Skepticism as a Technique of Intellectual Self Defense

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~