Wikipedia, Skeptical Inquirer, and AI on Robert A. Baker plagiarism accusations

 The Wikipedia entry for University of Kentucky psychologist and skeptic Robert A. Baker recently (December 2023) restored a section on plagiarism accusations against him, which originated in a 1994 letter to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer from Jody Hey and were compounded by further accusations by Terence Hines and by me the same year. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia entry currently leaves the debate the same way the Skeptical Inquirer did in 1995, giving Baker the final word with a transparently false explanation.  Here's how the Wikipedia entry currently presents the issue:

Readers of Skeptical Inquirer, noticed in 1994 similarities between one of Baker's articles and William Grey's article Philosophy and the Paranormal, Part 2. After discovering this, Baker wrote to Grey apologizing for "forgetting both the direct quotation and the reference citation", he claims that it was an oversight. Grey publicly accepted Baker's apology in the Skeptical Inquirer.^[20] In the following year, author Terence Hines accused Baker of unattributed quotations from an article by Melvin Harris and from his own book Pseudoscience and the Paranormal.^[21] Baker responded in Skeptical Inquirer. stating that he used Melvin Harris' book Investigating the Unexplained as a source, rather than the article or Hines' book, and that he gave Harris credit but forgot the quotation marks.^[22]

This description is faulty in that it omits most of the evidence and is inconsistent with it. The most detailed account can be found in my 1994 report given to leaders at the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP, now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry or CSI) and subsequently published in 1995 to Usenet and its update. I've also assembled a chronology of events that led to my involvement and included legal threats from Baker, which I've now updated to include a letter from Paul Kurtz in his role as head of Prometheus Books noting that Baker's book Hidden Memories had been withdrawn from publication. While I've not exhaustively searched Baker's work, I found fairly consistent plagiarism in his books for Prometheus and his book reviews for Skeptical Inquirer throughout his career as a skeptic.

The rest of this post will first show that Baker's claim to have used Harris as a source, but not Hines, is false--there is clear evidence that Baker plagiarized Hines, whose book he did not cite (and his text matches Harris's article rather than the book where they differ). Second, it will show the heaviest section of plagiarism I identified in another Baker book, They Call It Hypnosis (1990, Prometheus Books). Finally, it will show that Baker's institution defined research misconduct in a way that includes what he did, and that Baker's own writing shows that he understood this to be misconduct.

The exchange between Hines and Baker in the pages of the July/August 1995 Skeptical Inquirer (pp. 44-46) focuses on a passage on p. 157 in chapter 4 of Baker's book, Hidden Memories: Voices and Visions from Within (1992, Prometheus Books) and its resemblance to a passage on p. 74 in Hines' book, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (1988, Prometheus Books) where he quotes from p. 23 of an article by Melvin Harris, "Are 'Past-Life' Regressions Evidence of Reincarnation?", Free Inquiry, Fall 1986, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 18-23 (quotation marks as given in Hines):

"...every single piece of information given by Jane Evans can be traced to de Wohl's fictional account. She uses his fictional sequences in exactly the same order and even speaks of his fictional characters, such as Curio and Valerius, as if they had been real."

Hines notes that Baker uses nearly the same words in the same sequence, without quotation marks or references, on p. 157 of Hidden Memories:

Every single piece of information given by Mrs. Evans could be traced to De Wohl's book, and Mrs. Evans used his fictional sequences in exactly the same order as he had, and even spoke of De Wohl's fictional characters, Curio and Valerius, as if they had been real.

Here is how Harris makes the same statement on p. 162 of his book, Investigating the Unexplained (1986, Prometheus Books), which Baker claims is his source (italics in original):

In the same way every single piece of information given out by Jane Evans can be traced to De Wohl's fictional account. She uses his fictional sequences in exactly the same order and even speaks of his fictional characters--such as Curio and Valerius--as if they were real people.

Harris's article (p. 23):

In the same way, every single piece of information given by Jane Evans can be traced to De Wohl's fictional account. She uses his fictional sequences in exactly the same order and even speaks of his fictional characters, such as Curio and Valerius, as if they were real people. 

Baker's wording omits the "out" in the first sentence, uses commas instead of hyphens, and doesn't use the italicization, all matching the article rather than the book.

Baker cites neither Harris nor Hines in the notes for chapter 4 of his book. He does mention Melvin Harris twice on the page with no citation and no attributed quotations, including once in the same paragraph as the above quotations. Baker's discussion of other cases earlier in the chapter differs from Hines and Harris--all three discuss Bridey Murphy, but Baker's case is more extensive than Harris or Hines. I suspect his sources may be identifiable from the other references he gives at the end of the book for the chapter.

But when it comes to Baker's discussion of Jane Evans, he engaged in more plagiarism of Hines, as can be seen by comparing his text to Hines and to Harris's article and book. Harris discusses the case extensively on pp. 155-163 of his book, while Hines' and Baker's discussions are each less than two pages long.

Here is what Baker writes (pp. 156-157), with exact word matches with Hines highlighted in yellow, and with Harris' article in orange (and I found no matches to Harris's book which did not also match the article):

The second, and by far the most [Harris: much more] impressive, was the case of a Welsh housewife named Jane Evans, who described six past lives that were remarkable for the tremendous amount of accurate historical detail [Harris: amount of detail] they contained. In one of the lives she was a maid in the house of a wealthy [Baker, p. 157:] and powerful merchant in fifteenth-century France. Mrs. Evans described accurately the house and all of its furnishings in great detail, as well as the members of the merchant's family. She made one very significant error in her account, however. She said the merchant was unmarried [Hines: not married] and had no children. In truth he was married and had five children, circumstances no maid would be unaware of. The same failure to mention wife and children turned up in a novel that had been written about the merchant, titled The Moneyman by Thomas B. Costain (1948). According to Melvin Harris, who investigated the case, the evidence is overwhelming that this book was the source of all of Mrs. Evan's [sic; Hines: basis for Evans's] "memories" of her life in fifteenth-century France.

   In another life that she reported, Mrs. Evans was a woman named Livonia, who lived during the Roman occupation of Britain. Her account [Hines: knowledge] of the historical facts of this [Hines: that] period was so accurate that authorities [Harris: authority] on Roman Britain were astounded. Again, however, there were a few factual errors. Her knowledge [Hines: information] of the period was traced to the 1947 best-selling novel The Living Wood by Louis De Wohl. Every single piece of information given by Mrs. Evans could be traced to De Wohl's book, and Mrs. Evans used [Hines, Harris: she uses] his fictional sequences in exactly the same order as he had, and even spoke [Hines, Harris: speaks] of De Wohl's [Hines, Harris: his] fictional characters, Curio and Valerius, as if they had been [Hines, Harris: were] real. The historical errors in Mrs. Evan's [sic] account were also found in the book. As Harris clearly demonstrated, Mrs. Evans had [Harris: had] the ability to store vivid stories in her subconscious and then creatively combine and edit them to the point that [Harris: where] she herself became [Harris: becomes] a [Harris: one of the] character in the story [Harris: involved].

