Search This Blog

Monday, September 28, 2020

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
AbbreviationCSI
Formation1976; 44 years ago
TypeNonprofit organization (1976–2015)
Program of the Center for Inquiry (2015–present)
PurposeSkeptical inquiry of paranormal claims
HeadquartersAmherst, New York, United States
Region served
Worldwide
Executive director
Barry Karr
WebsiteCenter for Inquiry

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), formerly known as the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), is a program within the transnational American non-profit educational organization Center for Inquiry (CFI), which seeks to "promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims." Paul Kurtz proposed the establishment of CSICOP in 1976 as an independent non-profit organization (before merging with CFI as one of its programs in 2015), to counter what he regarded as an uncritical acceptance of, and support for, paranormal claims by both the media and society in general. Its philosophical position is one of scientific skepticism. CSI's fellows have included notable scientists, Nobel laureates, philosophers, psychologists, educators and authors. It is headquartered in Amherst, New York.

History

The Banquet at the 1983 CSICOP Conference in Buffalo, NY

In the early 1970s, there was an upsurge of interest in the paranormal in the United States. This generated concern in some quarters, where it was seen as part of a growing tide of irrationalism. In 1975, secular humanist philosopher and professor Paul Kurtz had previously initiated a statement, "Objections to Astrology", which was co-written with Bart Bok and Lawrence E. Jerome, and endorsed by 186 scientists including 19 Nobel laureates and published in the American Humanist Association (AHA)'s newsletter The Humanist, of which Kurtz was then editor. According to Kurtz, the statement was sent to every newspaper in the United States and Canada. The positive reaction to this statement encouraged Kurtz to invite "as many skeptical researchers as [he] could locate" to the 1976 conference with the aim of establishing a new organization dedicated to examining critically a wide range of paranormal claims. Among those invited were Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, James Randi, and Marcello Truzzi, all members of the Resources for the Scientific Evaluation of the Paranormal (RSEP), a fledgling group with objectives similar to those CSI would subsequently adopt.

RSEP disbanded and its members, along with others such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, B.F. Skinner, and Philip J. Klass, joined Kurtz, Randi, Gardner and Hyman to formally found the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). Kurtz, Randi, Gardner and Hyman took seats on the executive board. CSICOP was officially launched at a specially convened conference of the AHA on April 30 and May 1, 1976. CSICOP would be funded with donations and sales of their magazine, Skeptical Inquirer.

According to the published correspondence between Gardner and Truzzi, disagreements over what CSICOP should be shown how volatile the beginnings of the organization were. Truzzi criticised CSICOP for "acted(ing) more like lawyers" taking on a position of dismissal before evaluating the claims, saying that CSICOP took a "debunking stance". Gardner on the other hand "opposed 'believers' in the paranormal becoming CSICOP members" which Truzzi supported. Gardner felt that Truzzi "conferred too much respectability to nonsense".

Mission statement

The formal mission statement, approved in 2006 and still current, states:

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry promotes science and scientific inquiry, critical thinking, science education, and the use of reason in examining important issues. It encourages the critical investigation of controversial or extraordinary claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community, the media, and the public.

A shorter version of the mission statement appears in every issue: "... promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims." A previous mission statement referred to "investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims", but the 2006 change recognized and ratified a wider purview for CSI and its magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, that includes "new science related issues at the intersection of science and public concerns, while not ignoring [their] core topics". A history of the first two decades is available in The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal published in 1998 by S.I. editor Kendrick Frazier. In 2018, Frazier reemphasized the importance of the Committee's work by saying that "[w]e need independent, evidence-based, science-based critical investigation and inquiry now more than perhaps at any other time in our history."

Name

Paul Kurtz was inspired by the 1949 Belgian organization Comité Para, whose full name was Comité Belge pour l'Investigation Scientifique des Phénomènes Réputés Paranormaux ("Belgian Committee for Scientific Investigation of Purported Paranormal Phenomena"). In 1976, the proposed name was "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and Other Phenomena" which was shortened to "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal." The initial acronym, "CSICP" was difficult to pronounce and so was changed to "CSICOP." According to James Alcock, it was never intended to be "Psi Cop", a nickname that some of the group's detractors adopted.

In November 2006, CSICOP further shortened its name to "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry" (CSI), pronounced C-S-I. The reasons for the change were to create a name that was shorter, more "media-friendly", to remove "paranormal" from the name, and to reflect more accurately the actual scope of the organization with its broader focus on critical thinking, science, and rationality in general, and because "it includes the root words of our magazine's title, the Skeptical Inquirer".

Activities

In order to carry out its mission, the Committee "maintains a network of people interested in critically examining paranormal, fringe science, and other claims, and in contributing to consumer education; prepares bibliographies of published materials that carefully examine such claims;encourages research by objective and impartial inquiry in areas where it is needed; convenes conferences and meetings; publishes articles that examine claims of the paranormal; does not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examines them objectively and carefully".

Standard

An axiom often repeated among CSI members is the quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which Carl Sagan made famous and adapted from an earlier quote by Marcello Truzzi: "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof". (Truzzi in turn traced the idea back through the Principle of Laplace to the philosopher David Hume.)

According to CSI member Martin Gardner, CSI regularly puts into practice H. L. Mencken's maxim "one horse-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms."

Publications

CSI publishes the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, which was founded by Truzzi, under the name The Zetetic and retitled after a few months under the editorship of Kendrick Frazier, former editor of Science News. Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope calls Skeptical Inquirer "one of the nation's leading antifruitcake journals". In addition, it publishes Skeptical Briefs, a quarterly newsletter published for associate members.

CSI conducts and publishes investigations into Bigfoot and UFO sightings, psychics, astrologers, alternative medicine, religious cults, and paranormal or pseudoscientific claims.

Conferences

Barbara Forrest participating in the "Creation and Evolution" panel at CSICon 2011 in New Orleans.
 
Bill Nye speaking about science education at CSICon 2013 in Tacoma, Washington.
 
CSI Staff at CSICon Halloween Party 2016

CSICOP has held dozens of conferences between 1983 and 2005, two of them in Europe, and all six World Skeptics Congresses so far were sponsored by it. Since 2011, the conference is known as CSICon. Two conventions have been held in conjunction with its sister and parent organizations, CSH and CFI, in 2013 and 2015. The conferences bring together some of the most prominent figures in scientific research, science communication and skeptical activism, to exchange information on all topics of common concern and to strengthen the movement and community of skeptics.

