Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page
Debunking PseudoSkeptical Arguments of Paranormal Debunkers
As we have
seen, these pseudoskeptics are
fundamentalist defenders of orthodoxy, not true skeptics, open minded
inquirers
or objective truth seekers.
They exhibit
the following consistent traits:
PseudoSkeptics /
Closed-Minded Skeptics
They are materialist
fanatics, driven by dogmatic
beliefs and views that are
fixed, which
they seek to proselytize to the world, such as:
- The paranormal is
impossible and ALWAYS disproven
- Everything unexplained or
unknown MUST have a natural materialistic explanation
- If someone makes a
paranormal claim, they MUST be wrong
- ONLY natural reductionist
explanations are acceptable
- If mainstream science
doesn’t understand or accept something, then it MUST be false
or
doesn’t exist.
Furthermore,
they’ve hijacked the term skeptic for
themselves and twisted it to mean the opposite of what it really means.
It’s a
deceptive form of cloak and dagger mind control on the mass public, a
disinformation campaign perhaps.
What we
know for sure is that their arguments are subjective
statements of belief designed to support a
priori assumptions,
rather
than to seek truth.
Their style of logic
is designed to refute purely on philosophical grounds rather than
factual
grounds, which have nothing to do with rationality or reason. In
fact, like fundamentalist religion, they
are rigid and closed-minded to anything new or contrary, no matter how
much evidence
there is to support it.
They are not
truth seekers nor do they care about evidence or facts.
All they do is ridicule and
deny.
Though
they may claim to be open minded,
their actions and behaviors reveal them to be anything but. And
as you know, when one’s words and
actions
contradict each other, the latter speaks louder.
The true
skeptic should be skeptical of his own
beliefs as well as of others.
But these
pseudoskeptics aren’t. Instead they are cynics who are unable
to
see the flaws
and limitations in their own views.
Consciousness and NDE expert
Greg Stone, author of Under
the
Tree, and a
member of my
discussion list, sums up the closed-minded skeptics' problem in an
interesting
way:
"You see
the subjective
evaluation of a skeptic holds less weight than the subjective direct
observation of the experiencer.
What is
needed, and sorely missing, is a real understanding of the nature and
factors
of subjective knowledge.
Without this
all such discussions will be foolhardy.
The skeptic continually fails
to understand and admit that he
works on a
subjective basis.
And he seems mystified
when someone accepts someone's direct observation over the
skeptic’s subjective
evaluation."
Richard
Milton of the Alternative
Science website who
has faced scorn and derision from skeptics himself, writes:
http://www.alternativescience.com/skepticism.htm
“There
is no more
honourable word in
the scientific lexicon than that of 'skeptic' -- one who sincerely
seeks after
truth and who has the courage to rebut scientific myths and false
beliefs with empirical
data and sound logic………
But in
recent decades,
'skeptic' has
come to mean something else. It has come to mean the adoption of an
attitude of
scorn and derision towards any kind of anomalous data that contradicts
current
scientific beliefs, and the adoption of an air of condescension and
superiority
towards those who venture to investigate or write about anomalous
phenomena…….
And the
'skeptics' who
censor and
ridicule in the name of science, whether they know it or not, are the
agents
not of knowledge but of pseudoscience.
Science
does not need
vigilantes to
guard its gates. Science has been successful because good science
drives out
bad and because an ounce of experiment is worth any amount of
scientific
authority.”
And former
Naval Scientist Eldon Byrd, who tested
spoon bender Uri Geller, rightly states:
"What
major contribution
has any
skeptic made to the betterment of humankind?
How many Mother
Teresa’s have they produced?
How many great scientific
discoveries have
they made?
Many of them are like movie
critics--useless and usually wrong."
He was
right of course.
As someone pointed out,
skeptics have
contributed nothing for science, just like music critics have
contributed
nothing to the music genre.
After all,
no one ever erects a monument to a critic.
