I'm not sure of the exact date I wrote this, but I'd estimate some time around 1999. It dealt with a lot of issues I was dealing with at the time, and, if I do say so myself, it seems to offer good answers. In hindsight, it's interesting to wonder why organized skepticism did not grow into a recognizable social movement as pictured here. But that's another interesting issue, one I hope to grapple with and write on at a later date.
* * *
Skepticism as a Technique of Intellectual Self Defense.
By Peter Huston
1. Why define skepticism?
Or
"This Crazy,
Little Thing Called Skepticism!"
What is "skepticism"? Having been involved in "skepticism"
for some time, this is more than an abstract question to me. In fact, as I
spend a great deal of time and effort on "skepticism", and have been
doing so for years, the question is quite an immediate and important one. Since
"skepticism" is basically an undefined entity, at times it is
difficult to explain to others what I am involved in or why I spend valuable
time and effort on it! Some days I genuinely don't know myself what it is that
I hope to accomplish through this vague endeavor called
"skepticism." (And I do hope, that when I find out what it is
that I am trying to accomplish, it turns out to be worth all this time and
energy I am expending on it!).
Defining the scope and content of
the "ism" called "skepticism", will only become more
important as self-identified skeptics become more and more self aware.
Skepticism as an organized entity exists on a local, national, and
international level and seems to be growing. Many colleges have "skeptics groups."
And on the internet there are not just skeptics websites, but also several
skeptics post lists, a skeptics' sites webring and several skeptics chat rooms
that meet at regular times. Yet despite all this, there is really very little
consensus on what the terms "skeptic" and "skepticism"
mean. This is true even of many people within the movement. I recently heard
someone described in a national skeptic publication as "an up and coming
skeptic". Although she was quite pleased with this label, I had to wonder
what exactly the phrase meant. A folklorist I know describes skeptics as
"an emerging community struggling to define itself". If we accept the
definition of "a skeptic" as "someone who "practices or is
involved in skepticism" we are still left with the curious need to define
and think about what is skepticism. I recently was involved in an internet
discussion on "whether skepticism should go mainstream." Before we
can effectively go mainstream, I think it would help if we could explain or
define skepticism to the mainstream.
In short, what does it mean now
that "being skeptical" has become an "ism"? An adjective,
"skeptical", has now become a noun, "skepticism." When
people unite under the banner of skepticism what do they hope to accomplish?
What is "skepticism"?
To some people skepticism is:
·
A way of looking at paranormal claims. - (Why
just paranormal claims?)
·
A movement - (If this is so, is it a
sociological movement, a political movement, or exactly what kind of movement
is it?)
·
A way of defending science - (And is it
really defending science, and if so how and from what?)
·
To some people "skepticism" is a way
of defending society, academia, Western civilization, democracy itself or any
one of a number of other good things. - (Thank goodness at least
someone is trying to defend these things!)
·
To some people skepticism is CSICOP, (the
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal) or
perhaps CSICOP and various local groups or other political or formally
organized entities. - (Well they did start it all. I'll give them
credit for that! But are they the be-all and end all of skepticism?)
·
To some critics, skepticism is a means by which
the establishment seeks to suppress new ideas and neutralize threats to its
hierarchical domination of knowledge through self selected arbitrary paradigms.
- (Gee! I'd hate to be responsible for all that!! Some of my best
friends are kooks, after all! )
There is some truth, and some
falseness, to all of these notions. But I think, based on my experiences, all
of these definitions are less than perfect. In my opinion, (and admittedly this
paper is nothing more than one man's extended opinion) many of these ideas are
just too big and broad in their scope. They attempt to make skepticism into
something much bigger than it is or set goals that seem quite unrealistic. (Are
we, for instance, really saving democracy by debunking UFO
sightings?) Others, by contrast, are too small. (Although influential, most
skeptics have no formal affiliation with CSICOP, for instance.) Or condemn all
skeptics for the actions of a few. (I never owned any Black people and
I never interfered with the inter-state commerce in Orgone energy boxes
either!) With some exceptions, however, generally the term skepticism,
as well as the goals of skepticism, are left undefined by skeptics. Inevitably
this will have to be corrected.
