Article 115399 of sci.skeptic: Path: nnrp1.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!lippard From: lippard@Primenet.Com (James J. Lippard) Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranet.skeptic Subject: ROBERT A. BAKER'S UNATTRIBUTED COPYING Date: 17 Jun 1995 23:06:23 GMT Organization: none Lines: 293 Message-ID: <3rvn5f$11q@nnrp1.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: usr1.primenet.com Xref: nnrp1.primenet.com sci.skeptic:115399 alt.paranet.skeptic:2775 ROBERT A. BAKER'S UNATTRIBUTED COPYING In the current issue of the _Skeptical Inquirer_ (vol. 19, no. 4, July/August 1995) appears a review of Robert Baker's book _Hidden Memories_ in which reviewer Terence Hines accuses Baker of using unattributed quotations from a _Free Inquiry_ article by Melvin Harris (Hines, 1995, p. 44), as well as following the description of the same case in his own book (Hines 1988, p. 74) "almost line for line" without attribution. In response, Baker (1995, p. 45) denies using Hines' book or Harris's article at all, but instead says he used Harris's book, _Investigating the Unexplained_ (1986b). Because Baker's claim here is false (as I show below), I am now making public on the Internet the report on my investigations into Baker's work which was completed almost exactly a year ago, on June 22, 1994. This report, which has been in the possession of CSICOP since July 1994, shows that Robert Baker has repeatedly engaged in the practice of unattributed copying from other works in his skeptical publications. Rather than admit wrongdoing, Baker and a few other CSICOP leaders have chosen instead to attack the critics and offer deceptive rationalizations for the practice. The attacks have included spreading falsehoods about critics, whispers of defamation lawsuits, and urging skeptics to not associate with critics (a practice known among Jehovah's Witnesses as "disfellowshipping" and among Scientologists as "disconnection"). I find it odd that I have never (yet) been threatened with a lawsuit by non-skeptics, but have heard hints or threats of lawsuits from skeptics on at least two occasions. I must emphasize that a few in CSICOP have clearly pushed for doing the right thing, and I continue to have great respect for those individuals. Barry Beyerstein in particular has always shown a willingness to listen to my criticisms and bring them to the attention of other Executive Council members who apparently didn't want to hear any of it. Ken Frazier also deserves credit for publishing William Grey's letter pointing out a previous instance of unattributed copying by Baker (Grey, 1994, p. 445) and Hines' review of _Hidden Memories_, at long last. THE REPORT For those who wish to get right to it, my June 22, 1994 report on "Scholarly Impropriety in the Work of Robert A. Baker" may be obtained via FTP from ftp.primenet.com as the file /pub/lippard/Bakerreport.txt. It may also be obtained (in non-HTMLized form, sorry) on the World Wide Web as http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/Bakerreport.txt. It is approximately 55K in length, and it begins with this article. UPDATE ON THE REPORT Included in the report file is a letter I sent to a number of CSICOP leaders and other skeptics. In this letter, I wrote that I considered the matter closed and would not bring it up again unless something further happened. Shortly thereafter, I learned that Terence Hines had found unattributed copying in _Hidden Memories_ almost a year earlier, and had submitted a review to _Skeptical Inquirer_ which was rejected. I contacted Hines, and provided him with a copy of my report. He in turn provided me with a copy of his review. I now knew that, despite CSICOP's treating the original case of copying in the Spring 1994 _SI_ as an isolated instance, they already knew that problems had been reported about Baker's work, yet had apparently done nothing and he continued his sloppy practices. And now that Hines knew the problem was greater than what he had noticed, he had greater incentive to try again to get his review published. Had _SI_ simply published Hines' review, I would not be writing this today. But also published was Baker's reply, which contains at least the falsehood noted in my first paragraph, above. BAKER, HINES, AND HARRIS In Hines' review, he writes (1995, p. 44): For example, on pp. 156-157 the case of Jane Evans, who seemed to be able to provide details of a past life, is discussed. This discussion follows the description of the Evans case in my own book, _Pseudoscience and the Paranormal_ (Prometheus Books, 1988) almost line for line. There is a difference between Baker's text and my own. In my text, on page 74, I quote Melvin Harris's comments on Evans in "Are Past-Life Regressions Evidence of Reincarnation?" (_Free Inquiry_ 6[4]:25, 1986): ". . . every single piece of information given by Jane Evans can be traced to de Wohl's fictional account. She used 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." In Baker's book, on page 15 [sic: 157], we read 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. The difference is that in Baker's text, no quotation marks appeared around this material and Harris is nowhere credited. In Baker's response (1995, p. 45), he writes: Regarding citations and the reference to Jane Evans and Melvin Harris, it is true that I omitted specific reference to Harris's work on page 157 at the end of the first paragraph. Rather than an attempted "plagiarism" as Hines implies, the last sentence of that paragraph reads: "According to Melvin Harris, who investigated the case, the evidence is overwhelming that this book. . . ." And in the following paragraph, the last sentence reads: "As Harris clearly demonstrated, Mrs. Evans had the ability to store vivid stories in her subconscious." Most people reading this material would not assume that my intentions were to deny Harris full credit for it. The source of this material was page 162 of Harris's book _Investigating the Unexplained_ (Prometheus, 1986). Nothing was taken from Hines. I have three points of criticism: 1. Baker doesn't seem to understand what plagiarism is, despite his getting it right on p. 297 of the book _Missing Pieces_, which he co-authored with Joe Nickell. (I begin my report with a quotation--properly cited--from this page.) Plagiarism is the unattributed copying of the actual language used by another author, not the taking of ideas without giving credit. While Baker's mention of Harris gives him (some) credit for the ideas, his lack of quotation marks and citations of the works cited indicates that he is giving no credit to Harris for the actual language he has used. 2. There are a few instances in Baker's work of unattributed copying which (a) give no reference or citation whatsoever to the particular work being copied and (b) contain no mention of the author of the work anywhere in the vicinity of the copying. Instances having feature (a) are identified in the table of copying in my report with an !; those having feature (b) are marked with a +. 