Novelist
and blogger Michael Prescott described the
pseudoskeptics very eloquently in his essay “Why I Am Not A
Skeptic”
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Examskeptics/Prescott_skeptic.html
“Their
penchant for
denigrating and discrediting the paranormal is not simply a tic of the
personality, but the ineluctable consequence of a certain fundamental
view of
life, mind, and the cosmos.
Unfortunately, people with a powerful personal agenda do not make the
best
skeptics - at least not if skepticism is understood as the exercise of
unbiased
objectivity.
Self-doubt - or at least the admission of same - is not characteristic
of the
skeptic, who prefers to radiate an aura of unshakable assurance. To
admit any
doubt is to cede territory to the forces of unreason - the primordial
enemy,
which, as we have seen, must be resisted by any means.
And here we come to what is, as I see it, the real problem with
skeptics. They
wish, above all, to be certain - and when reality doesn't oblige them
by
offering clear-cut answers, they turn away from reality and seek refuge
in
pre-existing theory.
They oversimplify history as a battle between good and evil, and miss
its
complexities and subtleties. They resist modern developments in science
and
cling to outdated, nineteenth century conceptions. They jump to
prearranged
conclusions and shut their eyes - and their minds - to anomalous data
and
alternative explanations.
In their quest to prove themselves right, they lose sight of the
ambiguities
and paradoxes of life. In their desire to be safe and sure, they turn
away from
anything interesting and new.
They are creatures of comfort and routine, not explorers. They cannot
think
outside the box. They will, in fact, deny that there is or ever could
be
anything outside the box - and they'll heap scorn on anyone who
suggests
otherwise. They'll call names, cry fraud, and holler that civilization
is in
danger and the barbarians are at the gates. They'll do anything, really
-
except examine their own assumptions with a remotely critical eye.
And that's why I'm not a skeptic.”
One might
wonder why these closed-minded debunkers do
what they do, and what motivates them, for it certainly isn’t
truth.
Articles have been written
which
speculate
about this (see the list of links below), but we can’t really
generalize here
and apply one explanation to them all.
One explanation though, seems
to ring true as a factor.
Brian Zeiler writes in his
article The
Logical
Trickery of
the UFO Skeptic:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc265.htm
“Skeptics
are mostly
scientists, but
that certainly doesn't mean they behave scientifically, as has been
explained.
Their behavior stems partially from their distaste for public opinions
that
contradict the consensus of the scientific community. When a public
consensus
does contradict the scientific opinion, the scientists will mount a
public
campaign to discredit this opinion, because such an opinion undermines
the role
of the scientist in society as the appointed knowledge-seeker and
truth-gatherer. What good are scientists if mankind will only insist on
believing in warm, fuzzy superstitions anyway? So, these scientists who
are
guilty of the logical infractions exposed in this essay are so consumed
with
the presumed validity of their opinions that, like a zealous religious
fanatic,
they must convert the masses to the side of truth in order to salvage
their own
self-image.”
Here is
another explanation from the vantage point of
a mystic named FaithRada:
“Of
course the best way to know phenomena such as
Clairvoyance, mental telepathy and Astral travel etc., is to
have
the direct
validating experience for one's self.
Truly?
if I were a skeptic... and I was one,
that is the ONLY way to really Know. What good is belief OR
disbelief here? One SHOULD hold out for actual
Direct
Experience
before any judgment is passed. In fact...
repeated,
validated incidences are often necessary, to rid the mind
of its blocks... depending on the resistance one
holds for
the idea
of an expanded reality in the first
place.
Which
brings me to the main point why more
ardent skeptics/cynics always insist these events MUST BE
frauds
and/or ignorant misunderstandings. FEAR Fear in
the sense that if these events are recognized
as valid then
their
whole world .. based on certain laws of logic and the way this world
SEEMS to
work ..would be destroyed. So, better not to look too
deeply. they
LIKE their world the way THEY have come to understand it...
neat,
orderly, dependable... But the question begs... Who's
sense
of law and order, orderliness and
dependability? To the
finite mind there is always chaos lurking around the bend. To
the
infinite mind there is no chaos at all.... but that is a huge leap for
the
individual mind to take. The contracted
mind creates a
chasm
and then fears it will fall into it. Amazing yes?