This last sentence is another in which Baker follows Harris's article more closely than his book, which suggests Baker used the article in addition to Hines (who doesn't quote this sentence).  Harris's book (p. 161) says "... Jane Evans has the ability to subconsciously store vivid accounts and combine and edit these creatively--to the point where she becomes one of the characters involved." The article (p. 22) says "...Jane Evans has the ability to store vivid tories in her subconscious and creatively combine and edit them to the point where she becomes one of the characters involved."

Overall, Baker follows Hines more closely than Harris, and when there are discrepancies between Harris's article and book, Baker follows the article.  While Harris names the maid (Alison), neither Hines nor Baker do. In structure, after introducing the maid, Hines and Baker mention Evans' description of the house and furnishings, but Harris only mentions that after describing Evans' "inside-knowledge of the intrigues surrounding the King's mistress, Agnes Sorel," which Hines and Baker omit. The sentences from Hines and Baker that immediately follow the house and furnishings differ slightly in wording but are strikingly similar:

Hines (p. 73): "Evans' account of her life in Coeur's house contains one most puzzling, and significant error. She says he was not married and had no children. But he was married and had five children--not the sort of thing the maid would be likely to overlook."

Baker (p. 157): "She made one very significant error in her acccount, however. She said the merchant was unmarried and had no children. In truth he was married and had five children, circumstances no maid would be unaware of."

Harris, by contrast, is quite different (p. 22): "In particular, the novel very neatly answers an important question raised by Iverson and other commentators: Why doesn't Alison know that her master is married? As Iverson puts it: 'How is it that this girl can know Coeur had an Egyption bodyslave and not be aware that he was married with five children?--a published fact in every historical account of Coeur's life?...If the explanation for the entire regression is a reading of history books in the twentieth century, then I cannot explain how Bloxham's subject would not know of the marriage.'"

For completeness, here's Harris's book, which differs very slightly (p. 158): "In particular, the novel very neatly answers an important question raised by Iverson and other commentators--a question prompted by the curious fact that Alison does not know that her master is married! As Iverson puts it: 'How is it that this girl can know Coeur had an Egyptian bodyslave and not be aware that he was married with five children?--a fact published in every historical account of Coeur's life? ... If the explanation for the entire regression is a reading of history books in the twentieth century, then I cannot explain how Bloxham's subject would not know of the marriage.'"

In short, Baker plagiarized Hines and Harris, and his explanation is not consistent with the facts, with the truth revealed in much the same way as the truth was revealed about Evans' stories being sourced from fiction.

Next, we turn to Baker's They Call It Hypnosis, where Baker repeatedly plagiarized sources word-for-word without quotation marks, sometimes referencing them in the chapters where used, sometimes not referencing them in the chapter, and sometimes not referencing them at all (see my full report for more examples of each). In these examples, Baker lifts from work by Nicholas P. Spanos, by Spanos and co-author John F. Chaves, and by Irving Kirsch and James R. Council, with his only original contributions being some introductory or connecting phrases and substitution of synonyms. Here is what appears on pp. 129-131 of They Call It Hypnosis, part of chapter three titled "Hypnosis: Recent and Contemporary Views," with highlights indicating word-for-word plagiarism from the sources used:

     [Baker, p. 129] Overall, Spanos's position on hypnosis is very clear. He argues that, despite widespread belief to the contrary, hypnotic procedures do not greatly augment responsiveness to suggestions. Nonhypnotic control subjects who have been encouraged to do their best respond just as well as hypnotic subjects to suggestions for pain reduction, amnesia, age regression, hallucination, limb rigidity, etc. Hypnotic procedures, he says, are no more effective than nonhypnotic relaxation procedures at reducing [Spanos: lowering] blood pressure and muscle tension or affecting [Spanos: effecting] other behavioral, physiological, or verbal report indicators of relaxation. Hypnotic procedures are no more effective than various nonhypnotic procedures at enhancing imagery vividness or at facilitating therapeutic change for such problems as chronic pain, phobic response, cigarette smoking, etc. The available scientific evidence that Spanos and his collaborators have compiled fails to support the notion that hypnotic procedures bring about unique or highly unusual states of consciousness or that these procedures facilitate responsiveness to suggestion to any greater extent than nonhypnotic procedures that enhance positive motivation and expectation. [Spanos, p. 175]

     Spanos also notes that hypnotic suggestions do not directly instruct the subject to do anything. Instead, they [Spanos: suggestions] are usually phrased in the passive voice and imply that something is happening; for example [Spanos: e.g.], "Your arm is rising," instead of "Raise your arm." The [Spanos: This] passive phrasing communicates the idea that the suggested effects are occurring [Spanos: happening] automatically. In other words, the hypnotic suggestions are really tacit requests to the subject to become [Baker, p. 130 begins:] involved in a make-believe activity. Good hypnotic subjects understand this [Spanos: the implications of these tacit requests] and use their imaginative abilities and acting skills to become absorbed in the make-believe activities [Spanos: scenarios]. Spanos notes that the method actor who throws himself into the role is the analogue of the good hypnotic subject who throws himself [Spanos: themselves] into generating the experiences relevant to his [Spanos: their] role as someone who is hypnotized and responsive to suggestions. [Spanos, pp. 175-176]

     Spanos and his collaborators have looked closely at hypnotic age regression and have demonstrated that regressed subjects do not, in any real sense, take on the cognitive, perceptual, or emotional characteristics of actual children. Instead of behaving like real children, age regressed subjects behave the way they believe children behave. To the extent that their expectations about how children behave are inaccurate, their age regression performances also are off the mark. Simply put, age regression suggestions are invitations to become involved in the [Spanos: this] make-believe game of being a child again. People who accept the invitation do not, in any literal sense, revert psychologically to childhood. Instead, they use whatever they know about real children, whatever they remember from their own childhood, to temporarily become absorbed in the fantasy of being a child again. [Spanos, p. 176]

     Just as subjects can be given suggestions for age regression, amnesia, or pain reduction, Spanos says they can also be led to believe that they possess "hidden selves." When Hilgard's good hypnotic subjects were told [Spanos: informed] that they possessed hidden selves they normally were unaware of--but to which the experimenter could talk when he gave [Spanos: by giving] the proper [Spanos: appropriate] signals--many of them [Spanos: these subjects], when the signals were given [Spanos: they received], acted [Spanos: behaved] as if they did have alternate egos [Spanos: possessed secondary selves]. Hilgard interpreted this as indicating [Spanos: interpret such findings to mean] that good hypnotic subjects carry around unconscious hidden selves with certain intrinsic, unsuggested characteristics. Spanos counters this by pointing out that the evidence shows these [Spanos: indicates instead that] so-called hidden selves are neither intrinsic to hypnotic procedures nor unsuggested. On the contrary, hidden self-performances--like other suggested responses--appear to reflect attempts by motivated and imaginative subjects to create the experiences and role-play the behaviors [Spanos: role behaviors] called for by the instructions they are given. By the experimenter varying these [Spanos: such] instructions, the subjects can be easily led to develop hidden selves with whatever characteristics the experimenters desire [Spanos: wish]. Depending upon the instructions given, good hypnotic subjects will act out [Spanos: enact] hidden selves reporting [Spanos: that report] very high levels of pain, very low levels of pain, or both high and low levels of pain in succession. Subjects can also be led to act as if they possess hidden selves that can remember concrete but not abstract words, or the opposite; or they can report seeing [Spanos: that see] stimuli accurately, seeing them [Spanos: see stimuli] in reverse, or not seeing them [Spanos: don't see stimuli] at all; as the experimenter wishes. In short, the subjects are [Spanos: subject is] acting out a fantasy which is initiated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. Then the fantasy is imaginatively elaborated upon and sustained by the subject and his interactions with the hypnotist. [Spanos, pp. 176-177]

