Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page
Debunking PseudoSkeptical Arguments of Paranormal Debunkers
Argument # 15: Skeptics
are
defending science and reason from a rising tide of
irrationality.
This
phrase has often been
used in articles and websites of skeptical organizations and magazines,
including CSICOP’s
Skeptical
Inquirer and
others.
Fortunately, this phrase is
now critiqued by
skeptics themselves, and used less.
Michael Sofka of ISUNY and
author of the article Myths
of Skepticism points
out that CSICOP
often uses it in their
fundraising requests.
Folklorist
Stephanie Hall comments on this in her article Folklore
and the Rise
of Moderation Among Organized Skeptics:
“Another change
advocated by many Skeptics is in the
choice of language used to represent skepticism to others. For
instance, a phrase that has commonly appeared in articles by Skeptics
and in
statements in the brochures or Web sites of skeptic groups was an
expression of
concern about "the rising tide of irrationality."
But although
this phrase became an identity marker demonstrating alliance with
organized
skepticism and a statement of shared concern, it has increasingly been
criticized by Skeptics themselves. At the NCAS Millennial Madness
workshop in
May 1999, Chip Denman critiqued this phrase as, perhaps, skepticism's
own bit
of Millennialism, asking questions such as, "What do we mean by
irrationality?
How is it measured? How do we know it is rising?" It seems that this
phrase, as a marker of skeptical identity, may be going out of fashion.
These events are an
indication to me as a researcher
that Skepticism is going through changes as it grows, as we might
expect in any
social movement, and that local groups are beginning to discover the
things
they have in common. Perhaps because the movement has steadily grown
and this
may inspire confidence and stability, Skeptics also seem increasingly
willing to
critique themselves and express strong views on the ways they do and do
not
want skepticism to be presented to the public. This self-analysis is,
of
course, a good thing, for any rational endeavor should be willing to
critique
itself.”
Chip
Denman, quoted above by
Hall, makes a good point.
The statement
fails to define what is considered to be irrational.
Most
likely, what they mean by irrational is
anything others believe in that doesn’t fit their world view
or hasn’t been
proven their way.
Therefore, this is
more a statement of bias and faith, rather than fact.
If
by irrational they mean unproven, then
this is false too as there is strong evidence for many paranormal and
psychic
phenomena ( See Argument # 1)
In fact,
there does not seem
to be any evidence of an increase in irrationality or superstition. I
would challenge any skeptic to show me a
mass poll where a high percentage of people admit literally that they
believe
in “superstition and irrationality”.
There probably
aren’t any, because most people don’t label their
beliefs
as superstition or irrationality. It
is
the skeptics
who label paranormal
beliefs as such.
That’s an important
thing to remember.
Even the polls
published over the years in Skeptical
Inquirer indicate at most a
shift in emphasis as one belief replaces
another in the popular imagination.
Moreover, to the extent that
polls have been done we find church
attendance dropping, and people shifting from organized religions to
less
formal or more individualized forms of spirituality.
In
the traditional religious sense, our
society is more secular now than before.
It appears
that on the whole
irrationality, belief, and credulity are at about the same level as
they have
always been, just distributed in different ways. What
probably is going on is that this phrase
is used to describe new and expanded beliefs (i.e. New Age type
beliefs) versus
established beliefs in society, with the new beliefs appearing as
though there
is an increase.
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page