Everything
these "hard core" skeptics/cynics have
based their reality on, as to what IS real,
indeed.. who
THEY
even ARE... would suddenly be invalidated and the reality they
base their
very existence on would suddenly have no
meaning. This is to
be avoided
at all cost... and so they make sure ALL claims are fraudulent or
misunderstood by duped minds. This is their protection mode and they
are
unlikely to be shaken from it. Instead they need an
"inner" shift.. which will allow them to recognize a higher order of
things. No shift? No undertanding.
After
a while, for those who CAN allow a shift, a new
stability does come if they can survive the mental fall.. but in the
moment.. the universe would appear to be beyond
chaotic. They are like babies in the womb.. not yet quite
ready
for a whole NEW
reality.
& & &
When
one
begins to "recognize" that their visions are
indeed of valid "future" events, and
so TimeandSpace are NOT exactly the
"set in stone" reality they thought them to be... it
can initially throw
one into a great turmoil... especially if
they had
assumed such events were... unlikely to
be possible...
before this. *note
(if a
mind believes something
to be indeed impossible..
then they will not receive the validating experiences which
are crucial to this knowing since their mind is now actively censoring
it from
them, at their request.)
The
more one believes these realities to be
improbable, the more turmoil and trauma they will
experience...
until the mind simply blocks it all out. This is why no
matter how
much evidence is trotted out... it is like a blind man looking at the
moon...
they will experience nothing... they are simply not
able to
because
of their current mind set of disbelief.”
Yet here
is still a more simpler speculation on what
motivates these pseudoskeptics, from one of my readers:
“I
sometimes wonder if the debunker or pseudoskeptic
mentality results from what might be termed the "Santa Claus
Syndrome." That is, these debunkers were so traumatized in
their
youth by finding out there was no Santa Claus that they made up their
minds
then that they would never again be duped by anyone. They
figured
that if
they were duped by their parents on Santa Claus they must have also
been duped
on God. They became polarized in their
thinking, i.e.,
"From now on, I have to see it to believe it," and got stuck in that
paradigm. Thus, the tendency for debunkers to throw
out the
Santa
Claus analogy is a result of their own childhood trauma at learning
there is no
Santa Claus. Perhaps there was some unusual trust
issue with
their
parents that prompted the syndrome. It would be interesting
if
someone
could research this, but it would be an impossible project because they
wouldn't admit to certain shortcomings. They would understand
where the
study was going and attempt to skew it toward the intelligent and
rational
explanation.”
Nevertheless,
perhaps there is yet hope for pseudoskeptics
and debunkers.
Recently, a famous career
skeptic named Susan Blackmore, author of Dying
to Live: Near-Death Experiences
conceded that her prior
conclusions
about the non-existence of psi were unwarranted after all.
This is amazing because
career skeptics in
general never like to admit to being wrong.
After all, they have their
career and self-pride among their
colleagues
riding on their back to give it all up just to end up being wrong. Therefore,
her admission is very brave and
admirable.
And the way she explains her
concession is so refreshingly honest, that all skeptics, both
open-minded and
closed-minded, should learn from it and take heed.
In an article for the
Skeptical Inquirer, she writes:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/skeptic_research.htm
“How
could I weigh my
own results
against the results of other people, bearing in mind that mine tended
to be
negative ones while everyone else’s tended to be positive
ones? I
had to find
some kind of balance here. At one extreme I could not just believe my
own
results and ignore everyone else’s…. At the other
extreme
I could not believe
everyone else’s results and ignore my own. That would be even
more pointless.
