        |
Previous
Page
Back
to Table of Contents
Next
Page
Debunking
PseudoSkeptical Arguments of Paranormal
Debunkers
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
- Arthur
Schopenhauer, German philosopher
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
- Søren
Kierkegaard, Danish philospher
“Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.”
- Arthur Schopenhauer,
German
philosopher
Introduction
Dear
Reader,
Greetings. My name
is Winston Wu. I am a researcher and
explorer of the paranormal, psychic phenomena, metaphysics, quantum
physics,
consciousness research, realms of higher consciousness, and
religion/philosophy. This book
rebuts and critiques the most common arguments made by pseudoskeptics
(those
who claim to be skeptics but in fact are cynics, debunkers, scoffers)
regarding
paranormal and psychic phenomena, showing the flaws and fallacies in
their
thinking, philosophy and methodology.
I’ve listed their common arguments one-by-one and pointed
out the fallacies,
flaws and problems in them based on years of experience in debating
with
them.
The
Paranormal is one of the most exciting frontiers today.
Research into Consciousness, Quantum Physics
and Psychic Phenomena, etc. explores venues that are unlocking the
mysteries of
the universe and gateways to other dimensions or levels of reality and
consciousness. These provide deeper
insights into a larger nature of reality, revealing insights into the
meaning
of existence and spawning hope for a better future in which humanity's
consciousness and awareness are elevated to new heights, transcending
greed,
lust for power, hatred, violence, ignorance, and the confines of a
materialistic paradigm that keeps us living in fear.
Therefore, the study of the Paranormal is a
key stepping stone for humanity's next stage of evolution.
However,
standing in the way are groups of organized fundamentalists who call
themselves
"skeptics" but in reality are dogmatic defenders of establishment and
materialistic reductionistic science who reject and deny anything which
challenges that. They are
pseudoskeptics cause their actions and behaviors are the antithesis to
what
the word skepticism really means. (More on that later)
The
pseudoskepticism movement includes organizations such as CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), now known as CSI (Committee
for
Skeptical Inquiry), JREF (James
Randi
Educational Foundation) and professional Skeptics such as Michael Shermer
of Skeptic Magazine,
as well as many
smaller
groups and websites. In media reports
and programs on paranormal phenomena, these skeptics are often
presented as the
final authorities on the matter and go virtually unchallenged. And unfortunately, most paranormal/psychic
researchers have neither the time nor interest to debate these
debunkers.
And
that’s where we come in. This
book’s
objective is to expose and debunk the fallacies, flaws and
misinformation of
the pseudoskepticism movement.
Now
it's our turn to form a counter movement and coalition.
Enter SCEPCOP
– The Scientific Committee
to Evaluate PseudoSkeptical Criticism of the Paranormal. As CSICOP was formed to "police the
claims of psi", SCEPCOP now in turn acts to "police the cynicism of
pseudoskeptics". We will debunk
their arguments, and reveal their fallacies, misinformation,
censorship,
denial, inconsistencies, pseudo-dogmas posing as "rules of logic" and
double standards, showing that they are not objective truth seekers,
but biased
debunkers.
Just
to state for the record though, opposing pseudoskepticism does NOT mean
that
SCEPCOP endorses every crackpot claim, theory and fantasy out there.
Not at
all. We believe in applying equal
skepticism to both sides, as well as the objective weighing of
evidence, for as
you might expect, some claims and phenomenon have a lot of solid
evidence to
back it up, while others have little or none.
First
though, let me tell you how I came to write this book.
How
this book came to be written
Possessing
a vivid imagination and the ability to think outside the box,
I’ve always been
unimpressed with mundane ordinary life and materialistic values. Thus I’ve always aspired to reach
higher, for
deeper meaning and understanding, and the bigger picture.
Thus I’ve always had an interest in esoteric
things, and been drawn to spirituality, religion, and the search for
meaning. I started out during childhood
as an Evangelical Christian fundamentalist, which gave me the structure
and
solid sense of purpose that I needed at the time. When
I turned 19, I felt that the absolutist
doctrines of my faith were too limiting and narrow minded for me, and
not
allowing me to learn anything new without fear.
This began a slow de-conversion process which led me to become
Agnostic
for a while. You
can read my story about my deconversion entitled My
Rise to Christianity and Transcendence From It.
(I also have another book in similar
form to this one debunking and refuting main Christian arguments
entitled Debunking
Christian Circular Arguments and Assumptions)
Since
then, I have always been a critical opponent of brainwashing tactics,
after
having been brainwashed myself a number of times, but learning from it
each
time. As a result, I’ve written various debunking articles. See a list of
them here.
After
my Christian deconversion, I found that the Atheist paradigm
didn’t have the
answers to life’s mysteries or even to unexplained phenomena
either. I knew that its paradigm was
insufficient as
well. Neither Atheism nor Evangelical
Christianity seemed adequate, but oddly enough many people seem to
think that
those are the only two belief systems to choose from.
Realizing that there were way too many things
that couldn’t be explained by conventional or scientific
explanations, I
started looking for answers in non-organized forms of spirituality. After further research and questioning, I
discovered many fascinating things and new paradigms that fit the
unexplained
data, which gave me a more comprehensive view of reality and
spirituality. I discovered that there was
indeed powerful
evidence (some of which is irrefutable) that some paranormal phenomena
are
genuine and do have a basis, both
scientifically and in terms of anecdotal evidence.