3. A comparison of Baker's book, Hines' book, and Harris' book and article shows that Baker tends to follow Hines in order of description and word choice. For the full comparison, see Baker (1992) pp. 156-157, Hines (1988) pp. 73-75, Harris (1986a) pp. 21-23, and Harris (1986b) pp. 157-163. I find the following example persuasive that Baker did, in fact, use Hines as a source: Baker (1992), pp. 156-157: The second, and by far the most 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 they contained. In one of the lives she was a maid in the house of a wealthy 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 and had no children. In truth he was married and had five children, circumstances no maid would be unaware of. This 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] "memories" of her life in fifteenth-century France. Now, which of the following most closely resembles the above paragraph in wording and order of description? Harris's book or article? (1986b), p. 157 (his article, 1986a, pp. 21-22, is almost exactly identical): Her recital as Alison, a teenage servant to Jacques Coeur--the fifteenth century merchant prince--was said to prove that she "...knew a remarkable amount about medieval French history." Yet, in her waking state she said, "I have never read about Jacques Coeur, I have never heard the name." [Two sentences omitted.] Among other things, she was able to describe fully the exteriors and interiors of Coeur's magnificent house--even giving details of the carvings over the fireplace in his main banqueting hall. [p. 158, three paragraphs later:] There is overwhelmingly strong evidences [sic] that the rest of Jane's material was drawn from a source not known to Iverson--a 1948 novel, _The Moneyman_ by T. B. Costain. This is based on Coeur's life and provides almost all of the flourishes and authentic-sounding touches included in her "past-life" memory. 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." Or Hines's book? (1988), p. 73: For example, in one of her past lives she was a maid of Jacques Coeur, an extremely wealthy and powerful merchant in fifteenth-century France. Evans "was able to fully describe the exteriors and interiors of Coeur's magnificent house--she even gave details of the carvings over the fireplace in his main banquet hall" (Harris, 1986, p. 21). Impressive stuff, to be sure, until it is realized that Coeur's house is "one of the most photographed houses in all of France" (Harris, 1986, p. 22), interior and exterior. Evans's 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. This omission on Evans's part is most illuminating. A novel based on Coeur's life titled _The Moneyman_ by Thomas B. Costain contains great detail about Coeur's life, but makes no mention of his wife or children. Harris (1986, p. 22), who has investigated Iverson's (1977) cases states that "there is overwhelmingly strong evidence" that this book provided the basis for Evans's "memories" of her life in fifteenth-century France. Neither Baker nor Hines name the maid, Alison, while Harris does. Both Baker and Hines refer to her as "a maid [in the house/] of [a/Jacques Coeur, an extremely] wealthy and powerful merchant in fifteenth-century France," and then mention her description of the house and furnishings in the next sentence. Harris doesn't use those phrases, and he mentions the house and furnishings only after describing Evans' "inside-knowledge of the intrigues surrounding the King's mistress, Agnes Sorel." Both Baker and Hines immediately follow their sentence about the house and furnishings with: one ... significant error. She [said/says] [the merchant/he] was [unmarried/not married] and had no children. [In truth/But] he was married and had five children[, circumstances no maid would be unaware of/--not the sort of thing the maid would be likely to overlook]. (Words on the left of a slash within brackets are from Baker; those on the right are from Hines.) Harris doesn't get to this until three paragraphs later, and uses completely different wording. Both Baker and Hines then refer to the author of _The Moneyman_ as "Thomas B. Costain," while Harris refers to him as "T. B. Costain" and only mentions his first name two paragraphs later. CONCLUSION In Baker's response to his unattributed copying from William Grey in the Spring 1994 _Skeptical Inquirer_, he claimed that he had inadvertently omitted quotation marks while transcribing his article from handwritten notes (see Grey, 1994). Now, he shifts to an alternative explanation, admitting that he has borrowed some wording, but that no attempt has been made to deny credit where it is due. This explanation is unsatisfactory because it still doesn't excuse word-for-word copying without quotation marks and because it doesn't work for cases where no attribution is given. Further, it completely fails in the case of Hines, from whom Baker has clearly copied yet also explicitly denied using as a source. I've heard recent skeptical literature described as "incestuous"--drawing more on other skeptical literature (secondary sources) than on first-hand research. I believe this is a real problem, and one which is demonstrated at its extreme in Baker's work. There is definitely a place for popularization--and Baker's _They