CSI has also supported local grassroot efforts, such as SkeptiCamp community-organized conferences.

Response to mass media

Many CSI activities are oriented towards the media. As CSI's former executive director Lee Nisbet wrote in the 25th-anniversary issue of the group's journal, Skeptical Inquirer:

CSICOP originated in the spring of 1976 to fight mass-media exploitation of supposedly "occult" and "paranormal" phenomena. The strategy was twofold: First, to strengthen the hand of skeptics in the media by providing information that "debunked" paranormal wonders. Second, to serve as a "media-watchdog" group which would direct public and media attention to egregious media exploitation of the supposed paranormal wonders. An underlying principle of action was to use the mainline media's thirst for public-attracting controversies to keep our activities in the media, hence public eye.

Involvement with mass media continues to the present day with, for example, CSI founding the Council for Media Integrity in 1996, and co-producing a TV documentary series Critical Eye hosted by William B. Davis. CSI members can be seen regularly in the mainstream media offering their perspective on a variety of paranormal claims. In 1999 Joe Nickell was appointed special consultant on a number of investigative documentaries for the BBC. As a media-watchdog, CSI has "mobilized thousands of scientists, academics and responsible communicators" to criticize what it regards as "media's most blatant excesses." Criticism has focused on factual TV programming or newspaper articles offering support for paranormal claims, and programs such as The X-Files and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which its members believe portray skeptics and science in a bad light and help to promote belief in the paranormal. CSI's website currently lists the email addresses of over ninety U.S. media organizations and encourages visitors to "directly influence" the media by contacting "the networks, the TV shows and the editors responsible for the way [they portray] the world."

Following pseudoscientific and paranormal belief trends

CSI was quoted to consider pseudoscience topics to include yogic flying, therapeutic touch, astrology, fire walking, voodoo, magical thinking, Uri Geller, alternative medicine, channeling, psychic hotlines and detectives, near-death experiences, unidentified flying objects (UFOs), the Bermuda Triangle, homeopathy, faith healing, and reincarnation. CSI changes its focus with the changing popularity and prominence of what it considers to be pseudoscientific and paranormal belief. For example, as promoters of intelligent design increased their efforts to include it in school curricula in recent years, CSI stepped up its attention to the subject, creating an "Intelligent Design Watch" website publishing numerous articles on evolution and intelligent design in Skeptical Inquirer and on the Internet.

Health and safety

CSI is concerned with paranormal or pseudoscientific claims that may endanger people's health or safety, such as the use of alternative medicine in place of science-based healthcare. Investigations by CSI and others, including consumer watchdog groups, law enforcement and government regulatory agencies, have shown that the sale of alternative medicines, paranormal paraphernalia, or pseudoscience-based products can be enormously profitable. CSI says this profitability has provided various pro-paranormal groups large resources for advertising, lobbying efforts, and other forms of advocacy, to the detriment of public health and safety.

Organization

Umbrella organization

The Center for Inquiry is the transnational non-profit umbrella organization comprising CSI, the Council for Secular Humanism, the Center for Inquiry - On Campus national youth group and the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. These organizations share headquarters and some staff, and each have their own list of fellows and their distinct mandates. CSI generally addresses questions of religion only in cases in which testable scientific assertions have been made (such as weeping statues or faith healing).

Independent Investigation Group

The Center for Inquiry West, located in Hollywood, California Executive Director Jim Underdown founded the Independent Investigations Group (IIG), a volunteer-based organization in January 2000. The IIG investigates fringe science, paranormal and extraordinary claims from a rational, scientific viewpoint and disseminates factual information about such inquiries to the public. IIG has offered a $50,000 prize "to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event", to which 7 people applied from 2009–2012.

Awards

In Praise of Reason Award

"The In Praise of Reason Award is given in recognition of distinguished contributions in the use of critical inquiry, scientific evidence, and reason in evaluating claims to knowledge." This is the highest award presented by CSI and is often presented at the CSIcon conferences.

Year Person Notes
1982 Martin Gardner Awarded in Atlanta, GA "'In honor of his heroic efforts in defense of reason and the dignity of the skeptical attitude.'"
1984 Sidney Hook Presented at Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA by CSICOP Chairman Paul Kurtz.
1985 Antony Flew Awarded in London by Paul Kurtz, "'[I]n recognition of his long-standing contributions to the use of methods of critical inquiry, scientific evidence, and reason in evaluating claims to knowledge and solving social problems."
1986 Stephen Jay Gould Presented at the University of Colorado, Boulder "'In recognition of his long-standing contributions to the use of the methods of critical inquiry, scientific evidence, and reason in evaluating claims to knowledge and solving social problems'".
1987 Carl Sagan Pasadena, CA CSICOP awards banquet
1988 Douglas Hofstadter Presented at the Chicago CSICOP conference
1990 Cornelis de Jager Presented at the Brussels 1990 CSICOP conference
1990 Gerard Piel Awarded at the Washington D. C. conference March 30-April 1.
1991 Donald Johanson Awarded at the 15th Anniversary of CSICOP in Berkeley, CA
1992 Richard Dawkins Presented at the CSICOP Dallas, TX Convention
1994 Elizabeth Loftus Awarded at the CSI Seattle Conference June 23–26 "For her research in memory and eyewitness testimony."
1996 Leon Lederman Awarded at the First World Congress in Amherst, NY, presented by Cornelis de Jager
2000 Lin Zixin Lin Zixin was awarded in absentia.
2001 Kendrick Frazier Awarded at the first Center for Inquiry International Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. Frazier "spoke of his feelings... 'I am more a toiler in the editorial fields than an inhabitant of the lofty spires of academia, so that makes me all the more appreciative".
2002 Marvin Minsky Awarded at the Fourth World Skeptics Conference (June 2002) in Burbank, California.
2003 Ray Hyman Presented at the Albuquerque conference by friend James Alcock. "Ray Hyman, from whom I-and I am sure all of us-continue to learn so much."
2004 James Alcock Presented at the Center for Inquiry - Transnational Conference in Toronto, Canada. Vern Bullough presented Alcock with the award. Alcock stated that many scientists do not care about pseudoscience as they don't see it as a threat on science, but he reminds the audience that "fundamentalist religious viewpoints" and "alternative medicine" are "very real threats".[50]
2009 James Randi Presented at the 12th World Congress in Maryland. Paul Kurtz presented the award saying '“Your greatest quality is that you are an educator, a teacher. You have shown that the easiest people to deceive are PhDs, a great insight to all of us. You expose myths and hoaxes.... You stand out in history.”'
2011 Bill Nye Presented at CSIcon New Orleans conference. Eugenie Scott stated "If you think Bill is popular among skeptics, you should attend a science teacher conference where he is speaking" it is standing room only. She continues by saying that no one has more fun as Nye when he is "demonstrating, principles of science."

