the
assistance of aliens. In one of the book's more remarkable chapters,
"The Grey Mind," Brown claims to have "entered the mind" of an
extraterrestrial and investigated its psychological make-up. Brown, who
directs the "Farsight Institute" in Atlanta, offers seminars--at a cost
of $3,000 per head--that promise to provide attendees with the psychic
abilities he has mastered.

One hardly knows where to begin. Brown's book is remarkable for its
virtually complete absence of any data that would qualify as scientific
by even the most liberal evidential standards. His "findings" consist
entirely of unverified subjective experiences, and the reader searches
in vain for anything vaguely resembling a controlled experiment. Brown
neglects to mention either the results of a recent government-appointed
scientific panel on remote viewing, which concluded that "evidence for
the operational value of remote viewing is not available, even after a
decade of attempts," or the critiques of Ray Hyman, a psychologist at
the University of Oregon, who has shown that the scientific evidence in
support of remote viewing is seriously flawed. Philosopher David Hume
maintained that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence;
Brown's evidence is, to be charitable, singularly unimpressive.

In light of Brown's claims, I recently challenged him to a test of his
alleged psychic abilities. I proposed that he appear at a meeting of my
undergraduate seminar on Science and Pseudoscience in Psychology, where
my students and I would subject him to a simple controlled experiment
examining his capacity to remotely view stimuli in an adjacent room. I
assured him that he would have considerable input regarding the
selection of stimulus materials, and agreed to publicize the results of
this test in both Emory newspapers regardless of its outcome.

But Brown categorically refused. His reasoning was curious: In his
e-mail response to me, he
asserted that "tests of the type you have talked about are very old hat"
and that the current status of remote viewing "goes light years beyond
that which your letter suggests." But if Brown's psychic powers are as
advanced as he claims, shouldn't he be able to pass an elementary test
of these powers with flying colors?

Brown also declined my offer on the grounds that he did "not want to
drag Emory into my other activities" and that he is "rigorous about not
mixing what I do elsewhere with what I do at Emory." This rationale
seems disingenuous at best. If Brown did not wish to involve Emory in
his exploits, why did he list his academic affiliation with Emory in his
book and on his web site? Brown apparently wants to have it both ways:
He publicizes his association with Emory when it might afford him the
imprimatur of academic legitimacy, but refuses to submit to scientific
tests by Emory colleagues on the grounds that he does not wish to "drag
Emory" into a firestorm of controversy. But it is too late: Emory's
reputation has already been besmirched. As George Armelagos of the
Department of Anthropology notes, "Brown is naive if he believes his
fantasies do not affect the image of the University."

Why should we at Emory care about Brown? Many of his Emory colleagues
will surely suggest that he is best ignored. But such an attitude would
be misguided. As Carl Sagan argues in his recent book, The Demon-Haunted
World, the public's inability to think critically about scientific
issues is an unappreciated source of our educational and social woes. By
remaining silent on Brown's shenanigans, we do our students, who
desperately need role models of clear reasoning, a serious disservice.
Moreover, we leave ourselves open to criticisms such as those of Robert
Baker of the University of Kentucky, who suggested that the Brown affair
"bring(s) into question whether Emory has any high scientific
standards."

So how should Emory respond to Brown? I would argue that Brown's
academic freedom be
protected unconditionally, and that we defend his right to pursue his
interests without threat of official sanction or penalty. Nevertheless,
academic freedom also gives Brown's colleagues license to criticize him
openly. It is incumbent on qualified Emory faculty to inform the public
that Brown's assertions are scientifically irresponsible, and that his
money-making ventures and refusal to submit himself to independent tests
of his paranormal claims are ethically reprehensible. Academic freedom,
like all freedoms (e.g., the right to vote), becomes meaningless when
not exercised. Let us not forfeit it at a time when Emory's reputation
as a serious institution of higher learning is being challenged.

Scott O. Lilienfeld is an assistant professor in the Department of
Psychology.



http://www.farsight.org/wwwboard/messages/5590.html
----------------------------------------------
            Skywatch International, Inc.
               skywatch@wic.net
"Strange is sometimes stranger when it's true"
  For latest UFO and Paranormal information
 Site: http://www.wic.net/colonel/ufopage.htm
----------------------------------------------