The Problem with Skeptics

[Christopher O'Brien]

​

​

​

​

Article HERE:​

​

The Problem with James Randi​

And his foundation on the paranormal, pseudoscientific and supernatural

by Skylaire Alfvegren​

​

[ITALICS are mine —chris]

Dogmatists of any stripe are fundamentally wounded, whether they're Islamic terrorists, Christian abortion-clinic bombers or magicians with an axe to grind.

Picture this: A little boy with an imagination and a sense of wonder begins futzing with a deck of cards, sleight of hand ... as that boy delves deeper into magic, it's revealed to be nothing more than a world of smoke and mirrors, of "cons" and "marks." Stage magicians, like lawyers and secret agents, make a living from deception, so perhaps they assume everyone else does, as well. From that perspective, the connection between stage magic and skepticism makes sense.

What's more important, what science knows or what it doesn't (yet)? What's more beneficial to scientific inquiry, an open mind or a sense of self-importance? These are questions that beg to be asked of the skeptical movement, which convenes in Las Vegas this weekend for The Amazing Meeting, a benefit for the James Randi Educational Foundation. (The conference takes place at the Stardust and features Murray Gell-Mann, Nadine Strossen, the Mythbusters, Penn & Teller, Mac King, Jamy Ian Swiss, Phil Plait, Julia Sweeney, and Michael Shermer [Ahh I was hoping to see the name of our own beloved debunker Lance Moody —chris].) After all, while it's true that opportunists profit from the murky worlds of the paranormal and the unknown, and that some people will believe anything, it's also true that scientists have falsified data to get grants or overlooked inconvenient phenomenon to maintain the status quo in their field.

Well, as iconoclastic writer Charles Fort once noted, "Witchcraft always has a hard time, until it becomes established and changes its name."

But let's not generalize. Let's examine the contributions made by Randi, the skeptical movement's leading figure, to science and objective thought.

Randi can be eloquent and is quite the showman; he is also wildly intelligent—he got a MacArthur genius grant in 1986. But according to his detractors, Randi's main qualities are his malice and hypocrisy. He's hell-bent on tearing apart anyone he deems a kook, including distinguished scientists and Nobel Prize-winners. This is amusing, as Randi has no scientific credentials whatsoever (although he did once write an astrology column for a Canadian tabloid and host a paranormal-themed radio show).

In 1997, Randi threatened to fly to Sri Lanka to persuade Arthur C. Clarke to stop advocating cold fusion. (Clarke, a genuine scientific visionary, inventor of the communication satellite and award-winning author, received degrees, with honors, in physics and mathematics.) In 2001, on a BBC Radio program, Randi attacked Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize-winner and professor of physics at Cambridge University.

Why? Josephson was interested in the possible connections between quantum physics and consciousness. Randi also has a penchant for lawsuits—he once tried to sue a writer known for covering the UFO beat, simply because he printed some unflattering but verifiable information about the magician. Randi left the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) because of all the litigation against him.

Charismatic psychic Uri Geller, whose abilities have been tested by a number of prestigious laboratories, has probably been Randi's biggest target. In the process of attempting to discredit the psychic, Randi has also attacked institutions, like Stanford, intrigued by Geller's alleged abilities. He defamed two eminent scientists, Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ, calling them "incompetent." At the time, author Robert Anton Wilson wryly observed, "Randi was not there, yet he claims to know what was going on [during the experiment] better than the two scientists who were supervising it. The only way he could know better ... is if he had 100 percent accurate telepathy." Rest of the article HERE:

 

[dyingsun]

I honestly appreciate skeptics being here, I'm just wondering why they seem to more or less flock to and argue with the more reasonable forums/opinions with that whole amount of crazy out there. 'Reasonable' lies in the eye of the beholder I guess.

 

[pickles]

I'm consistently frustrated and yet amused by professional skeptics. It's one thing to question certain things (did Noah really get two of EVERY animal on the boat) and setting out to piss in someone's Cheerios. I think Randi is the latter. Let's be real. Anyone known as "The Amazing Randi" has to be a turd regardless of his IQ.