Candle Awards

Founded at the 1996 World Skeptics Congress in Buffalo, NY, the Council for Media Integrity gives these awards that were named in inspiration by Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. The Council is made up of scientists, media and academics, all concerned with the "balanced portrayal of science". The Candle in the Dark Award is presented to those who show "outstanding contributions to the public's understanding of science and scientific principles" and to "reward sound science television programming". The Snuffed Candle Award is awarded to those "for encouraging credulity, presenting pseudoscience as genuine, and contributing to the public's lack of understanding of the methods of scientific inquiry." The Council urges TV "producers to label documentary-type shows depicting the paranormal as either entertainment or fiction". The council also provides the media with contact information of experts who would be willing and able to answer questions and be interviewed for paranormal topics.

Year Person Media
1997 Bill Nye and Dan Aykroyd Nye received the Candle in the Dark Award for his "lively, creative... endeavor". Aykroyd "was presented in absentia the Snuffed Candle Award for hosting Psi Factor and being a "long-time promoter ... of paranormal claims" Following the awards, Joe Nickell wrote to Aykroyd asking for the research behind the "cases" presented on Psi Factor. Particularly a claim that NASA scientists were "killed while investigating a meteor crash and giant eggs were found and incubated, yielding a flea the size of a hog".
1998 Scientific American Frontiers and Art Bell Hosted by Alan Alda, SAF's episode "Beyond Science" was singled out by the Council for Media Integrity for its examination of the paranormal. Art Bell was recognized by the Council for "perpetuating conspiracy myths... and mystery mongering". When Bell learned of the award he replied "A mind should not be so open that the brains fall out, however it should not be so closed that whatever gray matter which does reside may not be reached. On behalf of those with the smallest remaining open aperture, I accept with honor."
2003 Edgar Sanchez reporter for the Sacramento Bee and Larry King Awarded at the Albuquerque, New Mexico Conference. Sanchez received the Candle in the Dark award for his column "Scam Alert" where he has written about Nigerian scams, car-mileage fraud and phony police detectives. King received the Snuffed Candle award for '"encouraging credulity, presenting pseudoscience as genuine'".

Robert P. Balles Prize

CSI awards the Robert P. Balles Annual Prize in Critical Thinking annually. The $2,500 award is given to the "creator of the published work that best exemplifies healthy skepticism, logical analysis, or empirical science". Robert P. Balles, "a practicing Christian" established this permanent endowment fund through a Memorial Fund. Center for Inquiry's "established criteria for the prize include use of the most parsimonious theory to fit data or to explain apparently preternatural phenomena."

Year Person Media Notes
2005 Andrew Skolnick, Ray Hyman and Joe Nickell The Girl with X-ray Eyes Shared the first award for their 2005 reports on CSICOP's testing of Natasha Demkina, a girl who claimed to have X-ray eyes.
2006 Ben Goldacre For his column in The Guardian U.K. newspaper, Bad Science Columns include "Dyslexia 'cure' fails to pass the tests", "Bring me a God helmet, and bring it now", "Kick the habit with wacky wave energy", "Brain Gym exercises do pupils no favors" and "Magnetic attraction? Shhhh. It's a secret"
2007 Natalie Angier The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science "[S}he thoughtfully explores what it means to think scientifically and the benefits of extending the scientific ethos to all areas of human life."
2008 Leonard Mlodinow The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules our Lives
2009 Michael Specter Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives
2010 Steven Novella Body of work including The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast, Science-Based Medicine, Neurologica, Skepticial Inquirer column The Science of Medicine and the "tireless travel and lecture schedule on behalf of skepticism" '“The truly most amazing thing is he does this all on a volunteer basis.”' According to Barry Karr "'You may be the hardest worker in all of skepticism'"
2011 Richard Wiseman Paranormality: Why We See What Isn’t There "Wiseman is not simply interested in looking at a claim... He is interested in showing us how easy it is for us to be deceived and how easily we can be fooled and fool others."
2012 Steven Salzberg and Joe Nickell Salzberg's column for Forbes magazine, Fighting Pseudoscience and Nickell's book The Science of Ghosts - Searching for Spirits of the Dead "Salzberg regularly shines the light of reason on the false or dubious claims ... with a clear and accessible voice, and with a healthy dose of humor." And "Accessibility and humor, along with unmatched rigor and curiosity, are what famed Joe Nickell, ... has been bringing to his work for decades."
2013 Paul Offit Do You Believe in Magic? The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine "Offit is a literal lifesaver... educates the public about the dangers of alternative medicine, may save many, many more."
2014 Joseph Schwarcz and to the creators, producers, and writers of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey Is That a Fact? and Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey opened the eyes of a new generation to humanity’s triumphs, its mistakes, and its astounding potential to reach unimagined heights.... Is That a Fact? unflinchingly takes on all manner of popular misinformation."
2015 Julia Belluz Vox.com "We need more people in the media doing what Julia Bellux does... "
2016 Maria Konnikova The Confidence Game "The Confidence Game could not have come at a more crucial time, as the general public is overwhelmed day in and day out by attempts to play on their biases and prejudices[.]”
2017 Donald Prothero, Tim Callahan UFOs, Chemtrails, and Aliens This book "not only refute(s) false claims and misguided beliefs ... but more importantly they also arm readers with the tools they will need to fairly evaluate any extraordinary claim they come across"
2018 Blake Ellis, Melanie Hicken A Deal With The Devil "Investigative reporters Blake Ellis and Melanie Hicken exposed the complex inner workings of a case of psychic fraud that spanned several decades and bilked over $200,000,000 from the mostly elderly victims.”

Responsibility in Journalism Award

CSICOP seeking to acknowledge and encourage "fair and balanced reporting of paranormal claims" established the Responsibility in Journalism Award in 1984. Frazier stated that "There are many responsible reporters who want to do a good job in covering these kinds of controversial, exotic topics." Beginning in 1991, CSI began awarding in two categories, "print" and "broadcast".