2. Well, then, what is Skepticism? And Why?
Or
Maybe
Now I Don't Have to be So Grouchy When that Special Time of the Month Comes!
(Our
Skeptics Meeting! What Else?)
We, as skeptics, are left with our key focus undefined. What
I'm going to suggest in this paper is that :
·
Skepticism is a technique.
·
Skepticism is a way of evaluating ideas.
·
Skepticism is an intellectual tool.
In short, Skepticism is a
technique of intellectual self defense.
In other words, skepticism is a way
by which people can screen and defend themselves from bad, false or potentially
harmful ideas. I choose this definition carefully. Although I do not consider
this definition the "be-all" and "end-all" of
"definitions of skepticism", I consider it useful in many ways.
Why do we need a "technique of
intellectual self defense."? The answer is simple. We live in the
information age. As most of us realize (especially those of us with access to
the internet) this could easily have been called the "misinformation
age." We live in an era where science, the media and intercultural
exchange are increasing at an incredible rate. There has simply been no other
era in the history of mankind where individuals have been exposed to such a
steady and continuous flow of new ideas on a regular basis. We need a means of
filtering this information so that we don't waste time and energy on
ineffective, incorrect, inaccurate, misrepeated or even harmful ideas.
Skepticism, as it's commonly taught, is such a means of filtering out this
"bad information".
At this point it might not be a bad
idea to briefly review, in a crude simplified form, the basic ideas of
skepticism. Skepticism, as a technique, basically involves the following system
of evaluating ideas.
·
Assume something is false unless proven to be
true.
·
Use Occam's razor, the doctrine that if two
explanations are possible, usually the simpler one is true.
·
Assume extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof.
·
Assume the burden of proof lies on the person
advocating the idea.
As can be seen there is a clear cut
emphasis on disproving ideas or not accepting ideas. This is one of the reasons
I chose my statement that "skepticism is a method of intellectual self
defense" quite carefully instead of something more neutral, such as
perhaps claiming that skepticism is a means of weighing ideas. The emphasis is
on the negative, and, in a self defense system, perhaps it should be.
Do these ideas work 100% of the
time? Arguably no, some ideas do not lend themselves to such a clear cut method
of evaluation. Furthermore, many people could point out isolated cases where
some of these assumptions were not true, where perhaps Occams's razor did not
stand up in a given case. But then again no self defense system is perfect
either, nor should it be expected to be. By and large, though, skepticism is
still a useful technique to evaluate ideas and filter out the harmful ones.
I would also argue that many
aspects of life, including aesthetics, emotions, athleticism, spirituality,
ethics, and relationship issues, do not lend themselves to skeptical analysis
very well. Skepticism and rational analysis can help with these issues, but its
uses within these fields are somewhat limited. (I.E. Rational analysis can
assist a trained artist with many aspects of creating a painting. These might
include choice of materials, composition or design, and similar things, but the
need to express oneself is rarely based entirely in rationality.)
3. If Skepticism is a technique and little more, then what is it not?
Or
"Need
a Life? Well, You're not gonna get one here so don't even try!!"
If we accept the positive premise that Skepticism is a technique of
intellectual self defense then we must also give some thought as to what
skepticism is not. It is a technique, and little else. I would argue the
following:
·
Skepticism is not a complete philosophy.
·
Skepticism is not a religion.
·
Skepticism does not teach that people need to be
100% rational.
·
Skepticism is not a lifestyle.
I repeat that skepticism, in my
opinion, is nothing more than a method of intellectual self defense, and
skeptics are the people who have studied the techniques that make up this
method and value them. When I presented an early version of this paper to the
Massachusetts branch of the New England Skeptics Society, they seemed to be
quite familiar with what I meant by the above statements and laughed in
agreement at them. Nevertheless, let me elaborate on these statements some
more.
Skepticism is neither a complete
philosophy nor a complete religion. Although it deals with many important
philosophical questions, such as matters of belief and determining the nature
of reality, it is not a complete philosophy. Due to its inherent emphasis on
disproving things, and its inherent negativity, it is my belief that people who
are looking for something to believe in or motivate them in their lives should
look outside of skepticism and the skeptical movement. I would argue that they
should not abandon their skepticism when they do this, but bring it with them.