There would have been no point in all those years of experiments if I
didn’t
take my own results seriously.” (emphasis added)
In another
article she wrote:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/skeptic_research.htm
“The
other major
challenge to the
skeptic’s position is, of course, the fact that opposing
positive
evidence
exists in the parapsychological literature. I couldn’t
dismiss it
all. This
raises an interesting question: Just how much weight can you or should
you give
the results of your own experiments over those of other people? On the
one
hand, your own should carry more weight, since you know exactly how
they were
done… On the other hand, science is necessarily a collective
enterprise…. So
I couldn’t use my own failures as justifiable evidence that
psi
does not exist.
I had to consider everyone else’s success.”
“At
last, I’ve
done it. I’ve thrown in
the towel.
Come to
think of it, I feel
slightly
sad. It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic
out-of-body
experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic
phenomena… Just a few
years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic
phenomena… I
became a sceptic.(emphasis added).
So why
didn’t I give
up then? There
are lots of bad reasons. Admitting you are wrong is always hard, even
though
it’s a skill every scientist needs to learn. And starting
again
as a baby in a
new field is a daunting prospect. So is losing all the status and power
of
being an expert. I have to confess I enjoyed my hard-won knowledge.
…None
of it ever
gets anywhere. That’s
a good enough reason for leaving.
But
perhaps the real reason
is that I
am just too tired - and tired above all of working to maintain an open
mind. I
couldn’t dismiss all those extraordinary claims out of hand.
After all, they
just might be true…”
Closed-minded
skeptics should pay close attention to
the underlined parts above.
They reflect
how a true skeptic should think.
Now let me
clarify again that I am not some gullible
believer who believes in every wacky item under the umbrella term
“the
paranormal” out there, such as crystals, channeling, Loch
Ness
Monster, Bermuda
Triangle, etc.
Most of these paranormal
mysteries lack good incontrovertible evidence, and their evidence is
scanty and
ambiguous to make any judgments. And
some of course, have too much damaging evidence against them that they
are
hardly worth investigating anymore.
Others are simply too
controversial to know either way.
Therefore,
it was never my intention to be a defender
for all paranormal phenomena in general, only in the proposition that
they
should be considered.
In fact, I am very
skeptical myself, and not quick to believe something unless I have good
reasons
to.
I am very cautious by nature
and do
not believe everything I hear, contrary to what skeptics often charge
me
with.
My position is that the
evidence
for any paranormal phenomenon should be CONSIDERED and INVESTIGATED
(with an
attitude of searching for the truth, not with an agenda) rather than
rejected
automatically because it doesn’t fit in with convention. Now,
I do not claim to have the answers to
all the paranormal mysteries either. No
one does.
However, based on my
experience,
research, and the overwhelming totality of anecdotal reports (majority
of the world in fact), here are
my conclusions.
1) The
evidence presented in this book refutes the main skeptical arguments
demonstrates
that at
least some kind of metaphysical reality exists.
The nature and scope of that
is yet to be discovered, as well as
the
implications. We have only begun to
discover its existence through quantum physics, scientific experiments,
new
research into mind/body connections, etc.
2) The
overwhelming
anecdotal evidence from at least half the world, discoveries in quantum
physics, credible scientific experiments, and new research into
mind/body
connections indicate that at least certain phenomenon are real in the
sense
that they have actual unimagined effects – telepathy, ESP,
psychic abilities in
general, and ghosts.
The widespread
anecdotal evidence for these phenomena alone indicates that
statistically they
are very likely to point to something real.
In other words, there is
something to them beside hallucination,
fraud,
or misperception.
Similarly,
as one man on a paranormal list concluded,
one does not have to have mystical experiences to conclude that
something real
is going on here:
“One
additional thought about waiting for a mystical
experience to awaken oneself. As I said, it's not
all that
easy for some of us. There are many who might wait
and wait
and never
have one. I have had a few marginal mystical experiences, but
nothing
that would have changed my thinking had I been a closed-minded
skeptic,
debunker, pseudoskeptic, scientific fundamentalist, whatever name we
choose to
give to such a person. I have never had a near-death
experience,
but I consider myself a "vicarious experiencer," as I have
read
enough accounts of NDEs to conclude that they are not all
hallucinations.