Call It Hypnosis_ is an excellent condensation of the works of major researchers in hypnosis in a single, easy-to-read volume. But it would perhaps be more accurate to bill Baker as the editor of the volume rather than the author and not to treat it as a primary source. It is a pity that a prominent skeptic would engage in such scholarly impropriety in the first place. It is a greater pity that he would refuse to acknowledge it when caught. It is an even greater pity that he would be assisted in his attempts to conceal the truth and save face by the most prominent skeptical organization by publishing his falsehoods. I suspect that "organized skepticism" is more concerned about the "organization" than the "skepticism." It is better to rely on individuals (and networks of individuals) who have demonstrated honesty and reliability rather than organizations which set themselves up as clearinghouses of truth. -- Jim Lippard, lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com) 17 June 1995 References Baker, Robert A. (1992) _Hidden Memories: Voices and Visions from Within_. Buffalo: Prometheus. --- (1995) "Robert A. Baker Responds," _Skeptical Inquirer_ 19(4, July/August):45-46. Grey, William (1994) "For the Record," _Skeptical Inquirer_ 18(4, Summer):445. Harris, Melvin (1986a) "Are 'Past Life' Regressions Evidence of Reincarnation?" _Free Inquiry_ 6(4, Fall):18-23. --- (1986b) _Investigating the Unexplained_. Buffalo: Prometheus. Hines, Terence (1988) _Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Buffalo: Prometheus. -- Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com primeweb.com ediacara.org skeptic.com) Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/ PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04 ---------- Jim Lippard 2930 E. 1st St. Tucson, AZ 85716 lippard@rtd.com July 2, 1994 To: A few select skeptics (including CSICOP folks) I assembled the following report to give to CSICOP Executive Council members at the CSICOP Conference in Seattle. I only gave it to three Executive Council members (Paul Kurtz, Barry Beyerstein, and Susan Blackmore) at the conference, and I'm mailing it out now to the rest who have received my previous letters on this subject for your information. This is my final word on the subject unless something else happens to bring it up again. I have mixed feelings about how my criticisms were handled. On the one hand, I am very appreciative of those of you who have expressed concern about what I have pointed out. It now appears to me that most in CSICOP's leadership agree that I have pointed out a genuine problem and that CSICOP will take care to prevent its continuation. On the other hand, I am very disappointed that a few have chosen to respond with outright hostility, misconstruing my motives and misrepresenting my past work in which I have been critical of fellow skeptics. This generally seems to involve my criticism of some Australian skeptics and my criticisms of CSICOP regarding the "Mars Effect" controversy.* If anyone has any criticisms or questions about any of my work or actions in these cases or elsewhere, I welcome them and promise to give you a straight answer. All I've ever really wanted from CSICOP regarding the Baker issue was some kind of acknowledgment that there was a problem beyond that addressed in the Summer 1994 _SI_, and that it would be dealt with appropriately. I was surprised and dismayed by the way that a few people immediately turned the issue into a question of my motives. I believe I have acted in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Ray Hyman's "Proper Criticism," but I'm sorry to see that some prominent skeptics have not taken them to heart. I'm putting together a "Skeptics' Code of Ethics" which will address, among other things, how to deal with internal and external criticism. It will be submitted to _Skeptic_ magazine when completed. I welcome your comments once I have a rough draft--let me know if you would like to see it. I am willing to pursue its also being published in the _Skeptical Inquirer_, should CSICOP be interested. Sincerely, Jim Lippard * "Some Failures of Organized Skepticism" and "Postscript to 'Some Failures of Organized Skepticism'" both appeared in _The Arizona Skeptic_ (January 1990 and November/December 1991, respectively). "How Not to Argue with Creationists" appeared in the Winter 1991-92 issue of the _Creation/Evolution_ journal, available from the National Center for Science Education (P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, CA 94709) for $6 + $1 shipping. "How Not to Respond to Criticism: Barry Price Compounds His Errors" has been widely circulated on paper and in electronic form. All four should already be in CSICOP's files and are also available on the Internet via anonymous FTP from ftp.rtd.com in the directory /pub/lippard. I will be happy to send copies on paper or in email to anyone who requests them. "Skeptics and the 'Mars Effect': A Chronology of Events and Publications" was distributed in a 32-page preliminary draft form to a number of skeptics and should be in CSICOP's files. The current draft runs 62 pages and is available from me by sending a 3.5" diskette and an S.A.S.E. My short summary of the "Mars effect" controversy has been posted on several occasions this year to the sci.skeptic newsgroup and is available from me via email or on diskette. SCHOLARLY IMPROPRIETY IN THE WORK OF ROBERT A. BAKER Compiled by Jim Lippard (June 22, 1994) "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." --Robert A. Baker and Joe Nickell, _Missing Pieces: How to Investigate Ghosts, UFOs, Psychics, and Other Mysteries_, 1992, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, p. 297. "Copyright protection is extended to original literary and other types of works, including factual, reference, or instructional materials, that can be reproduced or copied. To meet the 'originality test,' authors must have created the work by their own skill, labor, and judgment without directly copying or evasively imitating the words of others. Copyright bars the use of the arrangement of words or the particular expression of the idea, but