Year Person Media Notes
1984 Leon Jaroff and Davyd Yost Jaroff as managing editor of Discover magazine established the Skeptical Eye column. Yost of the Columbus, Ohio Citizen Journal specifically for a story about a poltergeist. Frazier said of Yost "In the mold of careful, responsible journalism... [he made] a special effort to get outside expert opinion". Philip Klass stated that Jaroff has "'political courage'" for his column that offers "useful perspectives... of claims of the paranormal".
1986 Boyce Rensberger and Ward Lucas Rensberger, science reporter for Washington Post and Ward "anchor and investigative reporter KUSA-TV Channel 9 Denver" Presented at the University of Colorado, Boulder, "'In recognition of contributions to fair and balanced reporting of paranormal claims'".
1987 Lee Dembart, Ed Busch, and Michael Willesee Dembart from Los Angeles Times, Willesee, Australian journalist and Busch, Texas radio talk-show host Presented at Pasadena CSICOP award banquet.
1988 C. Eugene Emery, Jr. and Milton Rosenberg Emery is a science and medical reporter for the Providence Journal and a contributor to SI. Rosenberg is the host of Extension 720 a program on WGN-Radio in Chicago Presented at the Chicago CSICOP conference Emery researched claims of faith-healer Ralph A. DiOrio and wrote about the results in his journal.
1990 Stephen Doig Science Editor for the Miami Herald Awarded at the Washington D. C. conference March 30-April 1st.
1991 Keay Davidson Science editor for the San Francisco Examiner With co-writer Janet L. Hopson who were both recognized for their work into the investigation of the claims of Koko the talking ape. Print Category - Awarded at the 15th Anniversary of CSICOP in Berkeley, CA
1991 Mark Curtis Reporter for WEAR-TV Channel 3, Pensacola, Florida Investigation into the Gulf Breeze UFO incident exposing trick photography. Awarded at the 15th Anniversary of CSICOP in Berkeley, CA
1992 Andrew Skolnick Associate editor of Medical News & Perspectives for the Journal of the American Medical Association Presented at the CSICOP Dallas, TX Convention
1992 Henry Gordon Columnist, magician and author Presented at the CSICOP Dallas, TX Convention
1994 Jack Smith Columnist with the Los Angeles Times Awarded at the CSI Seattle Conference June 23–26
1996 Phillip Adams, Piero Angela and Pierre Berton
Presented at the First World Congress in Buffalo, NY the 20th Anniversary of CSICOP.

Frontiers of Science and Technology Award

Year Person Media Notes
1986 Paul MacCready AeroVironment Presented at the University of Colorado, Boulder "'In recognition of his innovative and creative contributions to technology and his outstanding defense of critical thinking'".
1987 Murray Gell-Mann
Presented at Pasadena CSICOP award banquet.

Public Education in Science Award

In recognition of distinguished contributions to the testing of scientific principles and to the public understanding of science.

Year Person Notes
1990 Richard Berendzen Presented at Pasadena CSICOP award banquet.
1991 Eugenie Scott Awarded at the 15th Anniversary of CSICOP in Berkeley, CA
1992 Sergei Kapitza Presented at the CSICOP Dallas, TX Convention
1994 John Maddox Awarded at the CSI Seattle Conference June 23–26
1996 Dean Edell Presented at the First World Congress in Buffalo, NY the 20th Anniversary of CSICOP.
2000 Richard Wiseman Presented at the Third World Congress held in Sydney, Australia.

Distinguished Skeptic Award

Year Person Notes
1990 Henri Broch Awarded for "his pioneer work with Minitel and making scientific critiques of the paranormal available to a wider audience in France. Presented at the Brussels 1990 CSICOP conference.
1991 Susan Blackmore Awarded at the 15th Anniversary of CSICOP in Berkeley, CA
1992 Évry Schatzman Presented at the CSICOP Dallas, TX Convention
1994 Philip Klass Awarded at the CSI Seattle Conference June 23–26
1996 James Randi Presented at the First World Congress in Buffalo, NY the 20th Anniversary of CSICOP.
1998 Amardeo Sarma Presented at the Second World Congress
2000 Barry Williams, Joe Nickell Presented at the Third World Congress held in Sydney, Australia. Williams was recognized for his "yeoman service to organized skepticism".
2001 Harlan Ellison Presented at the Fourth World Skeptics Conference in Burbank, CA.
2002 Marcia Angell (citation needed)
2003 Jan Harold Brunvand Presented at the Albuquerque, New Mexico Conference

Founder Award

Presented to founder and chairman of CSICOP, Paul Kurtz "'In recognition of your wisdom, courage, and foresight in establishing and leading the world's first public education organization devoted to distinguishing science from pseudoscience'". Award was given April 26, 1986 at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

The Martin Gardner Lifetime Achievement Award

Awarded to author and entertainer Steve Allen at the First World Skeptic Congress held in Buffalo, NY 1996. Allen was recognized for his lifetime achievement "in cultivating the public appreciation of critical thinking and science".

The Isaac Asimov Award

Established to acknowledge the contributions to humanity and science by Isaac Asimov. This award is given to those who has "shown outstanding commitment and ability in communicating the achievements, methods, and issues of science to the public".

Year Person Notes
1994 Carl Sagan Janet Asimov when informed that Carl Sagan would be the first recipient of the Isaac Asimov Award, "There is no one better qualified... than his good friend and colleague Carl Sagan. Isaac was particularly fond of Carl. He was also in awe of Carl's genius, and proud that he was so adept at communicating science to the public... thank you for remembering my beloved husband in this way."
1995 Stephen Jay Gould Presented at the First World Congress in Buffalo, NY the 20th Anniversary of CSICOP

The Pantheon of Skeptics

In April 2011, the executive council of CSI created The Pantheon of Skeptics, a special roster honoring deceased fellows of the Committee who have made the most outstanding contributions to the causes of science and skepticism. This roster is part of an ongoing effort to provide a sense of history about the modern skeptical movement.