To
try to gain an understanding of the other side of the issue, (which is
what you
should do when you want to learn something in depth) I went to skeptics
to ask
what they had to say and also read some of their literature. I found that what they had to say made sense
on the surface, but was very different than what I heard from the
literature
about paranormal phenomena, accounts of paranormal experiences from
ordinary
people (some of which I know and trust), and my own experiences. In order to try to make sense of such
different but arguable views, I tried to sift through the details and
the
evidence. What I found was that although
both skeptics and believers can be closed-minded and tend to
rationalize away
what they don’t want to believe, in either case the objective
evidence for some
of the paranormal was incredibly strong and undeniable.
As
I became more educated and informed of the evidence for different types
of
paranormal phenomena, I presented this to skeptics both on message
boards and
internet newsgroups. What resulted was
an endless charade of arguments on both sides, with each side bringing
up facts
that support their side while denying the facts of the other side. This is typical of debates in general, no
doubt, but since there were so many types of paranormal phenomena, the
topic
range was broad and diverse enough to make continuous and interesting
discussions. Consequently, the
discussions dragged on much longer than expected. Not
only were there so many topics to
discuss, but I kept finding more and more quality evidence to support
my view
each time I looked. All this became a
fascinating exercise in the quest for truth.
During
the discussions and debates, I was led to skeptical material such as
Professor
Bob Carroll's The Skeptic's
Dictionary, editions of Skeptical Inquirer (published by CSICOP), articles by the infamous
paranormal debunker James Randi,
and others. Over time, I developed a
strong recognition
and grasp of their system of philosophical arguments and sensed the
patterns in
them. After hearing almost all the
arguments they used, I learned how to respond to them to the point of
it being
second nature to me. I knew their
strengths and weaknesses, just as an experienced chess player
understood the
strengths and weaknesses of the positions of his opponent’s
pieces. For almost three years, I debated
skeptics
ranging from honest doubters looking for truth (like me), to those who
were
clearly cynics masquerading as skeptics having already made up their
minds
before looking at the evidence.
These
skeptics included cynics, debunkers, Atheists, Humanists, certain
scientists
bent on materialistic reductionist world views, those for whom science
is their
God (even though they won't admit it), scientific materialists, haters
of
religion, etc. Now we call them
“pseudoskeptics” because although they pose as skeptics,
their skepticism is
“pseudo” meaning “False
or counterfeit;
fake.” (American Heritage Dictionary)
Hence the title of this book.
Eventually, I realized that their
skepticism was not about an open inquiry for
truth, but rather a philosophy they
used to manipulate data to fit their beliefs and reject anything
outside of it
on purely subjective grounds. This
philosophy was pseudo-intellectual in nature and used to discredit and
invalidate both claimants and evidence.
Oddly, these skeptics seem to think that
they can use semantics and rules from this philosophy to erase evidence
from
reality! They think that they can
invalidate real-life objective events and evidence of a paranormal
nature by
putting labels on them or quoting some theorem or axiom such as “anecdotal evidence is invalid”, “appeal to
authority”, “ad populum fallacy argument” etc. In effect, they attempt to use semantics to
erase objective reality. Unfortunately
for them, reality doesn’t work that way.
It
was obvious that these skeptics were not seeking the truth nor were
they open
to it. Instead, they were about
systematically trying to debunk everything that didn’t fit in
with their a priori staunch materialistic
views. Therefore, they did not ask
questions of an exploratory nature, but rather, they taunted and
attacked
believers and made claims and judgments about their paranormal
experiences. They had already made up
their minds beforehand, and would only accept evidence that fit their
conclusions. A true skeptic and
truth-seeker analyzes both sides and updates his views and opinions to
conform
with the facts, while a pseudoskeptic on the other hand manipulates the
facts
to fit into their beliefs, using selective attention as well.
Then
I suddenly realized at the time that no books or in-depth analyses have
been
written to directly counter the arguments and philosophy of organized
skeptics
and debunkers. There were a few articles
written about closed-minded skeptics in general, but no in-depth point
by point
critique or debunking of their arguments.
For almost every other organized belief system, there are books
written
analyzing its precepts and doctrines, but not for organized skepticism. Therefore, I decided to be the first to write
such a thing, making use of the knowledge I gained over the years and
my
debating skills. I felt that being the
first in something was an accomplishment that I would be inspired to do. And that’s how this book came to be
written back in 2001.
When
it was first released, it became widely acclaimed in the paranormal
community
as groundbreaking, effective and the first of its kind.
It led
to my appearance on several radio shows such as Forbidden Truth
by my friend Michael Goodspeed, The Clyde Lewis Show
(KOTK 1080
AM) in Portland, Oregon, and Ghostly Talk Radio (you can
listen
to that interview in the archive section of their website at www.ghostlytalk.com
or on YouTube
here).
Later, due to widespread recognition, I was invited to an international
conference as a guest speaker at the Mysteries of the World theme
park in
Of
course, not surprisingly the skeptics later issued a piece to debunk
this
book. A skeptic named Paul Sandoval
published his counter-piece to it, which you can download
here. As you can see from
it, he simply does more
of the same, twisting words into “logical fallacies”, which
anyone can do to
anyone they disagree with, putting labels on things, and twisting
semantics to
his advantage, none of which disproves any of the facts, examples and
evidence
I cited, nor erases evidence for paranormal phenomena from existence. People who do this are “in their own
world”,
so to speak. (To see a great example of
word games from pseudoskeptics that have nothing to do with reality,
see this
online
exchange I had with one
in which he was proven to have lied several times
beyond any shadow of doubt.)