does not bar the use of intellectual conceptions since there is no exclusive right to 'an idea.' The three basic elements of infringement are as follows: (1) access to the original work (defined as showing that the author had a reasonable opportunity of access to the complainant's work); (2) substantial similarities between the two works; and (3) copying of another's work by the accused author (requiring evidence that the original material was used as a model by the accused author). Unintentionality is not a defense of copyright infringement, although it may affect the judged extent of liability." --Patricia Keith-Spiegel and Gerald P. Koocher, _Ethics in Psychology: Professional Standards and Cases_, 1985, N.Y.: Random House, p. 356. CONTENTS 1. Introduction (p. 1) 2. Summary of Known Instances of Unquoted Direct Copying (p. 2) 3. Academic Codes on Plagiarism (p. 6) 4. Quotations (p. 8) 5. CSICOP's Response (p. 11) 1. INTRODUCTION In April 1994, Jody Hey, a chemist at Rutgers University, noted on the Internet a striking similarity between Robert Baker's book review in the Spring 1994 _Skeptical Inquirer_ and an article by William Grey in the same issue. Entire sentences in the book review were identical to or differed by only a few words from the article. I decided to examine other book reviews by Robert Baker in the _Skeptical Inquirer_, and found more of the same. I moved on to his book, _They Call It Hypnosis_, and found yet further examples of unquoted direct copying from sources--sometimes without a correct citation anywhere in the chapter (see "instance 1" in section 4, below) and sometimes without a correct citation anywhere in the work (see "instance 2" in section 4). This is a summary of the parallel passages I have discovered, but I am sure that it only scratches the surface of the parallels which exist, since there were a number of sources I was unable to obtain and I found close similarities in the majority of sources which I was able to obtain. 2. SUMMARY OF KNOWN INSTANCES OF UNQUOTED DIRECT COPYING Legend * Copied sequence of five or more successive words. + Source is not cited anywhere in the vicinity of the quotation (not on the same page). ! Source is not cited at all in the work. _Skeptical Inquirer_ Articles and Book Reviews "The Aliens Among Us: Hypnotic Regression Revisited," _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 12, no. 2, Winter 1987-88, pp. 147-163. Code Page Source * 150para4 Hilgard (1981), p. 25, para 2-3 * 152para4 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 376, para 6 * 153para2 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 377, para 1 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 375, para 5 * 153para3 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 371, para 2 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 372, para 3 * 153para4 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 379, para 2 * 154para1 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 379, para 4 "The Challenge and Defeat of Supernature," _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 15, no. 1, Fall 1990, pp. 85-88. (A review of Alcock (1990).) Code Page Source * 85para2 Alcock (1990), p. 2, para 5-6 Alcock (1990), p. 3, para 3 * 86para2 Alcock (1990), p. 5, para 3-4 86para3 Alcock (1990), p. 126, para 1 * 86para4 Alcock (1990), p. 126, para 2 * 86para5 Alcock (1990), pp. 126-127 para 3 * 87para5 Alcock (1990), p. 36, para 2 * 87para6 Alcock (1990), p. 37, para 1 Alcock (1990), p. 39, para 3 Alcock (1990), p. 42, para 1 * 87para8 Alcock (1990), p. 49, para 1 Alcock (1990), p. 50, para 2 "Creationism: Not Only Bad Science But Bad Religion," _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 17, no. 4, Summer 1993, pp. 422-426. (A review of Zabilka (1992).) Code Page Source * 423para2 Zabilka (1992), pp. 7-8, para 2 * 423para3 Zabilka (1992), p. 7, para 1 * 423para5 Zabilka (1992), p. 11, para 3 * 423para6 Zabilka (1992), p. 12, para 3 Zabilka (1992), p. 13, para 4 * 424para2 Zabilka (1992), p. 20, para 4 Zabilka (1992), p. 21, para 3-5 Zabilka (1992), p. 22, para 1-2 * 424para3 Zabilka (1992), p. 23, para 1 Zabilka (1992), p. 24, para 4 Zabilka (1992), p. 25, para 3 Zabilka (1992), p. 26, para 2-6 * 424para4 Zabilka (1992), p. 56, para 2-3 "Nary A Miracle in Sight," _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 18, no. 3, Spring 1994, pp. 298-300. (A review of Joe Nickell, _Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions and Healing Cures_, 1993, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.) Code Page Source *+ 298para1 Grey (1994), p. 289, para 2-3 * 300para2 Grey (1994), p. 289, para 4,6 Grey (1994), p. 290, para 1-2 Books _They Call It Hypnosis_, 1990, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Code Page Source Ch. 1 * 44para1 Ludwig (1962), p. 73, para 3-4 * 45para2 Ludwig (1962), p. 74, para 2 * 45para3 Ludwig (1962), p. 74, para 3 Ludwig (1962), pp. 74-75, para 4 Ludwig (1962), p. 75, para 3 Ludwig (1962), p. 75, para 4 Ludwig (1962), pp. 75-76, para 5 * 45para4 Ludwig (1962), pp. 76-77, para 3-4 * 46para1 Ludwig (1962), pp. 76-77, para 4 Ludwig (1962), p. 77, para 3-5 Ludwig (1962), p. 78, para 4 Ch. 3 * 95para3-7 Barber, Spanos, and Chaves (1974), p. vii, para 2-6 * 96para2 Barber, Spanos, and Chaves (1974), pp. 17-18, para 2 * 96para3-10 Barber, Spanos, and Chaves (1974), pp. 19-29 * 96para11 Barber, Spanos, and Chaves (1974), p. 31, para 2 * 101para2 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 340, para 1 * 102para1 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 379, para 3-5 * 116para2 Beahrs (1971), p. 73, para 1-2 Beahrs (1971), p. 74, para 1,4 Beahrs (1971), p. 75, para 1 * 117para1 Beahrs (1971), p. 75, para 2 *+ 129para4-5 Spanos (1987-88), p. 175, para 2-3 *+ 130para1 Spanos (1987-88), pp. 175-176, para 3 *+ 130para2 Spanos (1987-88), p. 176, para 2-3 *+ 130para3 Spanos (1987-88), p. 176, para 4-5 Spanos (1987-88), p. 177, para 1-2 *+ 131para1 Spanos (1987-88), p. 179, para 3-4 * 131para2 Spanos and Chaves (1989), p. 445, para 2,4 Spanos and Chaves (1989), p. 446, para 1 *+! 132para3 Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 360, para 2 *+! 