His research may be terrific stuff; that is not what we are discussing, though. What is at issue is his CSICOP work, and how he typifies that organisation and its methods.

CSICOP presume to draw us all out of superstition through the exercise of reason, yet violate the canons of sound reasoning and discourse in the process. That is worthy of note, and it discredits them.

That Wiseman's CSICOP work is absurd does not detract from his other activities. And I am sure he is a nice guy to boot.

However, it is about time the debunkers were debunked. They have muddied the waters far too long, and there are much better ways to go about things.

Ah, Jerry, but popping up as a pundit on TV is CSICOP work par excellance. The organisation is dedicated to it, and has succeeded in making itself a fixture. Largely thanks to CSICOP lobbying, programme makers in the UK feel they have to have a sceptical pundit booked to 'balance' their script. As Kate pointed out in her comment, some faces have become almost traditional, even though their input is usually negligable. Not to include them, though, would be to invite accusations of bias or guillibility. I shall try to find an online article outlining how CSICOP has impacted documentary programme making in the UK.

And 'Both sides of the divide'...Which are what, exactly? This is just what I am trying to get at; contemporary documentary and discussion programme making flattens out the matter, 'til, ironed perfectly flat, it is a simple matter of sides. Well, in reality, it ain't; surely the matter at hand ought to be accepted on its own terms, complexities and nuances and all.

That said, I think one can adopt a stance opposed to poor argument and patronising, 'reduce to the level of the common denominator' discourse.

Ok, here is a link to Guy Lyon Playfair's The Skeptical Observer:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/observer/index.htm

The article you are after is entitled 'Media Watch
Has The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) Lost the 30 Years' War? '

This is a lengthy piece, but worth reading for an overview that is sceptical of the sceptics.

And of course, in the spirit of balance and fair play, here is the CSICOP site (bless 'em):
http://www.csicop.org/

The write-up on The Anomolist front page today expressed it far more eloquently than I have: "The juxtaposition of witness and pundit leads to Wisemanism; contemporary documentary makers go in for such juxtapositions in a big way."

Why Wiseman? Why not, actually? A few years back it would have certainly have been Blackmoreism; Popeism doesn't work as it sounds like an accusation of hiding priests in secret rooms and plotting for the return of The King Beyond The Water...Wisemanism fits. He is a leading proponant of the fallacy, and is raffishly handsome to boot; you have to admit, he looks great in Q's illustration.

On Pope: Pope is more obviously superfluous than the usual pundits. The thing about fallacies is that they are persuasive and they work by stealth; it is easy miss them and assent to something lacking proper grounding.

That is what is poisonous about Wisemanisms; we are given a statement of general principle to which we can easily assent, but which is irrelevant to the matter at hand. That results in a 'yes...erm..hang on...but', by which time the discussion has swept on and our assent has been noted.

This is an artefact of documentary making, to be sure, but I believe it also reflects the pundits themselves and their tendency to dispense platitudes as if they were profundities. It also reflects, I believe, their unwillingness to actually address the material on its own merits, which strikes me as the opposite of the spirit of inquiry.

"You'd probably be better off analysing why modern UFO documentaries are so poor, rather than berating who's on it for the way anything they say is presented."

You are rather missing the point of the article, I feel.

Sceptics need to be subject to the kind of analysis they would subject me to for (for example) my subscription to survivalism. That is reasonable.

Also, if one is going to champion sound reasoned discourse, one had better engage in sound reasoned discourse. CSICOP (or CSI, as I notice they are now dubbed) have been criticised for adopting an 'ends justify the means' approach; as long as their message is put across, the means of delivery is not such an issue. Goal posts can be moved to suit, as and when.

That aspect of the secular-humanist movement is worth pointing out and condemning.

So, in part this is about documentary makers patronising their audiences, failing to credit them with the ability to follow sustained, reasoned discourse; but it is also about slef-proclaimed public educators bending the rules to suit their ends, else not being bothered to play the game properly by the rules.

"If not, then you might be better off anlayzing 'Popeisms' as much as 'Wisemanisms', for the sake of balance."

I seem to recall my other blog entry to date on CoW is a deconstruction of ghost hunting hyperbole. To date I have maintained an immaculate balance; let's see how it looks after my third blog entry...

Agreed, he was brought in as a skeptic with a 'k' and the edit will have reflected that; had he said 'Now look here, let's all play this by the book lest we get ahead of ourselves for as our master Aristotle reminds us in The Organon...', it would almost certainly have hit the cutting room floor as too tweedy.

It is being suggested (though gently and with great charm) that I am being a bit unfair on Wiseman. Well, I am afraid to say he has come into far harsher criticism. For example:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/

This refers, of course, to the Natasha Demkina case, in which Wiseman played a significent role. In this notable case, I feel he is worthy of censure, and so do people much better qualified to comment than this poor pilgrim.

The conclusion is worth quoting:

"The CSICOP organisation is not infrequently taken to have an authority that it does not deserve. Such organisations are in reality pressure groups, taking every chance they can get to press their beliefs in the media, often in ways that have been characterised as misleading. Representatives of the media need to be on their guard against this kind of thing. Some recommendations directed toward this end follow:

Keep your critical faculties active, and bear in mind the possibility that what seems, on the face of it, to be a dispassionate scientific investigation may in reality have an underlying unstated agenda. In the above case for example, the choice of cut-off point, and the way the 'failure' was handled, rather strongly suggests some such deliberate intent, but in other cases it may be harder to judge.

As a corollary, taking into account such uncertainty, it is well, in writing reports, to avoid phrases such as 'scientists have shown': instead, you can talk in terms of 'claims', which word carries less of a connotation of scientists' pronouncements being absolute truth."

From what I gather Wiseman is an exceedingly nice chap who has done good work in his field. It is a pity his CSICOP/CSI work puts him in the firing line, but there we go. Such foolery in no way invalidates his other works; it does not, however, become him.

Silly boy.

"You may instead then be better off picking apart Wiseman's research than focus on how he's presented by TV production companies."

Ah, but it was never my intention to follow him about the web like Charles Laughton in Les Miserables...as I said, a few years ago the focus would be someone else.

Oh dear, I seem to have gone on a bit...time for a milky drink and an MR James story...

"http://www.dream-detective.com/_wsn/page17.html

I always thought wisemanism was when you trotted out a talking head with a vanity press book to his name who toes the party line..."

Evening Oscar.

Though I feel Whistler would have put it better this time, as that was gnomic to say the very least. Haven't been at the Absinth again, have we?

I'm sorry. I'll expand a little, then.

I'm afraid I didn't understand your post, though it was written as though I should. Perhaps you could expand a little yourself?