Years
later in 2009, I formed a coalition and website called SCEPCOP – Scientific
Committee
to Evaluate Pseudoskeptical Criticism of the Paranormal, which was
the world’s
first organized counter-skeptic group created to counter CSICOP, JREF,
etc. Although at this time SCEPCOP is in
its infancy, its popularity has soared among the Paranormal community
and
received attention from the Skeptic camp as well. (See
a list of paranormal websites and blogs announcing SCEPCOP here)
And in
August of 2009, the popular paranormal magazine Atlantis Rising
did an
article on
SCEPCOP in issue 77, which you can download
here in
PDF format. (see pages 24, 26 and 61)
With
the exception of sensational pro-paranormal programs, skeptics are
often given
the chance to present their arguments and explanations in the media,
national
magazines, and television programs, without rebuttal from the other
side, even
when their explanations are insufficient to explain all the data. As a result, there is often an imbalance in
the presentation of paranormal and psychic phenomena in the media,
leaving most
viewers and believers uninformed. This
book attempts to counteract the imbalance.
It is written both for the education and knowledge of the
believer who
deals with skeptics, and for skeptics who are willing to hear
counter-arguments
to their positions.
Now
let me clarify that I have nothing against honest true skepticism. It is good to have a healthy dose of
skepticism to protect one from scams, con artists, misleading
advertising,
misleading claims, propaganda, brainwashing, jumping to conclusions,
etc. But when closed-minded cynicism comes
masquerading as skepticism, it becomes a block to truth finding and
open-minded
investigation. However, those new to
this subject may not be able to discern the difference between open
honest
skepticism and closed-minded pseudoskepticism.
Therefore, let us differentiate between the two.
PseudoSkeptics
vs. True Skeptics: Behaviors and Tactics
According
to Webster's Revised Unabridged
Dictionary, a skeptic is:
"One
who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or
inquiring for
what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."
Pyrrho, the founder of
"Skepticism", intended for it to be about open inquiry and suspension
of judgment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic
“In
classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits
of the
'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they
'asserted
nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense,
philosophical
skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one
should
suspend judgment in investigations.[1]”
But rather than inquiring, or asking questions to try to understand something, they seek to debunk, discredit and ridicule anything that doesn't fit into their belief system. And rather than suspending judgment, they make accusations of fraud and delusion of all paranormal claimants. They are PROSECUTORS, not investigators. Hence, we call them pseudoskeptics (a term coined by the late Marcello Truzzi) for their actions and behaviors are the complete antithesis of what skepticism truly means.
According
to WikiSynergy:
Pseudoskepticism (or pseudoskepticism) is defined
as thinking
that claims to be Skeptical but is actually faith-based disbelief.
Because
real skepticism is a justifiable position, pseudoskepticism may also be
defined
as making pseudoscientific arguments in pursuit of a skeptical
agenda.
Pseudoskepticism is a
general term which encompasses two types of faith-based disbelief:
making positive
claims that something is wrong or unreal without evidence (positive
disbelief),
and rejecting sufficient evidence.
A
"true skeptic" objectively inquires and seeks evidence, challenging
all sides including their own beliefs (see here). But these pseudoskeptics do anything
but. As someone observed to me:
"The
original definition of skeptic was a person who questions ALL beliefs,
facts,
and points-of-view. A healthy perspective in my opinion. Today's common
definition of skeptic is someone who questions any belief that strays
outside
of the status quo, yet leaving the status quo itself completely
unquestioned.
Kind of a juvenile and intellectually lazy practice in my opinion."
Even
Wikipedia indirectly admits that modern skepticism is really about
rejecting
new information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic
“The
word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in
scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set and an
approach
to accepting or rejecting new information.”
And
this insightful YouTuber eloquently hit the bull's eye with this
comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vks49Bfn544
"What
skeptics fail to understand is that skepticism involves being skeptical
of your
own position, it does not mean just being skeptical of that which you
do not
believe in, otherwise we are all skeptics and that renders their use of
the
term "skeptic" meaningless. A true skeptic casts skepticism on their
own position as well. Since the Randi crowd do not employ skepticism in
this
respect then they are fairly termed pseudo skeptics and demean the term
skepticism."
So,
pseudoskeptics have hijacked the term "skeptic" to refer to the one
who suppresses, rather than the one
who "doubts or questions" which it is supposed to refer to. As such,
a "skeptic" now refers to the ridiculer, debunker and discreditor of
the "questioner" (who is the true skeptic) rather than to the
questioner himself. In other words, the
new "skeptic" is someone who debunks a "skeptic" by wearing
the hat of the person they are out to debunk, in effect impersonating
them!
It's a highly deceptive form of role reversal that is very sneaky and
devious,
no doubt.
And
furthermore, it seems way too calculated and militant to be due to some
accidental misunderstanding, ignorance or closed mindedness. Hijacking
a word
to mean its opposite seems more like part of some sort of agenda,
perhaps a deliberate disinformation campaign or
cultural mind control. If that sounds terrible, well, we are here
to expose
that thank goodness.
In
truth and by their actions, these pseudoskeptics are defenders of
the status
quo and materialism. They are fanatics
and dogmatists who have no regard for facts, evidence or truth, but
have an a
priori faith-based belief that paranormal phenomena is impossible and
therefore
set out to debunk it, not investigate it.
And they will distort, dismiss and obfuscate to get their way. Thus, they generally have no objectivity
toward evidence, but bigotry and emotional fanaticism.
If
you’re wondering if this is true, then ask yourself this: Why do those who attack, ridicule and deny
all paranormal claims also usually deny all conspiracies and
facts in
support of them, while dogmatically accepting all propaganda by the
media and
establishment? Have you ever seen a
paranormal debunker like James Randi, Michael Shermer or CSICOP’s
Skeptical
Inquirer challenge anything official held by the status quo at all,
period? If not, what does that tell
you? Think about it.