132para4 Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 362, para 1 +! 132para5 Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 362, para 3 *+! 133para2 Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 365, para 4 Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 366, para 5-6 Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 367, para 1 Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 368, para 2-3 *+! 134para1-2 Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 371, para 2-3 *+! 134para3 Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 374, para 5 Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 375, para 1,3 Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 378, para 2 * 135para1 Coe (1989), p. 419, para 3 * 135para2 Coe (1989), p. 421, para 1-2 * 135para5 Coe (1989), p. 423, para 2 Coe (1989), p. 424, para 2 136para1 Coe (1989), p. 424, para 2 * 142para4 Reveen (1987-88), p. 181, para 1 Ch. 4 * 195para2 Hilgard (1981), p. 25, para 2-3 Ch. 6 *+! 230para2-3 Harris (1986), p. 18, para 7-8 *+! 230para4 Harris (1986), p. 23, para 5 Harris (1986), p. 22, para 11 * 238para2 Klass (1989), p. 9, para 4-5 * 238para3 Klass (1989), p. 9, para 6 Klass (1989), p. 10, para 1 * 238para5 Klass (1989), p. 11, para 2-3 * 239para3 Klass (1989), p. 18, para 3 Klass (1989), p. 19, para 1 * 240para2 Klass (1989), p. 43, para 3-4 * 246para2 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 376, para 6 * 246para4 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 377, para 1 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 375, para 5 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 371, para 2 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 372, para 3 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 379, para 2 * 247para2 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 379, para 4 * 265para4-5 Thomas (1989), p. 232, para 4-6 * 266para1-3 Thomas (1989), p. 232, para 5-6 Thomas (1989), p. 233, para 1-2 (co-authored with Joe Nickell) _Missing Pieces: How to Investigate Ghosts, UFOs, Psychics, and Other Mysteries_, 1992, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Code Page Source Ch. 6 (Much of pp. 201ff. is taken from Baker (1990).) *+ 201para3 Klass (1989), p. 10, para 1 * 202para3 Klass (1989), p. 18, para 3 Klass (1989), p. 19, para 1 * 203para2 Klass (1989), p. 43, para 3-4 (Much of pp. 216-229 is taken from Baker (1987-88) rather than from Baker (1990), as the footnote on p. 216 claims.) * 219para3 Hilgard (1981), p. 25, para 2-3 * 222para2 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 376, para 6 * 222para3 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 377, para 1 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 375, para 5 * 222para4 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 371, para 2 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 372, para 3 * 222para5 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 379, para 2 * 222para7 Wilson and Barber (1983), p. 379, para 4 (Melvin Harris is mentioned on p. 237 with no citation, but the material there does not appear to be derived from Harris (1986).) + 237para2 Gardner (1957), p. 318, para 1 Gardner (1957), p. 319, para 2 References James E. Alcock, _Science and Supernature: A Critical Appraisal of Parapsychology_, 1990, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Theodore X. Barber, Nicholas P. Spanos, and John F. Chaves, _Hypnosis, Imagination, and Human Potentialities_, 1974, N.Y.: Pergamon Press, Inc. John O. Beahrs, "The Hypnotic Psychotherapy of Milton H. Erickson," _The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis_ vol. 14, no. 2, October 1971, pp. 73-90. William C. Coe, "Hypnosis: The Role of Sociopolitical Factors in a Paradigm Clash," in Nicholas P. Spanos and John F. Chaves (editors), _Hypnosis: The Cognitive-Behavioral Perspective_, 1989, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, pp. 418-436. Martin Gardner, _Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science_, 1957, N.Y.: Dover. William Grey, "Philosophy and the Paranormal: Part 2: Skepticism, Miracles, and Knowledge," _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 18, no. 3, Spring 1994, pp. 288-294. (The actual original source was a precursor of this article, "Skepticism and Miracles," _New Zealand Skeptic_, June 1993, pp. 1-6.) Melvin Harris, "Are 'Past-Life' Regressions Evidence of Reincarnation?" _Free Inquiry_ vol. 6, no. 4, Fall 1986, pp. 18-23. Ernest R. Hilgard, "Hypnosis Gives Rise to Fantasy and Is Not a Truth Serum," _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 5, no. 3, Spring 1981, p. 25. Irving Kirsch and James R. Council, "Response Expectancy as a Determinant of Hypnotic Behavior," in Nicholas P. Spanos and John F. Chaves (editors), _Hypnosis: The Cognitive-Behavioral Perspective_, 1989, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, pp. 360-379. Philip J. Klass, _UFO-Abductions: A Dangerous Game_, 1989, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Arnold M. Ludwig, "Hypnosis in Fiction," _The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis_ vol. 11, no. 2, April 1963, pp. 71-80. Peter J. Reveen, "Fantasizing Under Hypnosis: Some Experimental Evidence," _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 12, no. 2, Winter 1987-88, pp. 181-183. Nicholas P. Spanos, "Past-Life Hypnotic Regression: A Critical View," _Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 12, no. 2, Winter 1987-88, pp. 174-180. Nicholas P. Spanos and John F. Chaves, "The Cognitive-Behavioral Perspective: Synopsis and Suggestions for Research," in Nicholas P. Spanos and John F. Chaves (editors), _Hypnosis: The Cognitive- Behavioral Perspective_, 1989, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, pp. 437-446. Gordon Thomas, _Journey Into Madness: The True Story of Secret CIA Mind Control and Medical Abuse_, 1989, N.Y.: Bantam Books. Sheryl C. Wilson and Theodore X. Barber, "The Fantasy-Prone Personality: Implications for Understanding Imagery, Hypnosis, and Parapsychological Phenomena," in Anees A. Sheikh (editor), _Imagery: Current Theory, Research, and Application_, 1983, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 340-387. Ivan L. Zabilka, _Scientific Malpractice: The Creation/Evolution Debate_, 1992, Lexington, Ky.: Bristol Books. 