     [Baker, p. 131 begins:] Spanos has also carried out studies of past-life regression, and in agreement with the findings of other researchers, his work indicates that past-life reports from hypnotically regressed subjects are fantasy constructions of imaginative subjects who are willing to become absorbed in the make-believe situation implied by the regression suggestions. As expected, subjects who responded well to other hypnotic suggestions were the most likely to respond well to regression suggestions. Those with the most practice at vivid daydreaming and everyday fantasizing, i.e., the fantasy-prone, created the most vivid past-life fantasies. In the same manner as childhood regressees, past-life reporters incorporate historical misinformation into their past lives [Spanos: -life enactments]. Those who from the outset believed in reincarnation thought their past lives were true [Spanos: -life experiences were veridical] rather than imaginary. A lengthier discussion of this topic and other paranormal hypnotic beliefs will be found in a later chapter. [Spanos, p. 179]

     By no means, however, does Spanos see the problem of hypnosis as solved. New knowledge leads us to new unknowns and in the well-known and pronounced effects of suggestion on the human body there are many unsolved problems. The suggestion-induced disappearance of warts, for example, is just such a dilemma. Spanos's own work has shown that neither a hypnotic induction nor preliminary instructions for relaxation add to the effectiveness of imagery-based suggestions in producing wart regression. Nor can the effects of suggestion be accounted for simply in terms of enhanced expectancies. Subjects given placebos and those given suggestions reported equivalent expectations of treatment success, but the suggestions were much more effective than the placebos in [Spanos & Chaves: at] producing wart regression. The suggestions, however, were not effective with all the subjects. They were most effective, Spanos reports, with subjects who had [Spanos & Chaves: possessed] multiple warts rather than [Spanos & Chaves: as opposed to] single warts. Those who rated their suggested imagery as especially [Spanos & Chaves: relatively] vivid also had better results. [Spanos & Chaves, pp. 445-446]

At this point, Baker says "Spanos concludes that" followed by a large block of correctly cited and quoted text from Spanos & Chaves p. 446 that fills the rest of p. 131, with a concluding sentence on p. 132 that appears to be original. Baker goes on in pp. 132-134 to describes the views of Irving Kirsch under the heading "Irving Kirsch and Response Expectancy in Hypnotic Behavior," with an original opening paragraph that cites Irving Kirsch, "Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior," American Psychologist 1985, vol. 40, pp. 1189-1202, a source he does not plagiarize. But he goes on to plagiarize a source that he cites nowhere in his book, Kirsch & Council's chapter from Spanos & Chaves' book (which book he does list as a reference at the end of the chapter, but doesn't cite in the section). There is more original content in this section, and more extensive rewriting, but the level of plagiarism increases as it goes on:

[Baker, p. 132:] In the latter part of the nineteenth century, Albert Moll argued [Kirsch & Council, p. 360: maintained] that hypnotic behavior was determined by two basic principles: 1) people [Kirsch & Council, quoting Moss, 1897, p. 241: men] have a certain proneness to allow themselves to be influenced by others through their ideas, and in particular, to believe much without making conscious logical deductions; 2) a psychological effect tends to appear in a person [Kirsch & Council, quoting Moss, 1897: man] if he is expecting it. Moll also was able to cause his [Kirsch & Council: elicit hallucinations by leading] blindfolded subjects to hallucinate when he told them [Kirsch & Council: to believe] they were being mesmerized.

   Moll's giving expectancy a role in the production of hypnotic phenomena anticipated Kirsch's thinking that response expectancies cause [Kirsch & Council, p. 361: generate corresponding] the individual to have internal subjective experiences which then cause [Kirsch & Council: and their] behavior [Kirsch & Council: behavioral and physiological correlates]. A very clear [Kirsch & Council: particularly apparent] example of this is the placebo effect. When the patient is given a sugar pill but is told or believes it is a powerful pain killer, miraculously, because of his expectancies, the pain goes away! As for hypnosis, according to Kirsch, the occurrence of a hypnotic response is a function of the subject's expectancy that it will occur. Once the subject has learned how a hypnotized subject is supposed to react and what he can expect to happen when he is hypnotized, then the hypnotic responses occur automatically, i.e., without conscious effort on the subject's part. Emotional reactions--fear, sadness, sexual arousal, pain--are good examples of automatic responses. Acrophobics, for example, will avoid tall buildings, cliffs, ferris wheels, etc., because of their expectancy that not doing so would result in a panic attack. 

   Various other evidence [Kirsch & Council, p. 362: A considerable body of data] is available to demonstrate that automatic [Kirsch & Council: nonvolitional] responses can be brought about [Kirsch & Council: elicited] by the mere expectancy of their occurrence. Both hypnosis and placebos are effective in treating pain, skin conditions, and asthma, and it seems reasonable to assume that the same mechanism, namely, response expectancy, produces these responses in both hypnosis [Baker, p. 133:] and the nonhypnosis situations. Telling subjects [Kirsch & Council, p. 364: informing them] they have received [Kirsch & Council: were ingesting] a psychedelic drug that will produce hallucinations causes about half [Kirsch & Council: 50 percent] to report visions, even though no drug was given. Subjects [Kirsch & Council: people] who are told that hypnotized subjects can't move their [Kirsch & Council: display catalepsy of the] dominant arm are likely to experience this effect when hypnotized, and being told [Kirsch & Council: informed] that inability to remember, i.e., spontaneous amnesia, is characteristic of hypnosis significantly increases the likelihood of its occurrence. When subjects were told that either the ability or the inability to resist responding to suggestions was characteristic of deep hypnosis, they responded accordingly.

   Besides affecting overt responses, role perceptions are an important determinant of self-reported experiences of altered states of consciousness. In a number [Kirsch & Council, p. 365: series] of studies it was shown [Kirsch & Council: this has been convincingly demonstrated] that the degree of change in state of consciousness subjects expected to experience significantly predicted the number of unsuggested alterations in experience they subsequently reported. Moreover, the data from these studies indicate [Kirsch & Council, p. 366: suggest] that no particular state of consciousness can be labeled a "hypnotic trance." Rather, a variety of changes in experience are interpreted by the subject as evidence of trance when experienced in a hypnotic context. Some of these are directly suggested in typical hypnotic induction--relaxation, for example [Kirsch & Council, p. 367: e.g.]--whereas others occur as a function of the subject's preconceptions. How the subject perceives the situation pretty much determines how effective the situation will be in producing hypnosis. Just hearing the words, "You are becoming very, very relaxed," is enough in our culture to make most people think [Kirsch & Council, p. 368: evokes the idea] of hypnosis. Glass and Barber (1961) a few years ago set up [Kirsch & Council: devised] a highly credible clinical environment and told subjects an inert pill was a powerful hypnotic drug which would produce a state of hypnosis. In this setting the pill was as effective as a standard hypnotic induction procedure in effecting [Kirsch & Council: raising levels of] the subject's responses to suggestion.