The Pantheon of Skeptics
Person Notes
George O. Abell astronomer and popularizer of science
Steve Allen entertainer, author, critic
Jerry Andrus magician and writer
Isaac Asimov biochemist and author of science and science fiction
Robert A. Baker psychologist
T. X. Barber psychologist
Barry Beyerstein biopsychologist
Bart J. Bok astronomer
Milbourne Christopher magician and writer
Francis H. Crick Nobel laureate molecular biologist
L. Sprague de Camp science fiction author and skeptic
Martin Gardner columnist and popularizer of mathematics and science
Stephen Jay Gould evolutionary biologist, and historian of science
D. O. Hebb neuropsychologist
Sidney Hook philosopher
Leon Jaroff science writer and editor
Philip J. Klass engineer, journalist, and UFO skeptic
Paul Kurtz philosopher, skeptic and prominent secular humanist
Paul MacCready scientist, engineer, inventor
John Maddox biologist and science writer
William V. Mayer biologist
Walter McCrone microscopist and expert in forensic science
Ernest Nagel philosopher of science
H. Narasimhaiah physicist
W. V. Quine philosopher and logician
Carl Sagan astronomer and science popularizer
Wallace Sampson professor of clinical medicine, alternative medicine skeptic
Glenn T. Seaborg Nobel laureate in chemistry
B. F. Skinner psychologist
Victor Stenger particle physicist and philosopher
Stephen Toulminphilosopher, author, and ethicist

Daniel Dennett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Daniel Dennett
Dennett wearing a button-up shirt and a jacket
Dennett in 2006
Born
Daniel Clement Dennett III

March 28, 1942 (age 78)
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Education
Notable work
Spouse(s)
Susan Bell
(m. 1962)
Awards

Era20th/21st-century philosophy
RegionWestern philosophy
School
InstitutionsTufts University
ThesisThe Mind and the Brain (1965)
Doctoral advisorGilbert Ryle
Main interests
Notable ideas
Heterophenomenology
Intentional stance
Intuition pump
Multiple drafts model
Greedy reductionism
Cartesian theater
Belief in belief
Free-floating rationale
Top-down vs bottom-up design
Cassette theory of dreams
Alternative neurosurgery
Brainstorm machine
Deepity
Signature
Daniel Dennett signature.svg

Daniel Clement Dennett III (born March 28, 1942) is an American philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist whose research centers on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science.

As of 2017, he is the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Dennett is an atheist and secularist, a member of the Secular Coalition for America advisory board, and a member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, as well as an outspoken supporter of the Brights movement. Dennett is referred to as one of the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism", along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens.

Dennett is a member of the editorial board for The Rutherford Journal.

Early life, education, and career

Dennett was born on March 28, 1942, in Boston, Massachusetts, the son of Ruth Marjorie (née Leck) and Daniel Clement Dennett Jr. Dennett spent part of his childhood in Lebanon, where, during World War II, his father was a covert counter-intelligence agent with the Office of Strategic Services posing as a cultural attaché to the American Embassy in Beirut. When he was five, his mother took him back to Massachusetts after his father died in an unexplained plane crash. Dennett's sister is the investigative journalist Charlotte Dennett. Dennett says that he was first introduced to the notion of philosophy while attending summer camp at age 11, when a camp counselor said to him, "You know what you are, Daniel? You're a philosopher."

Dennett graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy in 1959, and spent one year at Wesleyan University before receiving his Bachelor of Arts in philosophy at Harvard University in 1963. At Harvard University he was a student of W. V. Quine. In 1965, he received his Doctor of Philosophy in philosophy at the University of Oxford, where he studied under Gilbert Ryle and was a member of Hertford College. His dissertation was entitled The Mind and the Brain: Introspective Description in the Light of Neurological Findings; Intentionality.

Dennett in 2008

Dennett describes himself as "an autodidact—or, more properly, the beneficiary of hundreds of hours of informal tutorials on all the fields that interest me, from some of the world's leading scientists".

He is the recipient of a Fulbright Fellowship, two Guggenheim Fellowships, and a Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He is a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism. He was named 2004 Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association. In 2006, Dennett received the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement.

In February 2010, he was named to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's Honorary Board of distinguished achievers.

In 2012, he was awarded the Erasmus Prize, an annual award for a person who has made an exceptional contribution to European culture, society or social science, "for his ability to translate the cultural significance of science and technology to a broad audience."

In 2018, he was awarded an honorary degree by Radboud University, located in Nijmegen, Netherlands, for his contributions to and influence on cross-disciplinary science.

Philosophical views

Free will

While he is a confirmed compatibilist on free will, in "On Giving Libertarians What They Say They Want"—chapter 15 of his 1978 book Brainstorms—Dennett articulated the case for a two-stage model of decision making in contrast to libertarian views.

The model of decision making I am proposing has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined, produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Those considerations that are selected by the agent as having a more than negligible bearing on the decision then figure in a reasoning process, and if the agent is in the main reasonable, those considerations ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent's final decision.

While other philosophers have developed two-stage models, including William James, Henri Poincaré, Arthur Compton, and Henry Margenau, Dennett defends this model for the following reasons:

  1. First ... The intelligent selection, rejection, and weighing of the considerations that do occur to the subject is a matter of intelligence making the difference.
  2. Second, I think it installs indeterminism in the right place for the libertarian, if there is a right place at all.
  3. Third ... from the point of view of biological engineering, it is just more efficient and in the end more rational that decision making should occur in this way.
  4. A fourth observation in favor of the model is that it permits moral education to make a difference, without making all of the difference.
  5. Fifth—and I think this is perhaps the most important thing to be said in favor of this model—it provides some account of our important intuition that we are the authors of our moral decisions.
  6. Finally, the model I propose points to the multiplicity of decisions that encircle our moral decisions and suggests that in many cases our ultimate decision as to which way to act is less important phenomenologically as a contributor to our sense of free will than the prior decisions affecting our deliberation process itself: the decision, for instance, not to consider any further, to terminate deliberation; or the decision to ignore certain lines of inquiry.

These prior and subsidiary decisions contribute, I think, to our sense of ourselves as responsible free agents, roughly in the following way: I am faced with an important decision to make, and after a certain amount of deliberation, I say to myself: "That's enough. I've considered this matter enough and now I'm going to act," in the full knowledge that I could have considered further, in the full knowledge that the eventualities may prove that I decided in error, but with the acceptance of responsibility in any case.

Leading libertarian philosophers such as Robert Kane have rejected Dennett's model, specifically that random chance is directly involved in a decision, on the basis that they believe this eliminates the agent's motives and reasons, character and values, and feelings and desires. They claim that, if chance is the primary cause of decisions, then agents cannot be liable for resultant actions. Kane says:

[As Dennett admits,] a causal indeterminist view of this deliberative kind does not give us everything libertarians have wanted from free will. For [the agent] does not have complete control over what chance images and other thoughts enter his mind or influence his deliberation. They simply come as they please. [The agent] does have some control after the chance considerations have occurred.

But then there is no more chance involved. What happens from then on, how he reacts, is determined by desires and beliefs he already has. So it appears that he does not have control in the libertarian sense of what happens after the chance considerations occur as well. Libertarians require more than this for full responsibility and free will.

