Your piece reminded me of a book called The Heretics: Adventures with the Enemies of Science by Will Storr. This also lumps together Holocaust Denial along with a host of paranormal topics. The interesting thing is that Storr's openness. He is sceptical and gets some considerable irony-driven comedic milage out of it, but interestingly it becomes apparent that the sceptics themselves are one of science's enemies. And the author seems pretty convinced by Rupert Sheldrake....it is a much more nuanced book than first appears. although it was specially reviewed in the Guardian - which finds it hard to tolerate any deviation from its enlightened orthodoxy.
Another piece of this story is the role of The New York Review of Books in promoting this pseudoskepticism. You mention an article by Gardner in it in 1966. I personally remember a couple of long, pretentious, and idiotic pieces by one Frederick Crews in that periodical in the 1990s mocking Blavatsky, Gurdjieff, etc. It was evident that Crews had read nothing of the works of these figures. One can wonder if The New York Review would have run articles on, say, the Mideast crisis by someone who knew nothing about the subject. But then maybe they have.
Excellent point and I wondered about further drawing that out. Denizens of legacy letters and mainstream journalism / commentary are educated to believe that the story of modern metaphyiscs of one of charlatanry, plain and simple. This is true of both writer and editor. Hence, there is no one on-scene to venture any question or to recognize the writer's lack of familiarity with his material. This has continued. Hence, on those occassions when, say, the Washington Post comments on something in modern spritiual history, such as the rise of New Thought, common reference points and epochs are mishandled, agian, with no one the wiser. I once coveted mainstream bylines for their validating imprimatur. No longer. I could not find worthy colleagues in that world who understood a "second thoughts" approach to topics they were taught to write off. The one exception was an editor at the Post who was raised in Christian Science; but even he could not fight every battle.
In 2020, when Marianne Williamson was running for president, The New York Times did an article on A Course in MIracles. Thanks to you, the reporter contacted and interviewed me for about an hour. He didn't quote me, but I think I was partly responsible for his comparatively respectful treatment of the Course.
Your piece reminded me of a book called The Heretics: Adventures with the Enemies of Science by Will Storr. This also lumps together Holocaust Denial along with a host of paranormal topics. The interesting thing is that Storr's openness. He is sceptical and gets some considerable irony-driven comedic milage out of it, but interestingly it becomes apparent that the sceptics themselves are one of science's enemies. And the author seems pretty convinced by Rupert Sheldrake....it is a much more nuanced book than first appears. although it was specially reviewed in the Guardian - which finds it hard to tolerate any deviation from its enlightened orthodoxy.
Eager to read, thank you.
🤯
Another piece of this story is the role of The New York Review of Books in promoting this pseudoskepticism. You mention an article by Gardner in it in 1966. I personally remember a couple of long, pretentious, and idiotic pieces by one Frederick Crews in that periodical in the 1990s mocking Blavatsky, Gurdjieff, etc. It was evident that Crews had read nothing of the works of these figures. One can wonder if The New York Review would have run articles on, say, the Mideast crisis by someone who knew nothing about the subject. But then maybe they have.
Excellent point and I wondered about further drawing that out. Denizens of legacy letters and mainstream journalism / commentary are educated to believe that the story of modern metaphyiscs of one of charlatanry, plain and simple. This is true of both writer and editor. Hence, there is no one on-scene to venture any question or to recognize the writer's lack of familiarity with his material. This has continued. Hence, on those occassions when, say, the Washington Post comments on something in modern spritiual history, such as the rise of New Thought, common reference points and epochs are mishandled, agian, with no one the wiser. I once coveted mainstream bylines for their validating imprimatur. No longer. I could not find worthy colleagues in that world who understood a "second thoughts" approach to topics they were taught to write off. The one exception was an editor at the Post who was raised in Christian Science; but even he could not fight every battle.
In 2020, when Marianne Williamson was running for president, The New York Times did an article on A Course in MIracles. Thanks to you, the reporter contacted and interviewed me for about an hour. He didn't quote me, but I think I was partly responsible for his comparatively respectful treatment of the Course.
That writer is a good and rare chronicler there.