The rest of p. 133 of Baker is two original sentences that introduce a large block of text (five full sentences) properly identified as quotation and attributed to the Spanos & Chaves book without a page reference; it is from p. 371 in the Kirsch & Council chapter. Baker p. 134 completes the Kirsch section:

According to Kirsch's [Kirsch & Council, p. 371: expectancy] theory, the probability of occurrence of a nonvolitional response varies directly with the strength of the expectancy of the occurrence and inversely with the magnitude or difficulty of the expected response. [Baker has removed Kirsch & Council's quotation marks before "the probability"; the rest of the sentence is a direct quote from Kirsch's 1985 paper.]

   Trance induction procedures are, of course, typically designed to increase the subject's expectancies for responding to suggestions, and in the Ericksonian approach [Kirsch & Council: clinical practice] the hypnotist tailors his induction to the characteristics and ongoing behavior of the client [Kirsch & Council: individual subjects]. Kirsch sees most hypnotic induction procedures as merely expectancy modification procedures.

   Kirsch's response expectancy theory [Kirsch & Council, p. 374: hypothesis] is generally consistent with the nonstate theories of Sarbin, Barber, Wagstaff, and Spanos. All agree that hypnotic responses are best seen [Kirsch & Council: can be conceptualized] as compliance, belief, and imagination [Kirsch & Council: believed-in imaginings], and that the hypnosis experience occurs when people voluntarily play [Kirsch & Council: take on] the role of hypnotic subject. One key difference between Kirsch's theory and others is that his response expectancies are the immediate causes of the hypnotic response. Rather than having goal-directed images enhancing hypnosis, as Barber suggests, Kirsch has shown that the imagery enhances responsiveness by virtue of its effects on expectancy. Kirsch has also shown that not all so-called hypnotic phenomena are under a subject's will power or self-control [Kirsch & Council, p. 378: cannot be fully accounted for as volitional behavior]. Warts, for example, can be affected both by placebos and by hypnosis, and such changes in skin conditions are not under one's voluntary control. Kirsch notes that one could offer subjects a substantial sum of money to make their warts disappear, but it is highly unlikely that many subjects would be able to do so.

This phenomenon also clearly shows [Kirsch & Council, p. 378: demonstrates] the commonality between hypnosis [Kirsch & Council: hypnotic phenomena] and placebo effects. Both are examples of the nonvolitional nature of response expectancy effects. Kirsch's observation raises another point of significance--the fact that we must realize that not everything that happens to the human being as a result of external stimulation is or should be considered hypnosis! Suggestion is a very powerful influence on human behavior and it can influence human behavior in many different ways, only a very few of which we would or should designate as "hypnotic."

Yellow highlight: Nicholas P. Spanos, "Past-Life Hypnotic Regression: A Critical View," Skeptical Inquirer vol. 12, no. 2, Winter 1987-88, pp. 174-180. Not listed as a reference in chapter three, but is listed as a reference in chapter six.

Orange highlight: Nicholas P. Spanos and John F. Chaves, Hypnosis: The Cognitive-Behavioral Perspective, 1989, Prometheus Books. This is listed as a reference in chapter three, but is not cited in the section where it is plagiarized, but instead on p. 129 a few paragraphs before the plagiarism of the Spanos SI article (yellow highlight).

Green highlight: Irving Kirsch and James R. Council, "Response Expectancy as a Determinant of Hypnotic Behavior," in Spanos & Chaves (1989), pp. 360-379. This chapter is not listed as a reference in the book.

I reviewed Baker's They Call It Hypnosis for Amazon.com on November 18, 1996, and gave it four stars; I might subtract another star today and say more about its giving state theories short shrift, but otherwise I still agree with this:

This book is an excellent summary of theories of hypnosis
with an emphasis on criticisms of state theories. The
author argues for social/cognitive non-state theories.
The book is marred only by the fact that many passages
are lifted directly from the authors being summarized,
without being noted as such.

Finally, here is the definition of research misconduct from the University of Kentucky's "Policy on Ethical Standards and Misconduct in Research" (64.0 AR II-4.0-2) from 1992:

Research "misconduct", as used herein, is defined as plagiarism; 
fabrication or intentional falsification of data, research procedures or 
data analysis; or other deliberate misrepresentation in proposing, 
conducting, reporting, or reviewing research.  It does not include 
honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of 
data.  In cases of allegations involving activities submitted to or 
supported by a federal agency, the definition for misconduct specified 
in the agency's regulations will apply.

This policy was referenced in the faculty handbook section on "The Conduct of Research" in the paragraph on "Ethical Standards"; these are quoted more extensively in my full report. Baker was certainly aware of these in substance, as the following appears on p. 297 of Robert A. Baker and Joe Nickell's book, Missing Pieces: How to Investigate Ghosts, UFOs, Psychics, and Other Mysteries (1992, Prometheus Books):

Another question that is bound to arise has to do with rewriting and 
paraphrasing.  The courts once again have uniformly decided that it 
makes no difference whether the plagiarizer changes the arrangement of 
the original words or not--rewriting the material is not sufficient to 
aid the charge of infringement. ... More importantly, even if the use of 
the words and statements of another is totally honest, unintentional, or 
subconscious, it is still prohibited.  Neither forgetfulness nor 
ignorance is regarded as a legitimate excuse.  If, however, it was an 
honest and unintentional mistake, and no intent to plagiarize was in 
mind, the infringer usually gets off with a lesser punishment.

Baker's response to these allegations was at first to attack and concede nothing. He suggested that he was going to sue me for defamation, and enlisted the help of others who attempted to discredit me (see my letter to Tucson skeptic James McGaha). Ultimately, after psychologist Terence Hines, another prominent skeptic, was prepared to submit his book review of Baker's Hidden Memories, rejected by Skeptical Inquirer, to competing publication Skeptic magazine,  SI editor Kendrick Frazier relented and published the review along with Baker's reply. Baker fell back to the claim that his plagiarism was minor and unintentional, while resorting to falsehoods to attempt to prop up that explanation, as explained above. At this point, CSICOP founder and Prometheus Books head Paul Kurtz sent me a letter stating that Hidden Memories had been pulled from distribution and would not be reissued until corrections had been made; I replied noting that there were bigger problems in They Call It Hypnosis, but received no response.

Robert Baker was added to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry's Pantheon of Skeptics honoring distinguished Fellows of the organization on its creation in 2011.

Skeptical Inquirer and Wikipedia, at least to date, both gave Baker's falsehoods the final word. And perhaps the more interesting back story here is that Wikipedia is wrong because Skeptical Inquirer is wrong, but the reason Wikipedia only even mentioned Baker's plagiarism at all in December 2023 is because a Wikipedia editor with no dog in the fight, "Psychologist Guy," intervened and restored an old edit of the article to include the mention, which had been removed in 2018 by another Wikipedia editor, "Niomart," with the false justification that "No valid source substantiating plagiarism claims".