Philosophy of mind

Dennett has remarked in several places (such as "Self-portrait", in Brainchildren) that his overall philosophical project has remained largely the same since his time at Oxford. He is primarily concerned with providing a philosophy of mind that is grounded in empirical research. In his original dissertation, Content and Consciousness, he broke up the problem of explaining the mind into the need for a theory of content and for a theory of consciousness. His approach to this project has also stayed true to this distinction. Just as Content and Consciousness has a bipartite structure, he similarly divided Brainstorms into two sections. He would later collect several essays on content in The Intentional Stance and synthesize his views on consciousness into a unified theory in Consciousness Explained. These volumes respectively form the most extensive development of his views.

In chapter 5 of Consciousness Explained Dennett describes his multiple drafts model of consciousness. He states that, "all varieties of perception—indeed all varieties of thought or mental activity—are accomplished in the brain by parallel, multitrack processes of interpretation and elaboration of sensory inputs. Information entering the nervous system is under continuous 'editorial revision.'" (p. 111). Later he asserts, "These yield, over the course of time, something rather like a narrative stream or sequence, which can be thought of as subject to continual editing by many processes distributed around the brain, ..." (p. 135, emphasis in the original).

In this work, Dennett's interest in the ability of evolution to explain some of the content-producing features of consciousness is already apparent, and this has since become an integral part of his program. He defends a theory known by some as Neural Darwinism. He also presents an argument against qualia; he argues that the concept is so confused that it cannot be put to any use or understood in any non-contradictory way, and therefore does not constitute a valid refutation of physicalism. His strategy mirrors his teacher Ryle's approach of redefining first person phenomena in third person terms, and denying the coherence of the concepts which this approach struggles with.

Dennett self-identifies with a few terms:

[Others] note that my "avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters" often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors.

In Consciousness Explained, he affirms "I am a sort of 'teleofunctionalist', of course, perhaps the original teleofunctionalist". He goes on to say, "I am ready to come out of the closet as some sort of verificationist".(page 460-461)

Evolutionary debate

Much of Dennett's work since the 1990s has been concerned with fleshing out his previous ideas by addressing the same topics from an evolutionary standpoint, from what distinguishes human minds from animal minds (Kinds of Minds), to how free will is compatible with a naturalist view of the world (Freedom Evolves).

Dennett sees evolution by natural selection as an algorithmic process (though he spells out that algorithms as simple as long division often incorporate a significant degree of randomness). This idea is in conflict with the evolutionary philosophy of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who preferred to stress the "pluralism" of evolution (i.e., its dependence on many crucial factors, of which natural selection is only one).

Dennett's views on evolution are identified as being strongly adaptationist, in line with his theory of the intentional stance, and the evolutionary views of biologist Richard Dawkins. In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dennett showed himself even more willing than Dawkins to defend adaptationism in print, devoting an entire chapter to a criticism of the ideas of Gould. This stems from Gould's long-running public debate with E. O. Wilson and other evolutionary biologists over human sociobiology and its descendant evolutionary psychology, which Gould and Richard Lewontin opposed, but which Dennett advocated, together with Dawkins and Steven Pinker. Gould argued that Dennett overstated his claims and misrepresented Gould's, to reinforce what Gould describes as Dennett's "Darwinian fundamentalism".

Dennett's theories have had a significant influence on the work of evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller.

An account of religion and morality

Dennett sends a solidarity message to ex-Muslims convening in London in July 2017

In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dennett writes that evolution can account for the origin of morality. He rejects, however, the idea that morality being natural to us implies that we should take a skeptical position regarding ethics, noting that what is fallacious in the naturalistic fallacy is not to support values per se, but rather to rush from facts to values.

In his 2006 book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Dennett attempts to account for religious belief naturalistically, explaining possible evolutionary reasons for the phenomenon of religious adherence. In this book he declares himself to be "a bright", and defends the term.

He has been doing research into clerics who are secretly atheists and how they rationalize their works. He found what he called a "don't ask, don't tell" conspiracy because believers did not want to hear of loss of faith. That made unbelieving preachers feel isolated but they did not want to lose their jobs and sometimes their church-supplied lodgings and generally consoled themselves that they were doing good in their pastoral roles by providing comfort and required ritual. The research, with Linda LaScola, was further extended to include other denominations and non-Christian clerics. The research and stories Dennett and LaScola accumulated during this project were published in their 2013 co-authored book, Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind.

Other philosophical views

He has also written about and advocated the notion of memetics as a philosophically useful tool, most recently in his "Brains, Computers, and Minds", a three-part presentation through Harvard's MBB 2009 Distinguished Lecture Series.

Dennett has been critical of postmodernism, having said:

Postmodernism, the school of "thought" that proclaimed "There are no truths, only interpretations" has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for "conversations" in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster.

Dennett adopted and somewhat redefined the term "deepity", originally coined by Miriam Weizenbaum. Dennett used "deepity" for a statement that is apparently profound, but is actually trivial on one level and meaningless on another. Generally, a deepity has two (or more) meanings: one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound and would be important if true, but is actually false or meaningless. Examples are "Que sera sera!", "Beauty is only skin deep!", "The power of intention can transform your life." The term has been cited many times.

Artificial intelligence

While approving of the increase in efficiency that humans reap by using resources such as expert systems in medicine or GPS in navigation, Dennett sees a danger in machines performing an ever-increasing proportion of basic tasks in perception, memory, and algorithmic computation because people may tend to anthropomorphize such systems and attribute intellectual powers to them that they do not possess. He believes the relevant danger from AI is that people will misunderstand the nature of basically "parasitic" AI systems, rather than employing them constructively to challenge and develop the human user's powers of comprehension.

As given in his most recent book, From Bacteria to Bach and Back, Dennett's views are contrary to those of Nick Bostrom. Although acknowledging that it is "possible in principle" to create AI with human-like comprehension and agency, Dennett maintains that the difficulties of any such "strong AI" project would be orders of magnitude greater than those raising concerns have realized. According to Dennett, the prospect of superintelligence (AI massively exceeding the cognitive performance of humans in all domains) is at least 50 years away, and of far less pressing significance than other problems the world faces.

Personal life

Dennett married Susan Bell in 1962. They live in North Andover, Massachusetts, and have a daughter, a son, and five grandchildren.

Dennett is an avid sailor.

Sentience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care.

The prevailing scientific view today is that sentience is generated by specialized neural structures and processes – neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological. In more complex organisms these take the form of the central nervous system. According to the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness (publicly proclaimed on 7 July 2012 at the Cambridge University), only those organisms within the animal kingdom that have these neural substrates are sentient. Sponges, placozoans, and mesozoans, with simple body plans and no nervous system, are the only members of the animal kingdom that possess no sentience.