And
that’s what a “skeptic” is today in the media and pop
culture. Obviously this means that their
skepticism is
highly selective and subjective, not distributed equally in all
directions, hence an extreme bias exists in them rather than
any form of
objectivity. Skepticism should be a tool
and method of inquiry to help one learn things and find truth, not be
used as a
cover to defend one's own rigid narrow views.
Questioning things and seeking answers helps one learn things,
but
trying to debunk everything outside your world view doesn’t.
Dean
Radin, who spent many years studying parapsychology and skeptical
views,
concluded the same in his acclaimed book Entangled
Minds: (pages 10-11)
"Some
skeptics pushed doubt to extremes and insisted that positive evidence
was
always due to mistakes or intentional fraud. As I saw it, within this
dialectic
one side was struggling to understand the depths of inner space by
probing
Nature with clever questions. The other was trying to maintain the
status quo
through passionate, and sometimes vicious, denial. The former were
willing to
take risks to advance knowledge, the latter were naysayers interested
mainly in
defending dogma."
Chris
Carter, author of Parapsychology
and the Skeptics, accurately described the pseudoskeptics' true
motivations
in this interview:
http://www.skeptiko.com/blog/?p=8
"You
have to remember that the argument is not really about the evidence.
The
argument is about their assumptions and their preconceptions. Their
preconceptions are, with these sort of phenomena, that they don’t
make any
sense and challenge their world view. So, they’re going to do
anything they
possibly can to dismiss evidence that challenges their preconceptions."
The
late great author Robert Anton Wilson observed the same regarding
pseudoskeptics,
calling them “fundamentalist materialists” and
“irrational rationalists” in
this interview:
http://www.nii.net/~obie/1988_interview.htm
“DAB: One of your recent books is The
New
Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science.
Maybe you
could tell us a little bit about this book.
RAW: I coined the term irrational
rationalism
because those people claim to be rationalists, but they're governed by
such a
heavy body of taboos. They're so fearful, and so hostile, and so
narrow, and
frightened, and uptight and dogmatic. I thought it was a fascinating
paradox:
irrational rationalists. Later on I found out I didn't invent that.
Somebody
else who wrote an article on CSICOP, that's the group they all belong
to:
Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
Somebody
else who wrote about them also used the term irrational rationalism.
It's a
hard term to resist when you think about those people.
I wrote this book because I got tired
satirizing fundamentalist Christianity, I had done enough of that in my
other
books. I decided to satirize fundamentalist materialism for a change,
because
the two are equally comical. All fundamentalism is comical, unless you
believe
in it, in which case you'd become a fanatic yourself, and want
everybody else
to share your fundamentalism. But if you're not a fundamentalist
yourself,
fundamentalists are the funniest people on the planet. The materialist
fundamentalists are funnier than the Christian fundamentalists, because
they
think they're rational!
DAB: They call themselves skeptical.
RAW: Yes, but they're not skeptical!
They're
never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice
against.
None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about
anything in
establishment science or any entrenched dogma. They're only skeptical
about new
ideas that frighten them. They're actually dogmatically committed to
what they
were taught when they were in college, which was about 1948-53,
somewhere in
that period. If you go back and study what was being taught in college
in those
days as the latest scientific theories, you find out that's what these
people
still believe. They haven't had a new idea in 30 years, that's all that
happened to them. They just rigidified, they crystallized around
1960.”
As
It
is interesting to note that while Carl Sagan is a great teacher of
astronomy
and science, he has inadequate knowledge and experience with paranormal
phenomena. This is demonstrated by the
fact that in his book The
Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark Sagan devotes
a big
chapter to debunking the Alien Abduction phenomenon, yet not once does
he even
personally investigate or interview any abductees at all, like an
honest open-minded
investigator or truth seeker would. On
the other hand, researchers like Harvard Professor John Mack (author of
Abduction:
Human Encounters With Aliens
) and
Budd Hopkins (author of Missing
Time)
have done extensive
interviews and investigations with abductees for their book, which led
them to
the conclusion that there was more to the phenomenon than just the
“all in the
brain” or sleep paralysis. In fact,
Mack
has personally investigated 76 abductee cases during the course of four
years. But how many did Sagan
investigate? Zero. Therefore,
one ought to give those
researchers more credence than skeptics like Sagan who just dismiss the
subject
off-hand without any deep investigation for truth.
Of
course, all pseudoskeptics will claim to be true skeptics, just
like
all high pressured salesmen claim to not be high pressure, all liars
and con
artists claim to be sincere, and all politicians claim to be honest. But as you know, ACTIONS speak louder than
words, so the proof of what they are is in their ACTIONS, not words. If a salesman for example, told you "I
am not a high pressure salesman" but then proceeds to pressure you to
buy
his product/service, hounding you without end and not taking no for an
answer,
then what do you believe, his words or his actions?
Likewise, when a self described skeptic tells
you that he is a true skeptic who is open to evidence, yet he displays all the
characteristics,
traits and behaviors of a pseudoskeptic, then do you listen to his
words
or his actions? The answer is obvious.
Thus,
regardless of what they claim about themselves, if they exhibit the
follow
traits and characteristics, then they fall into the category of
“pseudoskeptics”.
1) Ignoring facts and
evidence that don’t fit into their preconceived
world view, rather than updating their beliefs to conform to the facts,
which
is more logical. (e.g. “It
can’t be,
therefore it isn’t!”) This is
known as
the process of rationalization
through cognitive dissonance.