As the Internet becomes more and more filled with AI-generated content, there will be sources with superficial plausibility generated by large language models, there will be sources that are human-curated and based on genuine research and fact-checking, and there will be sources that are human-curated and ideologically driven that settle on acceptable half-truths concealing messy details. OpenAI's ChatGPT 3.5 says it knows nothing of plagiarism by Robert A. Baker:

Did Robert A. Baker's 1992 book, Hidden Memories (pp. 156-157), plagiarize from Terence Hines' 1988 book Investigating the Unexplained (pp. 73-75)?

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, I do not have specific information regarding an allegation of plagiarism between Robert A. Baker's book "Hidden Memories" and Terence Hines' book "Investigating the Unexplained" related to the pages specified. Therefore, I cannot definitively answer whether Baker's book plagiarized from Hines' book.

To investigate this further and obtain accurate information, I would recommend checking scholarly resources, academic databases, or reputable sources that discuss these books and any related allegations of plagiarism. You might also look into academic discussions or reviews of both books to see if there are any mentions of such accusations and their resolution.

Google Gemini quotes from and cites Wikipedia as the final word:

Was Robert A. Baker ever accused of plagiarism, or of failure to properly cite quotations and sources?

Yes, Robert A. Baker did face accusations of plagiarism in the past according to his Wikipedia page [Robert A. Baker Wikipedia].

Here's a summary of the incidents:

• In 1994, readers of Skeptical Inquirer identified similarities between Baker's article and another author's work. Baker apologized, claiming it was an oversight.
• The following year, another author pointed out unattributed quotes in Baker's writing. Baker defended himself by saying he used the original source but forgot quotation marks.

ChatGPT on the Mars Effect

 ChatGPT gets a lot of things wrong here. The Zelen Test is a test that expected to find that the Mars effect correlations in Gauquelin's data were due to the nycthemeral curve, a variation in the likelihood of birth at particular times of the day, but the test showed the opposite. (There is also a more generic Zelen test in statistics that is the source of some of what ChatGPT says here.) It did not debunk the Mars effect, it showed that any correlation must be due to something else. Dennis Rawlins was an opponent of the test because he thought there was a statistical artifact in the data that was a result of sampling bias or other cause, and expected this outcome. He fiercely argued against any idea that the Mars effect was a real "cosmobiological" phenomenon. The bibliography of Dennis Rawlins-authored articles is complete fiction, none of those articles exist. Here's the chat, with my prompts in red:

what is the cause of the Mars Effect

The "Mars effect" refers to the supposed correlation between the position of the planet Mars in the sky at the time of a person's birth and their success or greatness. The idea of the Mars effect was popularized by French astrologer Michel Gauquelin in the 1950s and 1960s, who claimed to have found statistical evidence supporting the idea that people born when Mars was prominent in the sky were more likely to be successful or accomplished. However, subsequent research has failed to replicate Gauquelin's findings and the Mars effect has been widely debunked as a statistical artifact. There is no scientific basis for the idea that the position of Mars at the time of a person's birth has any influence on their characteristics or achievements.

did the Zelen Test identify the cause of the Mars Effect?

The Zelen test is a statistical procedure that was developed by Marvin Zelen in the 1970s to evaluate the validity of claims of unusual patterns or correlations in data. The Zelen test is based on the idea of "randomization," which involves randomly reassigning the values in a data set to different units in order to test whether a purported correlation or pattern is genuine or simply a statistical artifact.

The Zelen test was used by researchers to evaluate the validity of the Mars effect, and it was found that the apparent correlation between the position of Mars at the time of birth and success or greatness was not statistically significant after the data were randomly reassigned. This suggests that the Mars effect is a statistical artifact and not a genuine phenomenon.

I thought the Zelen Test was designed to show that the Mars effect was the result of the nycthemeral cycle, and it did not demonstrate that.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. You are correct that the Zelen test was not designed to specifically evaluate the Mars effect or the role of the nycthemeral cycle in the Mars effect. Rather, the Zelen test is a general statistical procedure that can be used to evaluate the validity of any claimed pattern or correlation in data.

In the case of the Mars effect, the Zelen test and other statistical techniques have been used to evaluate the validity of the claimed correlation between the position of Mars at the time of birth and success or greatness. These studies have consistently found that the Mars effect is not a statistically significant phenomenon and that there is no scientific basis for the idea that the position of Mars at the time of birth has any influence on a person's characteristics or achievements.

The nycthemeral cycle is the 24-hour cycle of day and night that is caused by the rotation of the Earth on its axis. Some proponents of the Mars effect have suggested that the apparent correlation between the position of Mars at the time of birth and success or greatness may be influenced by the nycthemeral cycle, but this idea has not been supported by empirical evidence.

Didn't Suitbert Ertel show that the CSICOP test of US champions showed a Mars Effect when the athletes were graded by eminence?

Suitbert Ertel is a German researcher who has written extensively on astrology and the Mars effect. In the 1990s, Ertel published a study in which he claimed to have found evidence of a Mars effect among a sample of United States champions in various fields, using a statistical analysis that he developed called the "eminent sample test."

Ertel's study was criticized by other researchers for its methodology and the lack of statistical rigor in the analysis. In particular, Ertel's use of the eminent sample test has been criticized for being based on arbitrary definitions of what constitutes "eminence" and for not taking into account other important variables that could influence the outcome.

Overall, the evidence for the Mars effect is weak and inconsistent, and the idea has been widely debunked by the scientific community. There is no scientific basis for the claim that the position of Mars at the time of birth has any influence on a person's characteristics or achievements.

did Dennis Rawlins criticize CSICOP for how it handled the Mars Effect?

Yes, Dennis Rawlins is a researcher who has criticized the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSICOP), a organization that promotes scientific skepticism and critical thinking, for its handling of the Mars effect.

In the 1980s, CSICOP conducted a study of the Mars effect using a sample of prominent athletes and found no evidence of a correlation between the position of Mars at the time of birth and success or greatness. Rawlins, who was a member of CSICOP at the time, disputed the findings of the study and claimed that the organization had not properly addressed the evidence in favor of the Mars effect.

Rawlins has also published a number of articles and studies in which he argues that the Mars effect is a real phenomenon and that it has been unfairly dismissed by the scientific community. However, his claims have not been supported by the weight of scientific evidence, and the Mars effect remains widely debunked as a statistical artifact.

Can you tell me which articles Rawlins authored that argue that the Mars effect is a real phenomenon? I don't think that he has argued that.

I apologize for the mistake in my previous response. You are correct that Dennis Rawlins has not argued that the Mars effect is a real phenomenon. Rather, Rawlins has focused on criticizing the methodology and statistical analysis used in studies that have found no evidence of the Mars effect, and he has suggested that these studies may have missed genuine correlations due to various technical and statistical issues.