Philosophy and sentience

In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia" -- in other words, the ability to have states that it feels like something to be in. This is distinct from other features of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts about something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which otherwise commonly and collectively describes sentience plus further features of the mind. These further features of consciousness may not be necessary for sentience, which rests on the capacity to feel sensations and emotions.

Some philosophers, notably Colin McGinn, believe that the physical process causing sentience to happen will never be understood, a position known as "new mysterianism." They do not deny that most other aspects of consciousness are subject to scientific investigation but they argue that subjective experiences will never be explained; i.e., sentience is the only aspect of consciousness that cannot be explained. Other philosophers (such as Daniel Dennett) disagree, arguing that all aspects of consciousness will eventually be explained by science.

Recognition paradox and relation to sapience

While it has been traditionally assumed that sentience and sapience are, in principle, independent of each other, there are criticisms of that assumption. One such criticism is about recognition paradoxes, one example of which is that an entity that cannot distinguish a spider from a non-spider cannot be arachnophobic. More generally, it is argued that since it is not possible to attach an emotional response to stimuli that cannot be recognized, emotions cannot exist independently of cognition that can recognize. The claim that precise recognition exists as specific attention to some details in a modular mind is criticized both with regard to data loss as a small system of disambiguating synapses in a module physically cannot make as precise distinctions as a bigger synaptic system encompassing the whole brain, and for energy loss as having one system for motivation that needs some built-in cognition to recognize anything anyway and another cognitive system for making strategies would cost more energy than integrating it all in one system that use the same synapses. Data losses inherent in all information transfer from more precise systems to less precise systems are also argued to make it impossible for any imprecise system to use a more precise system as an "emissary", as a less precise system would not be able to tell whether the outdata from the more precise system was in the interest of the less precise system or not.

Empirical data on conditioned reflex precision

The original studies by Ivan Pavlov that showed that conditioned reflexes in human children are more discriminating than those in dogs, human children drooling only at ticking frequencies very close to those at which food was served while dogs drool at a wider range of frequencies, have been followed up in recent years with comparative studies on more species. It is shown that both brain size and brain-wide connectivity contribute to make perception more discriminating, as predicted by the theory of a brain-wide perception system but not by the theory of separate systems for emotion and cognition. 

Indian religions

Eastern religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism recognise non-humans as sentient beings. In Jainism and Hinduism, this is closely related to the concept of ahimsa, nonviolence toward other beings. In Jainism, all matter is endowed with sentience; there are five degrees of sentience, from one to five. Water, for example, is a sentient being of the first order, as it is considered to possess only one sense, that of touch. Man is considered a sentient being of the fifth order. According to Buddhism, sentient beings made of pure consciousness are possible. In Mahayana Buddhism, which includes Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, the concept is related to the Bodhisattva, an enlightened being devoted to the liberation of others. The first vow of a Bodhisattva states: "Sentient beings are numberless; I vow to free them."

Sentience in Buddhism is the state of having senses. In Buddhism, there are six senses, the sixth being the subjective experience of the mind. Sentience is simply awareness prior to the arising of Skandha. Thus, an animal qualifies as a sentient being.

Animal welfare, rights, and sentience

In the philosophies of animal welfare and rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain. Additionally, it has been argued, as in the documentary Earthlings:

Granted, these animals do not have all the desires we humans have; granted, they do not comprehend everything we humans comprehend; nevertheless, we and they do have some of the same desires and do comprehend some of the same things. The desires for food and water, shelter and companionship, freedom of movement and avoidance of pain.

Animal-welfare advocates typically argue that any sentient being is entitled, at a minimum, to protection from unnecessary suffering, though animal-rights advocates may differ on what rights (e.g., the right to life) may be entailed by simple sentience. Sentiocentrism describes the theory that sentient individuals are the center of moral concern.

The 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham compiled enlightenment beliefs in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, and he included his own reasoning in a comparison between slavery and sadism toward animals:

The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the [sic] question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

In the 20th century, Princeton University professor Peter Singer argued that Bentham's conclusion is often dismissed by an appeal to a distinction that condemns human suffering but allows non-human suffering, typically "appeals" that are logical fallacies (unless the distinction is factual, in which case the appeal is just one logical fallacy, petitio principii). Because many of the suggested distinguishing features of humanity—high intelligence; highly complex language; etc.—are not present in marginal cases such as mute humans, young children, deaf humans, and mentally disabled humans, it appears that the only distinction is a prejudice based on species alone, which animal-rights supporters call speciesism—that is, differentiating humans from other animals purely on the grounds that they are human. His opponents accuse him of the same petitio principii.

Gary Francione also bases his abolitionist theory of animal rights, which differs significantly from Singer's, on sentience. He asserts that, "All sentient beings, humans or nonhuman, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others."

Andrew Linzey, founder of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics in England, is known as a foremost international advocate for recognising animals as sentient beings in biblically based faith traditions. The Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains encourages animal ministry groups to adopt a policy of recognising and valuing sentient beings.

In 1997 the concept of animal sentience was written into the basic law of the European Union. The legally binding protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam recognises that animals are "sentient beings", and requires the EU and its member states to "pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals".

The laws of several states include certain invertebrates such as cephalopods (octopuses, squids) and decapod crustaceans (lobsters, crabs) in the scope of animal protection laws, implying that these animals are also judged capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

Artificial intelligence

The term "sentience" is not used by major artificial intelligence textbooks and researchers. It is sometimes used in popular accounts of AI to describe "human level or higher intelligence".

Sentience quotient

The sentience quotient concept was introduced by Robert A. Freitas Jr. in the late 1970s. It defines sentience as the relationship between the information processing rate of each individual processing unit (neuron), the weight/size of a single unit, and the total number of processing units (expressed as mass). It was proposed as a measure for the sentience of all living beings and computers from a single neuron up to a hypothetical being at the theoretical computational limit of the entire universe. On a logarithmic scale it runs from −70 up to +50.

'Cheaper and safer than wind or solar': Dutch to consult on new nuclear power plants

23 September 2020 10:13 GMT Updated 23 September 2020 13:44 GMT

The Dutch government is planning to launch a consultation on building new nuclear power plants after a study commissioned by the economics and climate ministry claimed atomic energy is as cheap as wind or solar power – and the safest way to produce electricity in the country.