Skepticism is an important part of pursuing any spiritual quest in a safe
manner. Nevertheless, skepticism is about disbelief and focuses on disproving
ideas. To find positive ideas, we must go elsewhere.
Skepticism does not teach that
people should be 100% rational. I do not claim to be 100% rational. I don't
even claim to be 99% rational. (In fact, I suspect few of my friends or
acquaintances would judge my rationality to reach even the 80% level tops.) If
I were 100% rational I would have to give up beer and fatty foods and avoid sex
in the absence of reproductive intent if I could instead be reading a good book
or exercising. I would pay my bills on time and only purchase CDs and toys when
I could afford it. I would be an accountant instead of a writer. Yet, as a
human, I long ago set my goals for a much lower level of rationality than 100%
and have never once regretted it.
Similarly, skepticism is not a
lifestyle and should not be pursued as such. There are people who delight in knocking
down the beliefs of others. Sadly, many of these are attracted to skepticism
and some achieve levels of prominence. Nevertheless, if you focus your
interactions with strangers on probing their beliefs for weaknesses,
approaching each new interpersonal encounter as an intellectual search and
destroy machine, miss manners would not approve, to say the least. After many
years within the skeptical movement, it is my belief that each skeptic should
seek a balance between skepticism and their outside interests. Skepticism can
supplement these outside needs but it cannot and should not substitute for
them.
Skepticism can be a valuable
adjunct to any life, but it cannot, in isolation, be a full life. Elaborating
further, from time to time, I sit down and try to evaluate myself. To do this I
divide myself into a few realms. These tend to be :
1.
Mind
2.
Body
3.
Emotions or Spirit
And sometimes I include another
realm.
4.
Societal or Interpersonal issues.
Rational analysis, and its
sub-branch, skepticism, can be useful within any of these realms. The
connection between "mind" or intellectual pursuits and rational
analysis is obvious.
For the "body" realm, a
simple look at any copy of Muscles and Fitness magazine, a publication which
focuses on bodybuilding and fitness, will reveal a surprisingly strong respect
for scientific study among the editorial staff and readers. Now, Muscles and
Fitness is not a scientific journal. Sometimes when they make a mistake in
their science they go astonishingly way off in their conclusions. But it is
clear to even the most casual reader of this publication that the readers and
editorial staff wish to know the latest developments in fields such as
nutrition, physiology and related sciences, knowing that these will benefit
them in their own personal quests. Goal oriented people value results and
skepticism and rational analysis help one achieve results.
In the realm of the emotional and
spiritual, there is still a usefulness for skepticism. On a simplistic level, I
have noticed, through rational analysis, that when I get regular exercise and
proper nutrition I feel much better than when I don't . Skepticism can assist a
person to avoid traps including many of the various New Age hoaxes (of which
Carlos Castaneda is undoubtedly the best known). A knowledge of skepticism can
often make a person more aware of some common cult recruiting ploys. So even
here, a realm of life traditionally ignored or even scorned by many self
identified skeptics, skepticism is clearly useful to achieve desired goals.
In the societal or interpersonal
realm, things are more ill defined but there is a use for skepticism and
rational analysis. You can catch people in lies more easily, for instance, if
you are skeptical. And clearly skepticism can help one evaluate some social
issues and interpersonal matters but these must be determined on a case by case
basis.
Nevertheless, skepticism itself is
not, in exclusion to other interests, a lifestyle. In fact, I would argue that,
if we accept the premise that skepticism is a technique for intellectual self
defense then it cannot really exist in exclusion, but can only be seen when
interacting with another idea. I would argue that we as skeptics should start
trying to see how skepticism interacts with other ideas, rather than see it as
a separate endeavor.
4. If skepticism is so much and yet so little what should skeptics groups be
publicly skeptical of?
Or
"Which
is worse? Genocide in the Balkans or the X-Files?"
If we accept the premise that skepticism is a technique of intellectual self
defense, and the fact that people are forming local groups to practice these
techniques, apply "skeptical activism" and spread the word that
"skepticism" is useful and good, then we must give some thought as to
where and how we, the members of such groups, should publicly apply these
techniques. (Although individuals who attempt to speak out on "skeptical"
causes might also find these ideas useful.) Since skepticism is inherently a
negative series of techniques designed to disprove ideas, this question can be
resummarized as which ideas then, do we choose to attack?