Rawlins has published a number of articles on the Mars effect, including:

"The Mars Effect: A Test of Astrology" (1981)
"The Mars Effect: A Rejoinder" (1982)
"The Mars Effect: A Reply to Ertel" (1987)

In these articles, Rawlins presents his critique of the studies that have found no evidence of the Mars effect and suggests that further research is needed to fully understand the phenomenon. However, his claims have not been supported by the weight of scientific evidence, and the Mars effect remains widely debunked as a statistical artifact.

Summary of 1994 CSICOP conference

I just stumbled across an old Usenet post of mine which summarizes a small part of the CSICOP conference held in Seattle June 23-26, 1994 (PDF of conference program; PDF of conference announcement mailing) with Robert Sheaffer's reply. I don't recall if I wrote the further followups, and didn't find any in a brief search. My 1992 Dallas CSICOP conference summary and a number of others may be found at the Index of Conference Summaries on this blog.

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!news.Cerritos.edu!news.Arizona.EDU!skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu!lippard
From: lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: News of the CSICOP conference?
Date: 11 Jul 1994 15:59 MST
Organization: University of Arizona
Lines: 110
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <11JUL199415590395@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
References: <forb0004.229.0036889A@gold.tc.umn.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <forb0004.2...@gold.tc.umn.edu>, forb...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Eric J. Forbis) writes...
>I'm surprised that so little has been written about the recent conference on 
>this group. Please, any who attended, tell all!

I had intended to write up a summary of the Seattle conference similar
to the one I did for the 1992 Dallas conference (which may be found
in /pub/anson/Arizona_Skeptic on netcom.com, in vol. 6 somewhere, over
two issues).  Events conspired against me, however.  My flight did
not arrive until the conference had already begun on Thursday night,
and I was quite disappointed to miss Robert Baker's presentation in the
session on alien abductions.  I also brought only an old school notebook,
which I found contained only two blank sheets of paper in it.  Then I
planned to view Becky Long's videotapes of the sessions afterward, but
her camera's battery recharger broke.  So the following is all from memory.

I arrived at the conference on Thursday evening and was surprised to
find that the main conference room was completely full and an overflow
crowd was watching via closed-circuit television.  This was the largest
CSICOP conference to date.  I believe that for the alien abduction and
False Memory Syndrome-related sessions there were over 700 attendees.
(I seem to remember somebody telling me that, but we know how unreliable
human memory is.)
   I showed up in the middle of a presentation by Thomas Bullard, who was
very impressed by what he claimed were amazing consistencies between
the accounts of abductees.  He argued against the claim (made by Baker?)
that the motifs in abduction stories can be traced to "Close Encounters
of the Third Kind" by pointing out the same motifs in earlier abduction
claims.  (Yeah, but what about earlier appearances of "Grey"-like aliens in
other science fiction?)
   Next, John Mack spoke about why he was speaking at a CSICOP conference
and discussed the "intense polarization in ufology" between skeptics and
believers.  He said that he was a skeptic about UFO abductions and that
he considers it to be an unsolved mystery.  At times he sounded like
John Keel or Jacques Vallee--suggesting that aliens are interdimensional
creatures that can't be reduced to any known categories of human thought.
Like Bullard, he appealed to the consistency between testimonies.
I wrote down a series of questions he had for CSICOP and skeptics:

   1. Why so much vehemence in these attacks? [on him, on abduction claims]
   2. Why so much certainty?
   3. Why do we attack the experiencers themselves?
   4. Why do you attack writers of your own commissioned reports who
      don't come up with the conclusions you want?

I have no idea what the last question is supposed to be referring to,
since CSICOP does not commission research.  It sounds like a question
more appropriately addressed to MUFON regarding its treatment of
investigators of the Gulf Breeze UFO sightings.

   Since Nicholas Spanos died tragically in an airplane crash just a
week or so before the conference, at the last minute clinical psychologist
William Cone from Newport Beach, Calif. was brought in.  (He was already
a conference attendee.)  He began by saying that he didn't bring any
slides, but if the whole audience would just look at the screen, research
shows that about 2% of us would see things on it anyway.  Cone said that
he has worked with a few dozen abductees, including some in locked wards
of mental institutions.  He argued that abduction research that he has seen
is very badly done, with the researchers imposing their views on their
subjects.  He offered a number of possible answers to the question "Why
would anyone make up stories like this?":  (1) for the money (he gave
a specific example from his own experience), (2) for notoriety and
attention (he said that he's had abductees tell him they had never told anyone
about their experience before, and then show up on a tabloid TV show a
week later), (3) for identity with a group of people.
   He seemed to rebut most of the claims made by Bullard and Mack about
abductees.

   Also added to the program was abductee and hypnotherapist Sharon
Phillip (?), who was brought in by Mack.  She described her own
UFO sighting/abduction and promoted the usefulness of hypnotherapy.

   Also present was Donna Bassett, who passed herself off as an abductee
in Mack's group and then went public in the _Time_ magazine article
about Mack.  She stated that, just as women have been doing for
centuries, she faked it.  She had very strong words of criticism for
Mack's methodology and claimed that his clients are telling Mack what
he wants to hear, but say other things behind his back.  She accused him
of not getting informed consent from his clients about what they are
getting into.

   Mack replied by saying that he could not discuss her case because
of confidentiality, but that he was not convinced that she *wasn't*
really an abductee.  (He implied that he had reasons for thinking
this that he was not at liberty to discuss.)  He flat out denied
parts of her story, such as the part about his breaking her bed
while sitting on it from his enthusiastic reaction to her story about
being on a UFO with JFK and Kruschev.  He also suggested that Phil
Klass had put her up to her hoax, since her husband had worked with
Klass at _Aviation Week_.  This prompted the biggest outburst of
anger that I witnessed at the conference, from Klass, who stated that
he had not seen the Bassetts for many years and heard about the hoax
in the media like everybody else.  He subsequently contacted them,
and was responsible for Donna Bassett's being invited to the CSICOP
conference.

   There followed a series of audience questions and answers, including
several which expressed concern about Bassett being brought into the
conference without Mack's knowledge.  Some of these concerned audience
members changed their minds when told that Mack was already well aware
of the specifics of Donna Bassett's charges as a result of the _Time_
story.

Well, that was Thursday, June 23.  I'll comment further later about
the two Friday sessions and Carl Sagan's keynote address,
the three Saturday sessions and the luncheon talk about CSICOP and
the Law, and the Sunday session--or perhaps others can jump in.

Jim Lippard               _Skeptic_ magazine:
lip...@ccit.arizona.edu  ftp://ftp.rtd.com/pub/zines/skeptic/
Tucson, Arizona           http://www.rtd.com/~lippard/skeptics-society.html

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!yeshua.marcam.com!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!sheaffer
From: shea...@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: News of the CSICOP conference?
Message-ID: <sheafferCsy5EI.n1t@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <forb0004.229.0036889A@gold.tc.umn.edu> <11JUL199415590395@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> <Jul13.044226.32392@acs.ucalgary.ca>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 20:11:05 GMT
Lines: 31

>In article <11JUL199...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>James J. Lippard <lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>   I showed up in the middle of a presentation by Thomas Bullard, who was
>>very impressed by what he claimed were amazing consistencies between
>>the accounts of abductees.  He argued against the claim (made by Baker?)
>>that the motifs in abduction stories can be traced to "Close Encounters
>>of the Third Kind" by pointing out the same motifs in earlier abduction
>>claims.  (Yeah, but what about earlier appearances of "Grey"-like aliens in
>>other science fiction?)