3. ACADEMIC CODES ON PLAGIARISM University of Kentucky Faculty Handbook (obtained via Internet gopher) 5.3 INFORMATION ON POLICIES AND PROCEDURES--RESEARCH [deletions] The Conduct of Research Ethical Standards The credibility and integrity of all research conducted at the University of Kentucky must be beyond reproach if true advances in human knowledge and understanding are to be obtained and if the public trust is to be maintained in the research conducted here. The academic community of this University expects all those involved in research to abide by the highest standards of conduct and procedure. It can not tolerate nor will it condone any compromise in either the quality or the conduct of the research undertaken by its faculty and research staff. It is expected that all those involved in research will take institutional policies as a statement of our academic community's minimum expectations. Details of the University's policy on "Ethical Standards and Misconduct in Research" and the procedures through which breaches of it are handled are contained in AR II-4.0-2, and all faculty are expected to be familiar with them. Administrative Regulations (obtained via Internet gopher) 64.0 AR II-4.0-2 POLICY ON ETHICAL STANDARDS AND MISCONDUCT IN RESEARCH 5/7/92 Preamble Any compromise of the ethical standards required for conducting academic research cannot be condoned. Breaches in such standards are rare; these must be dealt with promptly and fairly by all parties in order to preserve the integrity of the research community. Definition 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. Occidental College ACADEMIC HONESTY DEFINED Intellectual honesty lies at the heart of the academic enterprise. Occidental College therefore operates on the assumption that students and faculty accept and respect the principles of intellectual honesty that insists on acknowledging information, ideas, and language that have been borrowed from someone else. PLAGIARISM occurs when such borrowing has not been acknowledged; and the College therefore wishes to ensure that everyone understands the correct procedures for acknowledging and identifying sources of borrowed material. The basic rule is this: If you include material drawn from any source beyond your own first-hand experience, and if this material is not common knowledge of the kind possessed by everyone working in the general area, you must give credit for that material in references that identify the source by author, title, and page. (Or, if the source is not something in print, by details about the source that are equally precise.) Specifically: * If you quote directly from your source, you must enclose the quoted material, even if it is no more than a phrase or a single word, within quotation marks, and provide a reference. * If you paraphrase - that is, restate the material in your own words - (a) the paraphrasing must represent a substantial change from the original not just the changing of occasional words and phrases, and (b) you must provide a reference. * If you present material that is common knowledge, but borrow the organizational pattern of someone else, you must acknowledge that borrowing in a reference. * If the language and organization are your own, you must still acknowledge any ideas or information that are not common knowledge, in a reference. Whenever you are in doubt whether to acknowledge borrowing, a good rule of thumb is to ask yourself: Could a reader who consulted the books and articles listed in my bibliography recognize in my paper sentences, phrases, or single words; patterns of organization; interpretations, points of view, ideas, or facts as deriving from one of these sources? If s/he could, you must footnote such passages and use quotation marks, where needed. Any clear parallels between your paper and its sources which a reader would discover if s/he consulted your sources, you should have already indicated through your footnotes. Ohio State University In section 3335-31-02 (B) (3) of the Code of Student Conduct, plagiarism is defined as an example of Academic Misconduct as follows: Chapter 3335-31 Hearing Bodies ..... 3335-31-02 Committee on academic misconduct .... (B) "Academic misconduct is defined as any activity which tends to compromise the academic integrity of the institution, or subvert the educational process. Examples of academic mis- conduct include, but are not limited to: .... (3) Submitting plagiarized work for an academic requirement. Plagiarism is the representation of another's work or ideas as one's own; it includes the unacknowledged word for word use and/or paraphrasing of another person's work, and/or the inappropriate unacknowledged use of another person's ideas; The student handbook also has a section entitled _What is Plagiarism?_: What is Plagiarism? =================== To submit to your instructor a paper that is not truly the product of your own mind and effort is to commit plagiarism. To put it bluntly, plagiarism is the act of stealing the ideas and/or the expression of ideas of another and representing them as your own. It is a form of cheating and a kind of academic misconduct that can result in severe penalties. ---page 12 of the Student Handbook, effective March 31, 1993. 