Traditionally, skeptics have
focused their criticisms on the vaguely defined realms of paranormal,
supernatural, and pseudo-scientific claims. Although I will return to these
realms later, for the moment I prefer to begin with a clean slate. If we accept
the idea that skepticism is a technique of intellectual self defense then there
is no need to focus on these sorts of ideas any more than any other sort of
idea. (For several reasons, I do believe that these ideas have a special place
in skepticism, something I will elaborate on later.)
If we begin with the notion that
skepticism is a technique of intellectual self defense then we can easily
assert that our first duty is to use it to protect ourselves. And there will be
many opportunities. As I write there are literally about 6 messages on my phone
machine waiting to be erased. Two are from business associates who lie
regularly, and one is from a pyramid / multi-level marketing scheme recruiter.
The president of the United States is being charged with perjury after a kinky
fling where he mixed a college age groupie and some contraband cuban cigars and
then lied about it. My recreational reading includes a reference to Koko the
guerrilla calling distasteful people "Toilet devils!" -a wonderful
term useful to any simian including myself. Yet there is a controversy over whether
this, or any of Koko's statements is true interspecies communication. The need
for skepticism in our personal lives is all around us!
But a skeptics group, I feel,
should have some concern for societal issues and some consideration of
activism. Such activism should be targeted carefully and causes carefully
selected.
Let me present two examples of well
targeted skeptical activism.
-In Colorado, organized skeptics
have made a special cause of targeting therapeutic touch claims among
"mainstream" health care practitioners. Many mainstream health care
practitioners are currently receiving continuing education credits for
therapeutic touch, an alternative health care system that claims to work by
manipulating the energy fields in the human body. The existence of both these
"energy fields" and the utility of therapeutic touch is seriously
disputed by modern science and medicine. If a person seeks treatment from a
health care practitioner, and receives therapeutic touch as treatment, they
have a right to ask if the treatment works.
The issue of therapeutic touch
impinges on several important causes. Among these are the way in which
non-scientifically proven techniques have been casually accepted by some health
care practitioners. There is also the issue of how many health care professions
require continuing education credits for their members, but do not monitor the
validity or utility of the subjects which members can study to receive these
so-called continuing education credits. This blurring of so-called alternative
health care and mainstream health care is troubling to many. In fact, it is not
uncommon for some people to assume that therapeutic touch and other
"alternative" health care techniques have validity simply because
they are accepted by many health care practitioners.
In effect, what the skeptics in
Colorado are asking is, "Does this work as claimed and can you prove
it?" and "If not, why are you teaching it?" By doing so, many
interesting issues are being touched upon, and the techniques of skepticism are
being well illustrated and publicized. (For one version of the details on this
see, "Therapeutic Touch -Skeptics in Hand to Hand Combat over the Latest
New Age Health Fad" In "Skeptic" Vol. 3, No. 1. Pp. 40 -49.
Please note, there are ugly allegations that this article presents a very
distorted version of events due to the political rivalries of the two Colorado
Skeptics groups. )
Equally importantly, as the above
article shows, the skeptics in Colorado know what they are doing when it comes
to this claim. They do not embarrass themselves by speaking out on it.
-Eric Krieg, of PhACT, the
Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking, has targeted perpetual motion
machine scams (so-called "Free Energy" Claims) many of which are
aimed at farmers. Such claims, obviously, defy our knowledge of physics as
currently understood and deserve to be looked at. Socially, many farmers live
close to the edge of the profit margin. When a financially desperate farmer
sinks a substantial sum of money into a "free energy" machine, and if
the machine does not work as claimed, the problem is self evident. This is
clearly a valid cause for a skeptic to look into.
On the other hand, not everyone can
speak on this subject knowledgeably. Krieg is well suited for understanding
this claim as he is an Electrical Engineer who grew up in a rural area. In
other words, he understands both the machines and the problems they can cause.
(For more details on Krieg and this issue, HERE r HERE or HERE .