I was going to comment about this at the conference, were it not such a
mob scene that getting to a microphone became nearly impossible:

Bullard was right to object to Baker's statement that 'all these grey
aliens come from the 1977 movie CEIIIK'. (Bullard went on to cite some
pre-1977 examples).

However, Marty Kottmeyer makes a pretty good case tracing the origin of the
_genre_ to Barney Hill who in March 1964 (date from memory: beware FMS)
sketched an alien that had supposedly abducted him. This drawing was
subsequently widely published. Marty found out, however, that an episode
of _The Twilight Zone_ had aired with a nearly-identical alien, just
A FEW DAYS before Barney made his sketch. (The individual sessions with
Dr. Benjamin Simon were all carefully dated and transcribed, and fan
books tell when each _Twilight Zone_ episode first aired.)

-- 
    
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - shea...@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


        "As women and as lawyers, we must never again shy from raising our
         voices against sexual harrassment. All women who care about
         equality of opportunity - about integrity and morality in the
         workplace - are in Professor Anita Hill's debt."

                     -- Hillary Rodham Clinton, 8/9/92, at an American Bar 
                        Association luncheon honoring Anita Hill

        "I want to make it very clear that this middle class tax cut, in 
         my view, is central to any attempt we are going to make to have 
         a short term economic strategy and a long term fairness         
         strategy, which is part of getting this country going again."   

                     -- candidate Bill Clinton, ABC News Primary Debate,
                        Manchester, New Hampshire, 1/19/92                        

Index of Conference Summaries

This is a reverse-chronological list of conference and talk summaries I've written up, either at my blog or elsewhere. Most pertain to skepticism and critical thinking in some way (and I'd like to think that all involve the application of skepticism and critical thinking to the topics at hand), some are political, and some involve information security. I've got a few more of these in print form that are online in the issues of the Arizona Skeptic.

Bruce Wagman on "Many Species of Animal Law," April 7, 2010, Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Tempe, Arizona, Armstrong Hall 116.

Joel Garreau on Radical Evolution, November 18, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, Coor 5536, CSPO Plausibility Project.

Richard Carrier on "Christianity and Science (Ancient and Modern)," November 8, 2009, Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix, Home Town Buffet, Scottsdale.

Robert B. Laughlin on "The Crime of Reason," November 5, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, Sandra Day O'Connor School of Law, Great Hall; 2009 Hogan & Hartson Jurimetrics Lecture in Honor of Lee Loevinger.

Roger Pielke Jr. on climate change adaptation, November 5, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, Decision Theater.

Roger Pielke Jr. on climate change mitigation, November 5, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, Coor 5536.

Robert Balling on climate change, October 30, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, Coor L1-74.

Personalized medicine research forum, October 23, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, The Biodesign Institute.

Atheist Alliance International convention, October 2-4, 2009, Burbank Marriott, Burbank, California. Speakers: P.Z. Myers, Ed Buckner, Lawrence Krauss, Carolyn Porco, Martin Pera, Jerry Coyne, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Gerardo Romero, Jonathan Kirsch, Eugenie Scott, Brian Parra.

Marco Iacoboni on imitation and sociality, August 27, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, psychology department colloquium, MU202.

Joel Garreau on the future of cities, August 26, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes colloquium, Coor L1-10.

The Amazing Meeting 7, July 9-12, 2009 at the South Point Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Part 1: Introduction, Hal Bidlack, Phil Plait, James Randi, Bill Prady keynote.
Part 2: Fintan Steele, Phil Plait, Robert Lancaster.
Part 3: Jamy Ian Swiss/James Randi, Jennifer Ouellette, anti-anti-vax panel (Steven Novella, David Gorski, Joe Albietz, Harriet Hall, Michael Goudeau, Derek Bartholomaus), Joe Nickell.
Part 4: Skeptics Guide to the Universe/Rodrigues-Watson wedding, Michael Shermer, Adam Savage.
Part 5: Panel on ethics of deception (D.J. Grothe, Penn Jillette, Teller, Ray Hyman, Jamy Ian Swiss), Stephen Bauer, panel on skepticism and the media (Penn Jillette, Teller, Adam Savage, Bill Prady, Jennifer Ouellette), Phil Plait.
Part 6: Sunday paper sessions, Million Dollar Challenge with Danish dowser Connie Sonne.

Science-Based Medicine Conference at The Amazing Meeting 7, July 9, 2009 at the South Point Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Part 1: Steven Novella on science-based medicine.
Part 2: David Gorski on cancer quackery.
Part 3: Harriet Hall on chiropractic.
Part 4: Kimball Atwood on evidence-based medicine and homeopathy.
Part 5: Mark Crislip on chronic Lyme disease.
Part 6: Val Jones on online health and social media, and Q&A panel.

American Humanist Association annual conference at Tempe Mission Palms Hotel, Tempe, Arizona, June 5-9, 2009.
Sorry, only covered my own talk from the pre-conference workshops and the ArizonaCOR press conference.

Jeff Benedict on the Kelo case and his book Little Pink House, Goldwater Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, April 15, 2009.

SkeptiCamp Phoenix, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, March 28, 2009. Speakers: Tony Barnhart, Abraham Heward, David Jackemeyer, Don Lacey, Jim Lippard, Shannon Rankin, John Lynch, Jack Ray, David Weston, Mike Stackpole, Charlie Cavanaugh Toft, Xarold Trejo.

Daniel Dennett's 2009 Beyond Center Lecture, Galvin Playhouse, Arizona State University, February 18, 2009, on "Darwin's 'Strange Inversion of Reasoning.'"

Bill of Rights celebration event at the Wrigley Mansion, Phoenix, Arizona, December 14, 2008.

The Amazing Meeting 6, June 19-22, 2008 at the Flamingo Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Overview and photo link.
Part 1: Banachek memory workshop.
Part 2: Hal Bidlack, James Randi welcome, Ben Goldacre on homeopathy, Neil deGrasse Tyson keynote, Alec Jason on Peter Popoff and criminal forensics, Penn & Teller Q&A, George Hrab musical interlude, P.Z. Myers on bat wings, Richard Saunders on educational materials for kids, panel discussion on identifying as a skeptic (James Randi, P.Z. Myers, Michael Shermer, Margaret Downey, Phil Plait, Hal Bidlack, and a member of the NYC Skeptics whose name I didn't catch).
Part 3: Michael Shermer on the Skeptologists and why people believe weird things, Sharon Begley on creationism and other weird beliefs, Derek and Swoopy on Skepticality and podcasting, Steven Novella on dualism and creationism, Jeff Wagg JREF update, Jim Underdown on the Independent Investigations Group and award to Randi, Randi on patching up relations with CSI (formerly CSICOP), Skeptologists pilot.
Part 4: Phil Plait on astronomy, Adam Savage on his Maltese falcon, Matthew Chapman on creationism and Science Debate 2008, Richard Wiseman on the "colour changing card trick" and mass spoonbending lesson, panel discussion on the limits of skepticism (Goldacre, Daniel Loxton, Radford, Savage, Novella, Hrab, Randi, Banachek, and Saunders), Sunday conference papers: John Janks on Marfa lights, Don Nyberg on pseudoscience, Steve Cuno on myths in marketing, Tracy King on viral video.
Part 5: Lee Graham on artificial creatures and real evolution, Christopher French on anomalistic psychology, Tim Farley on building skeptical tools online, Brian Dunning on The Skeptologists.