2) Trying to force
materialistic explanations, even if they’re false,
to account for a paranormal event regardless of whether they fit the
data. For example, using “cold
reading” to explain
the amazing accuracy of a psychic reading when no known cold reading
technique
could account for the facts and circumstances. (see Argument # 16)
3) Moving the goal
posts or raising the bar whenever their criteria for
evidence is met. For example, a skeptic
wants evidence for psi in the form of controlled experiments rather
than
anecdotal evidence. When this evidence
is presented, he will then raise the bar and demand that the
experiments be
repeatable by other researchers. When
this is done, then he will either attack the researchers integrity and
character, attack their methods, or demand a report of every detail and
minute
of the experiment or else he will contend that some unmentioned lack of
controls must have been the culprit to explain the positive psi
results,
etc. He will always find some excuse due
to his already made-up mindset. Patrick
Huyghe has written an article about this at Extraordinary
Claim? Move the Goal Posts!
4) Using double
standards in what they will accept as evidence. They
will not accept anecdotal evidence for
the paranormal because they consider it to be unreliable, but not
surprisingly
they will accept anecdotal evidence when it supports their
position. Also, when
psi experiments shows positive results well above, they will not accept
it as
evidence against psi. But when a psi experiment only shows chance
results, they
will accept that as evidence against psi.
5) Attacking the
character of witnesses and undermining their
credibility their evidence or testimonies can’t be explained away. As we all know, when politicians can’t
win on
the issues, they resort to character assassinations.
Unfortunately, this is also what skeptics and
debunkers tend to do as well. When
evidence or testimony from key people can’t be explained away or
are
irrefutable, skeptics will find ways to discredit them such as
character
assassinations or grossly exaggerating and distorting trivial mistakes. This has especially been done with the direct
eyewitnesses of the 1947 Roswell Incident, as Stanton Friedman, author
of the
famous Crash
at Corona: The U.S. Military Retrieval and Cover-Up of a UFO
often
points out in his articles you can
read at www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfhome.html.
6) Dismissing all
evidence for the paranormal by classifying it either
as anecdotal, untestable, unreplicable, or uncontrolled.
Skeptics who wish to close their minds to any
evidence, even after asking for it ironically, tend to do so by
classifying it
into one of the categories above. If the
evidence is anecdotal, they will say that anecdotal evidence is
worthless
scientifically and untestable. If the
evidence is in the form of scientific experiments, they will then say
that it
is unreplicable or uncontrolled.
Here
are a list of traits that define the true skeptic vs. the pseudoskeptic.
True Skeptics /
Open-Minded Skeptics
- Questions everything and takes nothing on
faith, even from cherished
established institutions.
- Asks questions to try to understand new
things and are open to learning
about them.
- Applies critical examination and inquiry to
all sides, including their
own.
- Withholds judgment and does not jump to rash
conclusions.
- Seeks the truth and considers it the highest
aim.
- Thinks in terms of possibilities rather than
in preserving fixed views.
- Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all
sides.
- Acknowledges valid convincing evidence rather
than ignoring or denying
it.
- Possess solid sharp common sense and reason.
- Are able to adapt their paradigms to new
evidence and update their
hypothesis to fit the data.
- When all conventional explanations
for a phenomenon are ruled out, are
able to accept paranormal ones.
- Accepts that there are mysteries and revels
in trying to understand
them.
- Views science as a tool and methodology, not
as a religion or authority
to be obeyed. Understands the difference between the scientific process
and the
scientific establishment.
- Acknowledges that the scientific
establishment is subject to politics,
corruption, control, censorship and suppression, as all human based
institutions are - and therefore must be critically examined and
scrutinized,
rather than taken on faith, especially in the light of contrary
evidence to
their claims.
- Will admit they are wrong when the evidence
calls for it.
PseudoSkeptics / Closed-Minded Skeptics
- Does not question anything from established
non-religious institutions,
but takes whatever they say on faith and demands that others do the
same.
- Does not ask questions to try to understand
new things, but judges them
by whether they fit into orthodoxy.
- Applies "critical thinking" only to that
which opposes
orthodoxy or materialism, but never to the status quo itself.
- Immediately judges as false and debunks
anything that contradicts their
paradigm.
- Are not interested in truth, evidence or
facts, only in defending their
views.
- Cannot think in terms of possibilities, but
sees their paradigms as
fixed and constant.
- Are willing to lie and deceive to discredit
their opponents.
- Automatically dismisses and denies all data
that contradicts
materialism and orthodoxy.
- Are judgmental and quick to draw conclusions
about things they know
little or nothing about.
- Scoffs and ridicules what they oppose instead
of using objective
analysis and examination.
- When faced with evidence or facts they can't
refute, uses semantics,
word games and denial to try to obfuscate the issue.
- Unable to adapt their paradigms to new
evidence, and denies data which
doesn't fit into them.
- When all conventional explanations for an
unexplainable phenomenon are
ruled out, are still not able to accept paranormal ones.
- Dislikes mystery and uncertainty, and insist
that all unknown phenomena
must have a mundane explanation.
- Views the scientific establishment as a
religion and authority to be
taken on faith and never questioned or challenged. Does not understand
the
difference between the scientific process/methodology and the
scientific
establishment institution.
- Assumes that the scientific establishment is
objective and unbiased,
and free of politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression
for no
other reason than blind faith in authority.
- Will never admit that they are wrong no
matter what, regardless of
evidence.
Wikipedia's
original entry on pathological
skepticism (before pseudoskeptics took it down)
listed these
defining behaviors of pseudoskeptics:
"The
difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the
conduct of an
individual's actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical actions
are:
- Resorting
to various logical fallacies (usually in an attack against those
disputing a theory).
- The
assumption of facts (such as, stating theories determine phenomena).
- The
obfuscation of facts.
- The
use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts
concerning their own positions.
- Insisting
that fundamental framework and theory of science hardly change.