4. QUOTATIONS Instance 1: The following is the _original_ text (Robert A. Baker's contribution) to _They Call It Hypnosis_, pp. 129-131, beginning with the fourth (third full) paragraph on p. 129 and ending just before the properly cited quotation that ends p. 131. That is, the words authored by Nicholas P. Spanos (1987-88, cited above) and by Nicholas P. Spanos and John F. Chaves (1989, cited above) have been deleted. No citation of the former work appears anywhere on the pages in question. p. 129: Overall, Spanos's position on hypnosis is very clear. He argues that, etc. he says, reducing [Spanos: "lowering"] affecting [Spanos: "effecting"] that Spanos and his collaborators have compiled Spanos also notes that they [Spanos: "suggestions"] usually for example [Spanos: "e.g."] The [Spanos: "This"] occurring [Spanos: "happening"] the really to the subject to p. 130: a activity this [Spanos: "the implications of these tacit requests"] activities. Spanos notes that is the analogue of the who himself [Spanos: "themselves"] his [Spanos: "their"] someone who is Spanos and his collaborators have looked closely at hypnotic age regression and have demonstrated that regressed also Simply put the [Spanos: "this"] again Spanos says When Hilgard's told [Spanos: "informed"] to which when he gave [Spanos: "by giving"] proper [Spanos: "appropriate"] them [Spanos: "these subjects"] the were given, acted [Spanos: "received ... behaved"] did have alternate egos [Spanos: "possessed secondary selves"] interpreted this as indicating [Spanos: "interpret such findings to mean that"] Spanos counters this by pointing out that the shows these [Spanos: "indicates instead that"] On role-play the behaviors [Spanos: "role behaviors"] the experimenter these [Spanos: "such"] the desire [Spanos: "wish"] act out [Spanos: "enact"] reporting [Spanos: "that report"] or they can report seeing [Spanos: "that see"] seeing them [Spanos: "see stimuli"] not seeing them [Spanos: "don't see stimuli"] as the experimenter wishes the subjects are [Spanos: "subject ... is"] which Then the fantasy and his interactions with p. 131: Spanos has also carried out studies of past-life regression, and in agreement with the findings of other researchers, his work As expected most well i.e., the fantasy-prone In the same manner as childhood regressees, material [Spanos: "what"] from the outset thought their past lives were true [Spanos: "interpret their past-life experiences as veridical"] A lengthier discussion of this topic and other paranormal hypnotic beliefs will be found in a later chapter. 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. [Copying from Spanos and Chaves (1989) begins.] for example, is just such a dilemma. Spanos's own work has shown that Nor can the much the in [Spanos and Chaves: "at"] The the Spanos reports, with had [Spanos and Chaves: "possessed"] rather than [Spanos and Chaves: "as opposed to"] warts [Spanos and Chaves: "wart"] especially [Spanos and Chaves: "relatively"] also had better results. Spanos concludes that Instance 2: The following is the second paragraph on p. 133 of _They Call It Hypnosis_: Following the paragraph is a series of quotations from Irving Kirsch and James R. Council (1989, cited above), a work which is cited nowhere in _They Call It Hypnosis_. Words which are copied from Kirsch and Council in the paragraph from _They Call It Hypnosis_ are underlined. Likewise, the words in the quotations from Kirsch and Council which were copied are underlined. "_Besides affecting overt responses, role perceptions are an important determinant of self-reported experiences of altered states of consciousness._ In a number of studies it was shown 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 _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 inductions--relaxation,_ for example--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 _of hypnosis. Glass and Barber (1961)_ a few years ago set up _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 the subject's _response_s _to suggestion._" Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 365: "_Besides affecting overt responses, role perceptions are important determinants of self-reported experiences of altered states of consciousness._" Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 366: "_The degree of change in state of consciousness_ that _subjects expected to experience significantly predicted the number of unsuggested alterations in experience_ that _they subsequently reported._" Kirsch and Council (1989), pp. 366-367: "Henry's data suggest _that_ there is _no particular state of consciousness_ that _can be labeled 'hypnotic trance.' Rather,_ there are _a variety of changes in experience_ that _are interpreted as evidence of 'trance' when_ they are _experienced in a hypnotic context. Some of these are directly suggested in typical inductions_ (e.g., _relaxation), others occur as a function of subjects' preconceptions.'_" Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 368: "_'You are becoming very, very relaxed.' Just hearing_ those _words_ evokes the idea _of hypnosis_ to _most people in our culture_ (Edmonston, 1984)." Kirsch and Council (1989), p. 368: "The first contemporary replication of those experiments were reported by _Glass and Barber (1961)._ They devised _a highly credible_ rationale and setting, including medical props and procedures, to convince _subjects_ that _an inert pill_ described as _a 'powerful hypnotic drug' would produce a state of hypnosis._ With _this_ set and _setting, the_ placebo _pill was as effective as a standard hypnotic induction in_ raising levels of _response to suggestion._" Instance 3: The first two quotations which follow are from Baker's Winter 1987-88 _Skeptical Inquirer_ article (p. 150, paragraph 4) and _They Call It Hypnosis_ (p. 195, paragraph 2), respectively. The first quotation is also identical to paragraph 3 on p. 219 of Baker and Nickell's _Missing Pieces_ (1992, cited above). The third quotation consists of paragraphs 2 and 3 from Hilgard (1981, cited above), a one- page article. Copying in the first two quotations is indicated by underlining. Underlining in the Hilgard passage indicates copying in Baker (1989), the less similar of the two parallel Baker passages. Baker (1987-88), p. 150: "Hilgard (1981) _implanted a false memory of an experience connected with a bank robbery that never occurred._ His subject _found the experience so vivid that he was able to select from a series of photographs a picture of the man he thought had_ committed the robbery. _At another time,_ Hilgard _deliberately assigned two concurrent--though spatially different--life experiences to the same person and regressed him at separate times to *that date.