Gene Healey on his book The Cult of the Presidency, Goldwater Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, May 1, 2008.

Richard Dawkins 2008 Beyond Center Lecture, Grady Gammage Auditorium, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, March 6, 2008, on "The God Delusion."

New Mexico InfraGard Member Alliance "$-Gard" conference, February 22, 2008, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Speakers: Frank Abagnale on protecting yourself from fraud, Anthony Clark and Danny Quist on malware secrets, Alex Quintana on current trends in malware, Melissa McBee-Anderson on the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3).

Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the Phoenician Resort, Goldwater Institute award banquet, Phoenix, Arizona, December 7, 2007.

Screening of "Mr. Conservative" documentary about Barry Goldwater, Goldwater Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, August 16, 2007. Features Barry Goldwater, George Will, Barry Goldwater, Jr., Sandra Day O'Connor, Ben Bradlee, Sally Quinn, Al Franken, Julian Bond, Hillary Clinton, and Jack Valenti.

Ron Paul launches Arizona campaign at private home in Paradise Valley, Arizona, March 30, 2007.
Followed up by Einzige's "Ron Paul, Religious Kook," my "Spammers and criminals for Ron Paul," and "Ron Paul connected to white supremacists?"

Skeptics Society conference on "The Environmental Wars," Caltech, Pasadena, California, June 2006.
Intro and links to other summaries.
Jonathan Adler on federal environmental regulation.

Eugenie Scott on "Creationism and Evolution: Current Perspectives," Robert S. Dietz Memorial Lecture at Arizona State University, Physical Sciences building, February 3, 2006.

National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) Economic Crime Summit, November 8-9, 2005, downtown Phoenix, Arizona, and Freedom Summit, November 12-13, 2005, Grace Inn Ahwatukee.
Economic Crime Summit and Freedom Summit comparison/contrast/overview--prayer vs. atheism debate, Terry Goddard, Roger Vanderpool, John Vincent, Kevin Robinson, Charles Cohen, George H. Smith, Eric Lounsbery, David Friedman, Chris Heward, Karen Kwiatkowski, Jim Bovard.
Freedom Summit: Stuart Krone on technology and why we're screwed.
Freedom Summit: Steven Greer on aliens and conspiracy.
Freedom Summit: Links to photos and other summaries.

CSICOP Conference on "The Psychology of Belief," Seattle, Washington, June 23-26, 1994.

CSICOP Conference on "Fairness, Fraud, and Feminism: Culture Confronts Science," Dallas, Texas, October 16-18, 1992.
Part 1: Panel on multicultural approaches to science (moderator Eugenie Scott, Diana Marinez, Joseph Dunbar, Bernard Ortiz de Montellano), unofficial session on faith healing with Ole Anthony.
Part 2: Intro remarks by Lee Nisbet, panel on gender issues in science and pseudoscience (moderator James Alcock, Carol Tavris, Susan Blackmore, Steven Goldberg), Richard Dawkins keynote on viruses of the mind.
Part 3: Fraud in science panel (moderator Ray Hyman, Elie Shneour, Paul Friedman, Walter Stewart), Sergei Kapitza and Evry Schatzman on international skepticism, panel on crashed saucer claims (Philip Klass, James McGaha).
Part 4: Robert Young on the Kecksburg meteor, Donald Schmitt on Roswell, awards banquet (Richard Dawkins, Henry Gordon, Andrew Skolnick), entertainment by Steve Shaw (now better known as Banachek), visit to Dealey Plaza.

CSICOP Workshop on UFOs, Ramada Inn Airport Hotel, Tucson, Arizona, November 16-17, 1990. James McGaha, Robert Sheaffer, Robert Baker, and Ronald Story, all on UFOs.

Barry Beyerstein, RIP

Barry Beyerstein, professor of psychology and member of the Brain Behavior Laboratory at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, a Fellow and member of the Committee of Skeptical Inquiry's executive council, author of numerous skeptical articles and books, a contributing editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, member of the advisory board of the Drug Policy Foundation and advocate for decriminalization of drugs, brother of philosopher and skeptic Dale Beyerstein, and father of prominent blogger Lindsey Beyerstein, died on Tuesday at the age of 60.

His daughter describes him as "among the most ethical people I have ever known" and "also one of the most fulfilled people I've had occasion to meet."

I had the pleasure of meeting him on multiple occasions at CSICOP conferences and found him to be very friendly and generous with his time; he was the only member of the CSICOP executive council who took me seriously regarding an ethical issue I brought up regarding a prominent skeptic who regularly published in the Skeptical Inquirer.

His death is a significant loss to skepticism and advocates for sensible drug policies. He is remembered on the front page of the CSI website. CSI Executive Director Barry Karr sent out the following:

Subject: Barry L. Beyerstein (1946-2007)

We all lost a true hero yesterday. I am stunned and saddened and I have been searching the internet for an hour this morning looking for news because I just can't believe it. Barry Beyerstein died. Barry Beyerstein. I don't have enough words to tell you what this loss will mean to the skeptical and rationalist world. Barry was a tireless defender of science. An activist who has been a staple in the media, television, newspapers, public forums for decades. I searched in the Skeptical Inquirer CD-ROM and found 311 mentions of his name. He is scheduled to teach a workshop for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in Oregon later this summer - and represent us at a conference in Ireland in the fall. He traveled and lectured
all over the world for us, Australia, Belgium, England, Germany, Italy, and he was part of our delegation to China.

He was one of our first people on a number of topics we deal with. Graphology, Psychic Powers, Why People Believe, Near Death Experiences, Critical Thinking, Alternative Medicine, Neuropathology of Spiritual Possession, Brain States, Dowsing, The Sins of Big Pharma, and the list goes on and on. The thing is, he didn't have to do any of this. He was a volunteer, but he worked just as hard for this organization as he did for his full-time faculty job at Simon Fraser University. But he had talents, wisdom and knowledge and he saw the need and he used those talents. And we are far better for that.

And Barry was one of the most charming, wittiest, and nicest people you could ever meet. He was kind and funny, yet strong in his convictions. My heart goes out to his family, his wife and children and brother Dale. and I can't believe that he is gone.

You should do a google search on Barry today, just to get an idea as to the kind of person we have lost. Here is a good place to start: http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html

Barry Karr
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

He will be missed.

UPDATE (July 13, 2007): Drug policy reform advocate Arnold Trebach gives tribute to Barry Beyerstein.

UPDATE (July 3, 2008): Daniel Loxton, editor of Junior Skeptic, gives a tribute to Barry Beyerstein at the BC Skeptics' Rational Enquirer blog.