- Unwavering
belief that science is a consensus and run on majority rule.
- Maintaining
a stance of hostility and intolerance.
- Instituting
hurdles against new theories by "moving the goalposts".
- Ignoring
intellectual suppression of unorthodox theories.
- Judging
a theory or phenomena without investigation and insisting on ignoring
the details thereafter."
In
the SCEPCOP
Forum,
Steve Trueblue observed these five consistent patterns in
pseudoskeptics:
"As a skilled observer
you will also note that PseudoSkeptics:
- Seldom,
in fact almost never, ask questions, reflecting Zero Curiosity thus
learning difficulties
- Practice
a very high level of self deception and mistakenly believe they can lie
to adults as they did in childhood
- Display
markedly deficient reading and comprehension skills
- Display
inability to connect thoughts sequentially and plan an argument- often
defeating their own case
- Depend
on bluster and bullying and name calling to make up for lack of
argument content"
In
short, these pseudoskeptics are materialist fundamentalists driven
by
fanatical beliefs and views which they seek to proselytize to the
world. Regardless of facts or evidence,
they ALWAYS
start and end with the following dogmatic positions:
- Paranormal
claims are all bunk and cannot be true. There
is no evidence for them.
- Conspiracies
are all false. There is no evidence for them. Official sources are not
to be questioned.
- Anything
that challenges the status quo and materialism is wrong and must be
debunked.
- Only
natural materialistic explanations are acceptable.
Paranormal ones are not.
They
begin with those precepts and always come back to them, regardless of
the facts
or evidence in any investigation or debate, EVERYTIME.
That's one consistent thing you will notice
about them. And they will resort to
playing games, ridicule, denial, even deliberate distortion,
fabrication and
connecting false dots to maintain these core positions.
That's why they are not really capable of
serious honest discussion. Instead, they
play games and cheat at them in order to win.
I've seen them do it time and time again. It
doesn't matter how much proof or evidence
you have. All of that is irrelevant to
them. They seek only to validate their
beliefs, not change their beliefs in accord with the facts or data.
They
will never admit that they've lost, even though technically they have. When cornered by facts and reason, they
resort to denial or ad hominem attacks.
Or they even will spin your own arguments against you, without
basis. It's like winning a chess game
against an opponent, and even though the rules say they are checkmated,
they
still refuse to admit defeat. That's not
fair, honest, or decent behavior.
For
more on pseudoskeptical tactics, see Zen
and the Art of Debunkery and
Stupid
Skeptic Tricks.
The late Marcello Truzzi, former member of CSICOP and critic of pseudoskepticism, wrote an article about pseudoskeptics which you can read about here.
One
of the tell-tale signs of pseudoskeptical mentality is in the words
they use
when describing believers. If they
describe them as: “delusional,
irrational, gullible, charlatans, superstitious,
wishful-thinking, primitive and child-like thinking”, etc. then it’s a strong indication of their a
priori mentality.
PseudoSkeptics such
as the CSICOP and JREF crowd are definitely not
open minded truth seekers, but rather their
words and behavior are that of automatic dismissing and denying that
which
doesn’t fit into their paradigm. They are cynics who have closed
their mind to
anything that doesn't fit into their world view, dismissing all else as
misperception, delusion, or fraud. But don’t take my word for it,
for if you
read their own writing and hear what they say, it’s obvious from
their own
words and behavior, and from their tunnel-view of reality, as well as
their
righteous indignation of what’s real and what’s
“quackery” (a word they love to
use). They do not seek to understand, but to attack and discredit.
According to
the American Heritage Dictionary, the
term “pseudo” means “False or counterfeit;
fake.” These debunkers exhibit a false
mask of skepticism. In actuality, they are cynics, debunkers, and
deniers. They
deny and dismiss all evidence that doesn’t fit their views,
whether scientific
or anecdotal, no matter how credible or plentiful, and look for excuses
to
justify it. They are not about seeking truth or open-minded
investigation, only
in discrediting whatever doesn’t fit into the
orthodoxy/materialist paradigm.
Unfortunately,
pseudoskeptic groups have not heeded the warnings and advice of one of
their
own heros, the late Carl Sagan:
"...The
chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization:
Us vs.
Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those
other people
who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're
sensible,
you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is
nonconstructive. It
does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority
status." - Carl Sagan
"People
are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for
skeptics to
get the attention of bright, curious, intelligent people is to belittle
or
condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs." - Carl Sagan
"The
suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in
politics,
but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the
endeavor of science." - Carl Sagan
These
illogical ways of thinking are strange coming from people who pride
themselves
on their logic and rationality! Of
course, flawed thinking such as the above can come from both believers
and
skeptics. That is why it is good to
point them out to keep both sides in check.
Afterlife
researcher Dr. Victor Zammit, describes how
these debunkers reject what doesn’t fit into their world view
through the
process of rationalization through cognitive dissonance:
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/fundingskeptics.html
“Let's borrow a page from
traditional psychology.
When a skeptic receives information - say, scientific proof for the
afterlife
-- which is fundamentally inconsistent with his or her entrenched
cherished
beliefs, the skeptic tries to rationalize his/her beliefs to reduce and
to
offset the intense biological, emotional and mental anxiety. The
intense
anxiety is created by the information that the afterlife exists.
The skeptic's mind tries to resist and
reject this
new information (even if the information is the absolute truth) - hence
the
cognitive (the mind) 'dissonance' - between the new information -
(i.e., the
positive evidence for the afterlife) and the skeptic's own personal
beliefs
that the afterlife cannot exist.
Closed-minded skepticism is extremely
difficult to
shift because his/her skepticism is 'electrically wired' into the
skeptic's
neurological, psychological, intellectual and emotional belief system.