The last site is an article on the subject which appeared in the July/August
issue of the Skeptical Inquirer. )
A proper cause, I feel, should:
·
Be self evidently important and need no
justification in the eyes of the general public. 1
·
Be something where the available skeptics have
the skills to speak on the subject knowledgeably.
·
Be something where the available skeptics have a
chance of making a difference.
If a selected cause meets these
standards then the ultimate goal of skeptical activism can be achieved. This
ultimate goal should be Making a Difference while Getting the Message
Out!!
At times skeptics choose causes
where they do not meet these goals. In such cases, they wind up looking foolish
and their efforts may actually be counterproductive. To give a negative
example, recently CSICOP, a prominent skeptics group, decided to issue a press
release stating that the X-Files action adventure sci-fi movie undermined
people's belief in science and was harmful to society. Using the above
standards this press release :
·
Did not appear to be justified in the eyes of
the general public. Few lay people outside skepticism saw the X-Files movie as
harmful to science and science education. Many lay people found the notion
humorous or foolish and, in their eyes, the credibility of CSICOP immediately
declined.
·
Was not something that CSICOP seemed likely to
be knowledgeable about as the press release was clearly written prior to the
release of the movie. It is unlikely if any of the release writers had seen the
movie in question.
·
Finally, this press release did not accomplish
much anyway, because despite mediocre reviews, the film made enough money for
the producer to soon announce plans for a sequel. In fact, it is uncertain to
me what action CSICOP even hoped to achieve by writing the release.
In fact, even among skeptics' web
sites and post lists few people expressed agreement or support for the release,
and many voiced criticism. Many skeptics, in fact, are X-Files fans. I
conclude, for the reasons stated above, that the CSICOP release condemning the
X-Files movie is exactly the sort of action we as skeptics wish to avoid.
A cynic would ask not only why
CSICOP issued this release but why weren't they working on real problems
instead? A simple review of issues and current events reveal a wide spectrum of
events and problems where the special skills, knowledge and perspectives of
skeptics could be of great use.
Some better targets for skeptical
activism could have been:
·
Business Frauds. -These could include examples
such as Ponzi or Pyramid schemes where simple mathematics indicates the scheme
is ultimately doomed to failure.
·
Quack cancer cures -We live in an age where
so-called "alternative medicine" is becoming widely accepted. The
distinction between the alternative therapies and quackery is often lost and
many members of the public left vulnerable.
·
Child Protective/False Accusation issues
-Although very draining emotionally, the amount of pseudoscience and illogic in
these fields, is hard for people to imagine until they begin exploring the
state of the current child protective system and the mind set of the folks who
work in it.
Other will come to mind. To repeat
the key factors, in my opinion, before a skeptics group publicly devotes a
great deal of time and effort to a cause:
·
The cause should be important in the eyes of the
general public.
·
The skeptics involved should be knowledgeable on
the issue.
·
The cause should be something where skeptics
have a chance of making a difference.
There is probably nothing more
counter-productive to a good public image of skeptics than to see some self
appointed skeptic shoot his mouth off inaccurately on some subject he knows
little about and few people care about anyway. Might I suggest to my fellow
skeptics that we develop a new term for such people? -"Toilet
Devils".
5.
What About Paranormal Claims?
Or
"Who
ya gonna call?"
Skeptics have traditionally spent a great deal of time and energy focusing on
paranormal claims. In fact, an interest in paranormal claims was one of the
things that first led me to become interested in skepticism. For many reasons,
I believe that skeptics, should, in a limited and carefully thought out way,
continue with this tradition of studying paranormal and fringe claims. Since
only a few paranormal claims are immediately harmful, and my theme in this
paper is that skepticism is a method of intellectual self defense, I feel that
the primary use of investigating paranormal claims by skeptics is to promote
awareness and knowledge of the techniques of skepticism. A good paranormal
claim is wonderfully suited for this. Let me explain the reasons I think skeptics
should continue looking into many paranormal claims.
·
A good claim is a real attention grabber. The
public is very interested in paranormal claims. This interest can, and should,
be utilized to teach critical thinking skills.
·
A good claim is a good teaching tool. When used
as a teaching tool, a good paranormal claim can be a valuable aid in getting
skeptical ideas and critical thinking skills before many people who would not
otherwise show an interest.