*_ The individual subsequently _gave very accurate accounts of both experiences, so that_ anyone _believ_ing _in reincarnation_ who _review_ed _the two accounts would_ conclude _the man *really*_ *had* _lived the two assigned lives._" Baker (1989), p. 195: "Hilgard also _implanted a false memory of an experience connected with a bank robbery that never occurred._ His subject _found the experience so vivid that he was able to select from a series of photographs a picture of the man he thought_ committed the robbery. In _another_ instance Hilgard _deliberately assigned to the same_ individual _concurrent life experiences_ of two different people, _and_ then _regressed_ the individual _at separate times to_ the times of those experiences. The individual subsequently _gave very accurate accounts of both experiences, so that_ anyone _believ_ing _in reincarnation would_ conclude _that the man really had lived the two_ different _lives_ (Hilgard 1981)." Hilgard (1981), p. 25: "For example, under hypnosis I _implanted_ in a subject _a false memory of an experience connected with a bank robbery that never occurred,_ and the person _found the experience so vivid that he was able to select from a series of photographs a picture of the man he thought_ had robbed the bank. "At _another_ time, I _deliberately assigned_ two _concurrent_-- though spatially very different--_life experiences to the same_ person _and regressed_ him _at separate times to_ *that date*. He _gave very accurate accounts of both experiences, so that_ a _believ_er _in reincarnation,_ reviewing the two accounts, _would_ have suspected _that the man had really lived the two_ assigned _lives._" 5. CSICOP'S RESPONSE The first instance from the "summary" above to be made known to the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal was the copying of Grey (1994) in Baker's Spring 1994 _Skeptical Inquirer_ book review. Baker apologized to William Grey and a letter from Grey along with a response from _Skeptical Inquirer_ editor Kendrick Frazier was published in the next issue (Summer 1994, p. 445). This was handled entirely appropriately. The same cannot be said, however, for how CSICOP has handled the other instances which have been pointed out--CSICOP has simply ignored them. On April 17, 1994, I pointed out the copying in Baker's book reviews in the Fall 1990 and Summer 1993 issues of the _Skeptical Inquirer_ and the copying from Klass (1989) and Thomas (1989) in email to Kendrick Frazier, Barry Karr, and James Alcock. On April 20, I pointed out the same in email to Barry Beyerstein. On April 25, I pointed it out to Susan Blackmore. On May 11, still having heard nothing from CSICOP, I received a telephone call from CSICOP Consultant James McGaha, calling about my statements regarding Robert Baker. He was prepared to discuss only the Spring 1994 _Skeptical Inquirer_ instance, which he stated was an accident. I agreed to send him copies of what I had sent CSICOP, which I did that day. On May 18, McGaha called again to say that in his opinion, in CSICOP's opinion, and in the opinion of five academic Ph.D.'s (he refused to name them), nothing I had pointed out constituted plagiarism or even anything wrong. On May 20, I sent email to Frazier, Karr, Alcock, and Beyerstein describing my conversation with McGaha and asking whether they shared his views. By this time I had also found many more instances of copying in _They Call It Hypnosis_, including two examples where the source was not cited. I stated this fact in my email, and said that I would only send the further examples if anyone asked. (No one has.) On May 22, I sent a copy of this email to Blackmore, McGaha, and Bela Scheiber (along with copies of all previous material), including a brief description of "instance 1," described above. On May 25, I received email from Barry Beyerstein expressing concern at what I had sent, but also stating that he did not feel there was any intent to deceive. He did not ask about my further examples, even after I sent him email reiterating the fact that some instances involved completely unattributed copying. I summarized "instance 1," above. I did nothing further until June 12, when I learned that James McGaha had told at least one other skeptic that Robert Baker was preparing to sue me. McGaha also made a number of other statements about me, my motivations, my affiliations, and my state of mental health, all of which were false and should have been known by him to be false. On June 14 I sent a letter to McGaha stating that "I don't mind you expressing your opinion about me to other people, so long as you get your facts straight" and correcting five of his false statements. Apparently CSICOP has discouraged Robert Baker from his ideas about suing me. As of this writing, however, it appears to me that Robert Baker does not acknowledge that he has done anything wrong and that CSICOP is unwilling to disabuse him of this notion or to make any attempt to acknowledge my allegations. The poor scholarly practices I have identified in Baker's work do not just reflect badly on him, they also reflect badly on CSICOP. For CSICOP to tolerate such practices serves only to diminish the credibility of the organization in the eyes of both the academic community and the general public. It is my hope that CSICOP's Executive Council is willing to privately acknowledge the validity of my criticisms and take steps to prevent future occurrences. It is also my hope that CSICOP will recognize that it has acted very poorly in its handling of this matter, and that criticism should be acknowledged, investigated, and dealt with appropriately rather than being ignored. (CSICOP should demonstrate that its statement in a June 1994 mailing that "We value what you have to say regarding CSICOP and its mission" is not just hot air.) Further, it should be made clear in the strongest possible terms to James McGaha that his actions in this matter have been completely inappropriate. In my opinion, any further such actions should warrant his removal from the list of CSICOP Consultants. I welcome all non-abusive communications regarding any matters discussed in this document. Jim Lippard, c/o Dept. of Philosophy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 (lippard@rtd.com)