The report handed to the Netherlands puts nuclear above renewables and coal in the safety league, despite citing the impacts of high-profile incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The cabinet in The Hague will work on a motion approved in parliament to investigate what kind of public support would be needed, and in which regions there is interest in the construction of a new nuclear plant, economics and climate minister Erik Wiebes said in a letter to the lower house of parliament.

Following an earlier motion by two government lawmakers, Wiebes had commissioned a report from nuclear energy consultancy Enco into the 'Possible Role of Nuclear in the Dutch Energy Mix in the Future' until 2040.

Get the market insight you need into the global oil & gas industry's energy transition – from the new newsletter from Upstream and Recharge. Sign up here

“The researchers argue that nuclear energy is no more expensive than wind and solar if the system costs are included in the same way. They argue that the system costs of solar and wind are insufficiently weighted in the costs of those technologies,” Wiebes said in the letter to parliament, adding that an extension of the operating life span of existing nuclear power stations is the cheapest way to reduce CO2.

Safer than solar and wind?

Even more surprisingly, the report also claims that nuclear energy is actually the safest way to producer power per terawatt hour of electricity.

“Safer than sun [sic] and wind. Investments for safety are not an issue in the sector. Investments are for 60 to 80 years,” Wiebes said, citing findings of the report.

A press official at the Dutch economics ministry told Recharge that the minister was referring to the report and not stating his own or the government's view, but also acknowledged that Wiebes sees nuclear energy as an option to push down the carbon intensity in the country's energy mix.

The Enco report claims that "with increased safety requirements, the nuclear power industry is the safest power generation available that is known to mankind today."

Citing findings from Switzerland's Paul Scherrer Institute, the report goes on to say that even when accidents occur and radioactive releases are taken into account, the impact on the population is much lower than that of any other energy source if measured in fatalities per terawatt hour each year.

According to the institute's figures, nuclear power has caused less than 0.01 deaths per TWh each year, compared to 0.245 deaths in solar, 8.5 in offshore wind, or 120 in coal - but no time frame was given for the average casualties.

Like Enco, the Paul Scherrer Institute has links to the nuclear industry, though, and according to reports by the Tagesanzeiger and other Swiss newspapers until 2016 stored 20 kilogrammes of weapons-grade plutonium in a secret storage facility for the Swiss government, which was then shipped to the US.

The Swiss government later said the material was not weapons-grade. Switzerland until the late 1980s reportedly considered developing its own nuclear weapons.

The Enco report also claims that only several dozen people died from the 1986 Chernobyl accident, with "some hundreds additional deaths caused by cancers," and says only a few dozens of fatal cancers might be expected over several decades as a result of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdown.

That is far less than the up to 4000 people, the World Health Organization in 2005 said could eventually die of radiation exposure as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. A 2016 report by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), however, links hundreds of thousands of deaths to the accident, and said millions suffer from long-term health consequences.

Small nuclear reactors?

The statements on cost contradict all recent experiences with the construction of new nuclear power stations, for example in France or Finland, which have cost many times the original estimate and are only being completed with decade-long delays.

Wiebes said, however, that a prerequisite for competitive nuclear energy in the country – with one or more nuclear power plants – would be for the Netherlands to join existing nuclear build-out plans from other countries to take advantage of serial production.

According to Enco’s report, small nuclear reactors (SMRs) could become an alternative to larger plants, as serial production in factories and a shorter construction time coupled with a modular design would make financing easier and lower the construction risk. The consultants acknowledge, though, that SMRs have not reached the commercial stage anywhere in the world.

It is unclear, whether Enco can be considered impartial, as the company was founded by former experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has the goal to promote the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Borssele nuclear plant

The Netherlands currently have only one small nuclear power station in operation, the 485MW Borssele plant – not to be confused with offshore wind projects of the same name. Earlier plans to decommission it were shelved, and the government in 2006 decided Borssele would remain operational until 2033.

Looking into the business case for new nuclear power stations counts on the support of the ruling liberals from the VVD (the party of prime minister Mark Rutte) and the Christian Democrats, according to Dutch media, but the two parties also said any new power stations should be built without government subsidies as happens with wind and solar farms.

All of the Netherlands' neighbours have operational nuclear power stations, but Germany will phase them out by the end of 2022, and Belgium by 2025.

France plans to reduce its dependency on nuclear power, while the UK is building new plants but at a price that is much higher than that of offshore wind. The most notable British example is the controversial Hinkley Point C project in southwest England, whose ballooning costs and 35-year, £92.50/MWh ($116/MWh) (at 2012 prices) power deal with the UK government is regularly compared to the roughly £40/MWh for which offshore wind is now selling its electricity from multi-gigawatt projects that match nuclear for scale.

None of these countries have deep geologic depositories to store highly radioactive waste safely, nor are long-term costs for nuclear waste storage priced in in electricity prices. Highly radioactive waste needs to be stored safely for one million years, according to Germany's office for radiation protection.

Swedish utility Vattenfall, which operates both nuclear power plants in Sweden (that are supposed to be phased out) and is building the subsidy-free offshore wind farms in the Netherlands, said new nuclear would be possible, but depends on political decisions.

Thorbjörn Wahlborg, head of generation at Vattenfall, at a strategy webcast today acknowledged that nuclear "doesn't look very competitive" as far as its production costs are concerned, but said if other values are added, such as system services, grid stability, or reactive power capacity, the technology could be interesting.

IEA policy review

The new nuclear debate in the Netherlands comes as the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its latest policy review of the country said The Hague's current approach for a rapid transition to a carbon-neutral economy is well balanced.

Following a broad social and political debate that lead to a climate agreement, the Netherlands target to reduce emissions by 49% by 2030, and by 95% by 2050 – both when compared to 1990 levels.

“The Netherlands has a clear vision for reducing its dependence on natural gas while protecting energy security,” IEA executive director Fatih Birol said.

“In addition, its commendable leadership on low-carbon hydrogen will help drive cost reductions that are needed for this important technology to play a key role in accelerating clean energy transitions around the world.”

The country has one of the world’s most ambitious offshore wind programmes, and plans to build 11.7GW in offshore wind by 2030. The government also mulls giant wind farms at sea for the production of green hydrogen, which would be transported to land via existing or new H2 pipelines.

The IEA, however, also pointed out that the Netherlands currently still remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels and have a concentration of energy and emission-intensive industries.

UPDATES to add detail from Enco report, Dutch government, Swiss newspapers, Vattenfall.(Copyright)

Archetype

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype The concept of an archetyp...