·
A good claim is a dramatic example of skepticism
in action. There are reasons as to why the experts in a field do not generally
accept the reality of paranormal phenomena. When looked at carefully there
usually is a rational explanation waiting to be found.
Nevertheless we do need to keep
paranormal claims in perspective. It is not a realistic goal to assume that
through frequent skeptical analysis of paranormal claims, skepticism will cause
all people everywhere to become 100% rational. In fact, it is unlikely that any
single field of paranormal claims has yet met extinction through over-hunting
by skeptics who take aim at its individual cases. We can, at best, cull the
herd.
For instance, although we have had
public differences in the past, skeptic Joe Nickell has written a book (and
some shorter essays) giving very convincing arguments that the so-called shroud
of Turin is a hoax. After being exposed to these arguments it is difficult to
understand how anyone who has been exposed to these arguments can continue to
believe the shroud is an actual burial shroud for Christ transformed through
miraculous means. Yet it seems clear to anyone who has perused a Barnes and
Noble bookstore lately, these arguments, convincing as they are, have made no
dent in the publication of books arguing that the shroud is, in fact, real. It
seems quite clear that a convincing argument, in this case, made only a small
impact, at best, on the spread of a claim.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln,
"You can convince all the people some of the time. And you can convince
some of the people all of the time. But you cannot convince all the people all
the time." And skeptics need to learn this and accept it. If we cannot
possibly destroy all paranormal claims everywhere, then this should not be our
stated or assumed goal.
Sometime ago, the Inquiring
Skeptics of Upper New York, our local skeptics group, was visited by a
folklorist who studies skeptics groups in an academic manner. "Why aren't
you folks as dogmatic as the people in Buffalo?" she asked. We thought for
a while and then many people named a single name. Within our group there is an
individual who believes in most paranormal phenomena, including UFOs as
spaceships. He attends meetings of ISUNY on a regular basis and has done so
since the beginning of our organization. We weren't quite sure how to deal with
him. (One CSICOP fellow actually recommended that we drive him out, but we knew
this was not what we wanted to do.) Well, it's been several years, and despite
the brilliance of our arguments and the incredible size of our libraries, he
still remains unconvinced. In turn, I think we, the officers of ISUNY, slowly
realized that if we could not convince this one individual of our teachings, we
were not going to convince the world. We had to find a new purpose.
One cannot expect to accomplish
wonders through providing rational alternative explanations for common
paranormal claims. Life, and humanity, for better or worse, don't work that
way.
Nevertheless, for the reasons
stated above, their use as teaching tools, researching and investigating
paranormal claims should hold a place within skepticism.
6. Bad Paranormal Claims!
Or
"Er.....
What do we do now??"
In the previous section I made frequent references to "a good paranormal
claim." This was intentional. There are good paranormal claims and there
are bad paranormal claims. As a skeptic group, avoid the bad paranormal claims
at all costs. Don't get near them. You will only get hurt.
Let me offer a few examples of a
"bad paranormal claim."
·
The local UFO abductee.
In our area there lives a prominent
UFO abductee. He has received much attention, including articles in the (now
defunct) magazine OMNI, a profile on the (now cancelled) Sightings, and a
mention by name (critically of course) in Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted
World." He is, allegedly, the only possessor of a genuine alien monitoring
device and this artifact has been studied by an MIT physicist. Yet we have
refused on two occasions to allow him to speak to our local skeptics group.
Why? Some would argue that a more appropriate course, would be to allow him to
talk, but then argue merciless, seeking to poke huge gaping holes in his claims
for all the world to see. Yet, once again, we knew this was not what we wished
to do.
The man in question, the alleged
UFO abductee, has a history of mental health problems including being
institutionalized against his will. His past also includes reports of
homelessness, troubled marriages, and allegedly being under the influence of
alcohol at inappropriate times. The alleged implant happened to have been
lodged inside his penis, an embarrassing location few wish to discuss, for
several years. Studies concluded that it could easily be a cotton fiber which
entered the urethra somehow and developed a sheath of collagen. Previous talks
by the man to other groups have included some reportedly bizarre statements
including the claim that he could obtain irrefutable, earth shaking proof of
alien life if only one of his ex-wives would let him in her house to retrieve
his abandoned belongings. He is quite proud of the fact that a company which
sells UFO abduction insurance has declared his claim "genuine" and
promises to pay him one million dollars, just as the policy states, even if
they are paying at the rate of one dollar each year. He, apparently, takes great
comfort in his identity as a UFO abductee and although he claims that the
incident destroyed his life and is responsible for the problems listed above,
he gives talks about the experience whenever possible.