Thus
with absolute certainty, this skeptic inexorably loses all sense of
empirical
equanimity.“
Dr.
Zammit also hit it on the head about how pseudoskeptics overgeneralize
and
distort information:
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/fundingskeptics.html
“Skeptics
can be seen to overgeneralize saying for instance that because
some
mediums are fraudulent therefore all mediums are fraudulent.
Further,
skeptics distort information saying that because it may
be
possible to reproduce certain phenomena by fraud - even at odds of one
billion
to one - that they have proven that fraud took place. In this sense,
the
skeptics find it impossible to transcend their 'metaprogram' (their
overriding world view of reality) of materialistic beliefs.”
As
to why pseudoskeptics believe what they do, this author, who spent time
undercover in a skeptical organization, might be able to shed some
light on
that:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_16_1_leiter.pdf
"A person who has been duped frequently in
everyday life might learn by bitter experience to be cautious and wary.
The
reaction of those who have joined PhACT is however more dysfunctional.
They
have been wounded at a deeper level, to the extent that what was
purported to
be a valid philosophy of life, and in which they were heavily involved,
turns
out to be empty and useless, even damaging, in their eyes. Thus, they
gravitate
to what appears to them to be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy,
Science.
Unfortunately, while they loudly proclaim their righteousness, based on
their
professed adherence to “hard science”, they do so with the
one thing no true
scientist can afford to possess, a closed mind. Instead of becoming
scientifically minded, they become adherents of scientism, the belief
system in
which science and only science has all the answers to everything.
This regrettable condition acts to
preclude their
unbiased consideration of phenomena on the cutting edge of science,
which is
not how a true scientist should behave. In fact, many
“Skeptics” will not even
read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they
are
most skeptical. I have direct experience with this specific behavior on
the
part of a number of PhACT members. Initially, I attributed that
behavior to
just plain laziness, but lately I’ve begun to suspect that those
individuals
may actually have a phobia about reading material that is contrary to
their own
views. It seems entirely possible that they fear
“contamination” from that
exposure will eventually lead to (Gasp!) acceptance of the
opposition’s
position. Such scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred
people tend
to join Skeptics’ organizations much as one might join any other
support group,
say, Alcoholics Anonymous. There they find comfort, consolation, and
support
amongst their own kind.
Anyone who has spent much time engaging
members
of Skeptics’ organizations knows about their strong inclination
toward ridicule
and ad hominem criticism of those with differing viewpoints. Therefore,
it
should come as no surprise that many members of PhACT have been rather
offended
by my position as someone who is skeptical of Skeptics. As the old
adage
states, “They can dish it out, but they can’t take
it.”
In
school, you are taught that "critical thinking" means to refute and
ridicule anything that opposes the establishment or status quo, but
never the
status quo itself. A true skeptic can rise above that and apply
skepticism and
critical thought toward established orthodoxy, but a pseudo-skeptic
cannot.
Instead, the pseudo-skeptic follows the school system's form of
"critical
thinking", applying it only to those who oppose orthodoxy in defense of
the status quo.
In
that sense, they are in reality "establishment defenders" rather than
true skeptics. That is why they NEVER challenge, criticize or
scrutinize their
government or any part of the establishment, including the
pharmaceutical
companies, CIA or FBI, even if logic, facts, evidence or moral cause
dictates
that they should.
To
these establishment defenders, authority = truth, and as such
is always
blameless in their eyes. That is their religion, so hence, all their
skills,
talents and knowledge are used to serve their true God - orthodoxy. In
their view, establishment authority can do no wrong,
even if
they murder, traffic drugs, steal, lie, stage terrorist attacks, start
wars by
funding both sides, etc.
What
this means is that these pseudo-skeptics or establishment defenders do
not serve truth as their
master.
As such, they are willing
to lie
and deceive to serve their masters (there are so many
documented
cases of this). Thus they are not "free" in any sense of the word,
nor honest, which is sad.
This
is why not only are they closed minded against anything to do with
paranormal
phenomena, but are vehemently opposed to all claims of government
conspiracies
as well, no matter how well supported, for it offends their "true
master" (which is not truth).
Examples
of famous pseudoskeptics and establishment defenders: (Check them all
out and
you will see that their actions fit the above description)
- James
Randi and his JREF crowd
- Michael
Shermer
- CSICOP
and their crowd
- Penn
and Teller and their "Bullshit" show (pun intended) which is an insult
to one's intelligence
- The
Mythbusters
- Phil
Plait and his "Bad Astronomy" folks
Scientism
– The Religion of Pseudoskeptics?
Now let me clarify
something.
Critics of pseudoskeptics have accused them of believing in Scientism
– the belief that science is
to be treated as an authority with all the answers and taken on faith,
just
like a religion is. In response, pseudoskeptics claim that science is a
process
of independent peer review and replication and therefore not a religion.
So then, is science
a
religion, you might ask? Well, yes and no. Technically, science is not
a
religion. It is a tool and methodology of obtaining logical conclusions
through
evidence and inquiry. As such, it is not an entity that holds positions
or
viewpoints, like people do. Therefore, science is not pro or
anti-paranormal,
anymore than a pencil, computer program or mathematical formula is.
However, the
scientific
establishment is another matter, because it involves people, politics,
power,
money, institutions and vested interests. And as such, politics, corruption,
control, censorship and suppression are naturally a part of it.
Realists know and
understand this. But for some reason pseudoskeptics don’t.
The key
fallacy that
pseudoskeptics make is lumping the scientific process and the
scientific
establishment into one, and assuming that they are one and the same. That is the major
fallacy of the organized skepticism movement, which consists of the
JREF, CSICOP
and Michael Shermer type crowd.