As a number of psychical researchers have said, no one case is strong
enough to
convince them; rather, it is the
cumulative evidence. That's
why I
put together the 30 or so quotations of distinguished scientists and
scholars
in the appendix at the end of my book. A person can
read the
reports of these various men over time, but one tends to forget many of
them,
although she may very well bury them in the
subconscious. I
believe
seeing them all in one reading might impact some true
skeptics.
It's one thing to say a particular researcher might have been
duped by a
particular medium at a particular time, quite another to read
the
accounts
of 30 or more and conclude that they were all duped over and over
again. Many of the researchers I've quoted spent years
investigating
mediums and sat with dozens of them.
Bottom
line: It would be great if we could all have
mystical experiences, Kundalini awakenings,
whatever, but the
best
most of us can do is become "vicarious experiencers."“
Now, if we
are right, then there is the question of
what to do with these discoveries and how to apply it to our lives. Well
that is the next step, and it is what
truth seekers and open-minded researchers think and ponder about.
One
independent film has come out lately though, which
attempts to address that - What the
bleep do we know? The
film
addresses the latest discoveries in quantum physics and the power of
our
thoughts.
Playing in several states,
people have been seeing it multiple times and it has been receiving
standing
ovations at its showings.
One of its
most important messages is that contrary to what most people think,
thoughts are not
harmless.
They do not just pass through
your head and then are gone.
Rather,
they help slowly program your subconscious mind and instincts, creating
instincts that make you do things without knowing why, often resulting
in
control dramas of all kinds which are like loop programs that repeat
itself. Check
its website for more info (http://www.whatthebleep.com)
or enter the film title on YouTube to watch it.
For most
paranormal phenomena, the jury is still out,
and the evidence is controversial and unclear.
However, the evidence for
telepathy and ghosts, for instance, is
very
strong when you combine the scientific evidence and overwhelming
widespread
anecdotal evidence throughout history.
Therefore, they are very
likely to be real and in all likelihood
there
is something to it other than fraud, delusion, mistake or misperception.
According
to Lew Paz, author of Pushing
Ultimates, there is a safe
middle
ground between science and mysticism that should benefit both sides in
their
search for truth:
“All
scientists have
a responsibility
to broaden their comprehension of the human situation. An astute
skepticism is
necessary in the pursuit of truth, but it must be flexible and open to
varied
possibilities, unhampered by a narrow materialistic orientation.
Despite the excessive
naivety rife within the New Age movement, the intelligent scientist
can’t toss
the entire 5,000 year history of mysticism aside, for a century of
valid
empirical research clearly reveals deeper dimensions of human existence
do
exist.
Science
can never provide
us with a
total grasp of existence, and any "theory of everything" based on
empirical evidence alone would not be all encompassing. The intuitive
insights
of poets, the visions of mystics and saints, the explorations of
shamans, plus
the psychological and psychedelic research of different fields of
science,
certainly count in any attempt at total description. But, though
science cannot
provide us with an understanding of the whole, it can assist us in
cultivating
a greater radius of comprehension. Though not the royal road to wisdom
many
have thought it to be, science is a fine tool and an important avenue
toward
self-knowledge and overall knowledge of our existential-cosmic
situation,
Unfortunately, far too many use science to build a bulwark against the
insights
brought forth by explorations of the mind’s archetypal depths
and
transcendent
dimensions. Scientists and skeptics of materialistic persuasion tend
toward a
bias similar to religious fundamentalists zealously defending their
belief system.”
After all,
all it takes to prove the existence of
something is one real case, as William James points out,
“If
you wish to upset
the law that all crows are
black, you mustn't seek to prove that no crows are; it is enough to
prove one
single crow to be white.”