Yet we have refused his offer of a
talk on two occasions. In short, the officers of ISUNY felt the cause of
preserving logic and reason would not be advanced noticably by attacking this
individual or his belief system. And from a public relations standpoint the
case spelled a disaster. If we criticized his beliefs we would look like
bullies. If we did not, we would look like fools. And, finally, there was a
thought that perhaps we could even be criticized for choosing a man with
apparent problems of a deep seated sort to represent UFO believers.
·
The Lonely Woman
Sometime ago, I was contacted
individually by mail by a woman in another state. She wished information from
me, a moderately known skeptic, on coincidences and "psychic
parallelism." She stated she was trying to explain a paranormal claim
she'd had. Naturally I was intrigued and asked for details.
To make a long story short, due to
health problems, this woman in her 50s had not been in a romantic relationship
for virtually twenty years. She, apparently, lived alone. She had developed the
belief that she and another individual were "soul mates" and had
known one another in a past life. Everywhere she went she was reminded of this
man and she saw these reminders as significant incidents. She described them as
"psychic parallelisms and much more than mere coincidences." She'd
had dreams of him and believed these dreams may have reflected incidents that
had occurred together in a past life. There were other incidents as well.
The obvious explanation, clearly,
is obsession caused by loneliness due to her tragic circumstances. When I, as
tactfully as possible, suggested that it was coincidence and perhaps she would
be better off if she stopped referring or thinking of him as a
"soulmate", she replied that there were just too many things that
reminded her of this man so it could not be coincidence and he must be her
"soulmate." She concluded that science and reasons could not offer
her an explanation, and she would just have to look elsewhere. (For the record,
she had made no effort to meet the individual, refused to identify him, but
stated that he was quite distant geographically from her. I suspect that he may
have been some sort of celebrity.)
Clearly, there would be nothing to
be gained from pursuing this poignant claim further or attacking this woman's
belief system through exchanging letters.
·
The mental health patient
For sometime now I have been
receiving mail from a mental health patient who believes he can shape time and
space with "the awesome powers of his mind." He wishes these powers
tested. He cannot, however, specify what exactly he can do and refuses to
answer questions about this in a specific manner which would enable the alleged
powers to be scientifically tested. I have been told that this is a common
problem among mental health patients who take great comfort in a delusional
system involving great, but hidden, powers. Rather than see it threatened, they
often keep the delusions spawned "powers" vague and beyond the
comprehension of mere mortals such as myself.
Why did I give him attention in the
first place? I made the mistake of suggesting that he might stand a better
chance of getting his "powers" tested if he were to provide proof
with his letters of a clean bill of mental health. My intention with this
suggestion was to get an obviously ill man in treatment. Instead, I got a new
pen pal and he did, as requested, include a "clean" bill of mental
health from his psychiatrist and therapist stating that they he had been in
their care for several years and they felt it was acceptable for him "to
pursue his interest in the paranormal."
I have heard similar tales from
other skeptics groups, notably the Australian skeptics. Avoid mental health
patients as subjects of paranormal claims! You have little to gain except for
embarrassment!
All of these "bad claims"
involve people with obvious problems. It is relatively common for people with
problems to develop delusional thought patterns and seek out skeptics. If this
happens to you, take the mature route -hide or flee town!
When dealing with people with
problems and delusional beliefs there are several very real risks you can take.
·
You can overreach your knowledge. It is very
tempting to offer possible diagnoses of psychiatric problems or claims of
"fantasy proneness." Rarely, if ever, do skeptics have access to the
sorts of information or education to do this knowledgeably.
·
You can get sued. If you call a nut a nut or a
kook a kook or even a schizophrenic a schizophrenic then lawyers might come
after you, unless you can back the statement up!
·
You can easily look like a bully. Why call a
kook a kook if he's obviously acting like a kook?