In
doing so, they falsely assume that the science and medical
establishment is objective
and unbiased, and free of politics, corruption, control, censorship and
suppression. That’s where their major mistake is. And as such,
they deem the
science and medical establishment as an unassailable authority that is
not to
be questioned or challenged. In that sense, they treat science as a
religion. So
even though they claim that science is not a religion, they still treat
it as
such, by holding the views of the science establishment as an
unquestionable
authority.
So, if researchers
such as Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake or Dr. Gary Schwartz come up
with
evidence for psychic phenomena, it is automatically dismissed as
invalid,
simply because it challenges the orthodoxy of the science
establishment, not
because the experiments were not legit. And they will use any excuse to
do so,
including the lamest ones.
Likewise, when
evidence comes
up that vaccines, fluoride, aspartme or mercury dental fillings are
dangerous
and harmful, that evidence is suppressed and deemed inadmissible,
simply
because it threatens the medical establishment and its vested
interests, not
because the evidence is untrue.
By filtering out
such
contrary evidence, even when it is legit and valid, pseudoskeptics
definitely
are treating the science and medical establishment as a religion. And
as we all
know, religion is authority and faith based, not evidence based.
You see, no one
likes to
invest a lot of time and money into something, only to have it proven
wrong or
changed. And the science/medical establishment is no exception. They
are people
with political interests, not objective unbiased machines. So
let’s get real
here.
You don’t
have to be educated
to understand this. Anyone with common sense, street smarts, and real
life
experience knows this. But pseudoskeptics, in their fanaticism, ignore
such
common sense realities. They are fanatics, not realists.
Furthermore,
organized
skeptics like to tout “science” as a peer reviewed process
of independent replication,
and therefore totally reliable. In doing so, they treat it like a
“democratic
process” in which the majority of scientists decide what’s
true by agreeing on
it. This is another fallacy, because it
assumes that most scientists are objective and unbiased, and free to
say
whatever they want without consequence.
But this is not the
way the
real world of money, power and politics works. Any realist knows that
when you
work for an institution or receive funding, you have to “tow the
party line”,
or else you are out. It’s that simple. Any scientist who says
something that
opposes the views of those he works for, will jeopardize his career and
reputation. There are many real life examples of scientists and
researchers who
have lost funding or suffered damage to their career for espousing
unorthodox
positions, even if their position was legit and evidence-based.
Moreover, most
people are not
unbiased, open minded, or hold truth as the highest value. Instead,
they are
concerned with their image, reputation, career, funding, and hold rigid
views
that they feel safe and comfortable in. Many people do not like
uncertainty or
mystery. They want a world where things make sense and are predictable
and
well-defined. That’s why they are prone to fall into rigid
unchanging belief
systems. Why would scientists be any different. They may be more
educated than
the average person, sure, but they are humans, and humans have biases.
It is the truth
seeker and
freethinker who questions everything and does not hold any authority as
truth,
who is most likely to find the truth. Not the most educated or well
connected with
institutions.
Pseudoskeptics
ignore all
this, or are blind to it, because they are fanatics, not truth seekers
or
freethinkers. When you look at the overall picture, this becomes
obvious.
Thus, the key
difference in
this area between the pseudoskeptic and the truth seeker/freethinker,
is that
the former holds the science/medical establishment as a religion of
unquestionable authority, whereas the latter does not, and recognizes
it for
what it is – an institution with vested interests, politics,
power, money,
control and censorship that is not above suppressing that which
threatens it.
Anyone who examines
the
material produced by pseudoskeptics can see this apparent pattern. They
hold
everything said by the science/medical establishment as unassailable
truth and
authority, and never question or scrutinize it, ever, while
automatically
dismissing anything that opposes it. That’s not skepticism.
It’s thought
control, mind control, and suppression of truth.
Now,
let me clarify something. It is NOT my
position to argue that all paranormal claims are true.
In fact, I happen to be skeptical of many
claims myself. Instead, I am for open
minded inquiry and honestly weighing the evidence.
Not all paranormal claims are true, but some
are backed by a lot more evidence than others.
For example, ESP and ghosts are backed by a much higher
percentage of
testimonials than the Loch Ness Monster is.
So, I argue that the
evidence for
paranormal phenomena should be considered and investigated as
possibilities rather than rejected automatically ruled out just
because
it doesn’t fit in with prevailing beliefs and world views. I do not claim to have all the answers to all
the paranormal mysteries. However, based
on my experience and research, I will argue that the overwhelming
evidence as a
whole points to the existence of some sort of metaphysical reality that
exists,
and that at least some paranormal claims have a basis in reality. My position is that SOME types of paranormal
phenomena which are backed by evidence and widespread testimonials
(e.g. ESP,
Psi, Telepathy, NDE’s) have something to them other than mere
hallucination or delusion.
Very
few people are willing to cast their skepticism on all sides, including
their
own beliefs. Most people, including the
pseudoskeptics, seek to validate what they already believe, and reject
the data
that would cause them to change their beliefs.
We at SCEPCOP try to avoid this by applying true skepticism to
all
sides, including our own, and basing our conclusions on the data itself
rather
than on our subjective emotional beliefs.
With
that, let’s begin the debunking of their common arguments.
Note: I have
assigned numbers
to each pseudoskeptical argument so that I can reference them
throughout this
book.
Note: Although
CSICOP has
changed its name to CSI, I will refer to it as CSICOP here because that
is
still what most people know it as.
“I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud.”
- Carl Gustav Jung
“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
Previous
Page
Back
to Table of Contents
Next
Page