--William
James
Regardless
of your belief about the paranormal, the
important thing is to keep an open mind and not rush to judgments based
on our
personal world views.
"Doubt
everything or
believe
everything: these are two equally convenient strategies. With either we
dispense with the need for reflection." - Henri Poincare
Against
critics and skeptics, we must follow our
conscience, heart, and intuition. After
all, as Martin Caidin reminds us:
"What you
believe someone
else
can or can’t do hasn't got beans with the doing. Or lack of
doing. Just go back
through your history books and you’ll discover that just
about
everything you
take for granted today in your daily lives was absolutely impossible
not so
many years ago." - Martin Caidin
The
pseudoskeptics and scoffers should heed the words
of the progressive researcher Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, a current pioneer
in psi
research with groundbreaking discoveries, who says in the introduction
of his
book The Sense of Being Stared At:
"I believe
it is more
scientific
to explore phenomena we do not understand than to pretend they do not
exist. I
also believe it is less frightening to recognize that the seventh sense
is part
of our biological nature, shared with many other animal species, than
to treat
it as weird or supernatural."
The
problem is that these phenomena, even if real,
don't fit into conventional paradigms of reality. Therefore, what we
need to do
is update our beliefs and world views to include these facts and find
new
paradigms that account for them. In the meantime, we should keep in
mind that
the beauty of mysteries and paranormal phenomena lies not in finding
the
answers to every question, but in the awe and appreciation we have for
them.
Therein lies the great lesson that there is always "more to learn"
and "something better out there".
As to
expanding ourselves beyond our own paradigms,
Mr. Paz states beautifully:
"The
intelligent, open, and
questioning mind does not have to remain limited to a barren
materialistic
orientation of reality, or succumb to the delusions of religion or
overly
simplified mysticism. Millions among us can become the companions of
the great
sages, true poets, profound musicians, gifted artists, philosophers,
and
scientists of real merit. We can travel with those who know that the
brain's
magnificent electro-chemical surge of embodied consciousness, in its
dynamic
ferment, transcends its own activity, igniting frequencies that
resonate with
dimensions far beyond what we are ordinarily aware of. To know yourself
is to
know of these things, for such exploration expands our consciousness,
enriches
our minds, and makes us capable of moving ever nearer to the essential
truth of
our astonishing existence."
There is a
new paradigm now in science and quantum
physics called the Holographic Paradigm which explains and allows for
paranormal phenomena to exist.
You can
read about it in one of my favorite books, The
Holographic Universe by
Michael Talbot, or right now in
this
thought-provoking summary by David S. Walonick, Ph.D. here:
https://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Holographic_Reality.htm
Let me
close on this with some eloquent profound
quotes for you to ponder.
"Let the
mind be
enlarged... to
the grandeur of the mysteries, and not the mysteries contracted to the
narrowness of the mind" - Francis Bacon
"Truth is
stranger than
fiction,
but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth
isn't." - Mark Twain
"The most
beautiful thing
we can
experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and
science." - Albert Einstein
“It
is
entirely possible
that behind the perception of our senses, worlds are hidden of which we
are
unaware.” – Albert Einstein
“The
real voyage of
discovery consists not in seeking new lands but seeing with new
eyes.” - Marcel
Proust, French novelist
“We
all
go on the same
search,
looking
to
solve the same
old mystery.
We will not, of course, ever solve it.
We will finally inhabit the Mystery.”
-
Ray
Bradbury, SF writer.
And
finally, Einstein says it all with:
"Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it."
- Albert
Einstein
Thank you
for reading my book. Comments can be
sent to me at scepcop@debunkingskeptics.com
or posted in my forum at: https://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/index.php
Sincerely,
Winston Wu
Help support this site! Get a PDF version of this Treatise for only $7. Use the PayPal button here to donate. Or get the Amazon Kindle version.
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page