Besides, generally speaking, its
not your problem if somebody else is acting kooky. Picking on people with
problems is rarely admired, even if skeptics do it to prove the man in question
is not really a being from Jupiter (or wherever!)
Many paranormal claims directly
involve individuals with very real problems. Don't pick on them. It's bad
Karma. Just smile and remember that a) life's tough for all of us sometimes and
b) in some cultures the mentally ill are cherished as blessings from the Gods.
Imagine yourself as a member of one of these cultures. Nevertheless, the
mentally ill and the emotionally troubled are not blessings for skeptics and
skeptics groups. Instead, they are a no win situation. Avoid no win situations.
Try to keep your distance from confused or ill people who believe they have
powers beyond your comprehension. You'll be glad you did. (They might, after
all, think you into a cornfield.) Smile. It's a good life.
And remember, since I argued in the
above section that you cannot and should not attempt to explain all paranormal
claims, it's okay to be selective. But if you are pressed and forced to offer
an explanation, on a person with problems and their wacky claims, remember this
line from Carl Sagan. Memorize it and repeat it when needed. "Clearly
something is going on. And it is fascinating. But the question we need to ask,
is it going on in outer space (or the outer world) or is it going on in inner
space (or the inner world)?" Then smile knowingly. Do not continue your explanation.
Just smile and nod your head as if showing a ponderous, all knowing wisdom. Do
not mention any specific mental illnesses. Do not pull out your Fantasy Prone
Personality Assessment Scale Decoder ring. Smile, nod, look wise and
compassionate. Go home and congratulate yourself on a job well done.
Be kind to these people. Even
Sagan, after all, heard voices of the dead. We all get weird sometimes.
7.
Skepticism as a technique of intellectual self defense -Some hidden advantages.
Or
"Ya
mean I don't really need to claim I'm saving the world?!"
In this paper, I have offered a simple perspective on skepticism. My primary
suggestion is that we stop trying to think of skepticism as a philosophy and
instead simply treat it as a technique with limited utility and scope.
Specifically, I suggested that we see skepticism as a technique of intellectual
self defense.
It is my hope that if we attempt to
do things this way then skepticism will become streamlined and simplified in
several ways. At the current time, skepticism, arguably, often appears to bite
off more than it can chew and in return it sometimes resembles a hodge-podge of
little bits and pieces of various philosophies, doctrines and sciences.
One of my key points is that we
de-emphasize paranormal claims as the be all and end all of skepticism. This
may be controversial. First of all, I feel this is already happening, so what
I'm suggesting is simply that we recognize it and address it. Secondly, there
often appears to be a great deal of insecurity among some prominent skeptics
about being involved in skepticism. At times, it seems that claims are made
that virtually state that the future of mankind is in danger and can only be
preserved if we conduct a systematic debunking of any and all haunted houses or
UFO sightings. One of my hopes is that if the recommendations in this paper are
followed, then some of this apparent insecurity and grandiose justification
will be reduced.
If we realize the limitations of
skepticism, seeing it as a technique and not a philosophy, then we will
hopefully be able to accommodate differing philosophical viewpoints more
easily. Skepticism, as an "ism", has been indebted to the works of
many philosophers. Unfortunately, at times it seems as if these philosophies are
brought into skeptical discussions whether or not they are really relevant. Why
can't skeptics be allowed to develop their personal philosophies in a diverse
and natural manner? Why is any philosophy needed if all we are practicing is a
technique of intellectual self defense? One of the underlying controversies
within the skeptic movement is just how philosophical is this movement intended
to be.
Another underlying controversy
within skepticism is the controversy over who are we aiming skepticism at?
There is ambivalence on this within skeptical publications. Some imply that
skepticism and critical thinking should be practiced by all people. Others seem
to see skepticism primarily as a means by which a carefully selected elite hand
down wisdom to the masses. I am clearly advocating a populist approach to
critical thinking. I feel that if we see skepticism as a technique of
intellectual self defense then we have an obligation to attempt to show the
value of these techniques to the public at large.
THE END
Remember! -"A
man with a good car don't need no justification" So sang the 80s rock
group Gang of Four. It rings forever true~
Comments
Post a Comment