 

[dyingsun]

I'm consistently frustrated and yet amused by professional skeptics. It's one thing to question certain things (did Noah really get two of EVERY animal on the boat) and setting out to piss in someone's Cheerios. I think Randi is the latter. Let's be real. Anyone known as "The Amazing Randi" has to be a turd regardless of his IQ.

Yeah well, maybe we should visit them over there sometime as well. Just to talk about 'magic tricks' and stuff, of course.

 

[Decker]

I am all in favor of pistols at 20 paces. Jus' saying ...

Decker

 

[dyingsun]

*Pew, pew* As if anyone would get us up from our asses anyhow

 

[ProphetofOccam]

The real problem with skeptics, and the paranormal, is the fact that the two sides are playing different games. I have said several times in this forum that i think attempting to directly debate the legitimacy of the paranormal is fundamentally insane. One can debate aspects of the scientific world that apply to certain areas of the paranormal, but, playing by the typical rules of the average skeptic, once you start debating whether or not some direct aspect of the paranormal is "true" you've stepped into a world with no legitimately testable hypotheses and thus into a world where debate has no foundation in any direction. I will reiterate that I am talking about hard, science-based debate.

Paranormal.....ers... believers? People who follow the paranormal beyond the aspect of story and folklore don't feel bound by the rules or notions of science. Often, they will attempt to deconstruct the very nature of science when they feel that nature threatens an aspect of something in which they strongly believe. There is not malicious intent, it's a natural reaction to an emotional threat, and that's not to suggest that they choose ignorance or magic as a contingency.

Paranormalers will often choose to approach an investigation or contemplation of the field from a purely philosophical standpoint, if they feel that science fails, in some way, to properly examine a phenomenon. That means they are no longer bound by rigid, scientific protocol, but free to explore possibility with common sense logic and an open-mind. As such, they will also debate from this position, which the skeptical mind has difficulty digesting, for a number of reasons.

That's not to say that science is a complete shut window. The scientific method requires an open mind to allow for investigation. The major difference is the way things that pass through the open mind are examined and by what standards.

At a fundamental level, skeptics and paranormalers disagree on the very definition of reality. The two groups have entirely different ways to perceive the world around them; often, neither are very good at empathizing with the juxtaposed world-view. The inability to even agree upon the very nature of how reality should be perceived and how it can be classified, actually negates any chance at a debate regarding what reality is in regards to any phenomenon.

Despite this seemingly elementary fact, both sides continue to talk circles around one another in an attempt to convince nobody but the choir that they believe what they're saying. As such, most confrontations between the two sides, especially formal confrontations, boil down to

"Here is what science says, you're an idiot."
"No, you're a jerk, here are my experiences and the experiences of others and I think some areas of science support my case."
"You're wrong, and stupid."
"You're egotistical and stupid."

In essence, the skeptic attempts to disprove the very notion of the paranormal by pointing to the fact that it is paranormal, or outside the realms of normal perception. In other words, it is outside the defined scope of what science is as an idea. There is nothing to debate, really, other than this single fact from slightly different angles.

Since the paranormaler isn't typically satisfied exclusively with what science has to say about these phenomena, the cornerstone of the skeptic's argument falls on deaf ears. Since the skeptic isn't satisfied with any explanation that can't be neatly arranged and delivered in the form of testable hypotheses, the cornerstone of the paranormaler's argument falls on deaf ears. It can only go around and around until everyone is tired and pissed off, or everyone starts talking about something else and walk away smiling. Sometimes it's entertaining, sometimes it's just a waste of time -- much of the time, it's a waste of time.

 

[Wade]

Very succinctly put ProphetofOccam,it's not unlike trying to get israel and the palestinians to see eye to eye, it will never happen because it isn't in the interests of people with influence and so they will continue to disagree on nearly everything just to spite each other. BOTH sides and points of view have merit but the problem is egos get in the way (generically speaking) and both sides are afraid to give up ground as it makes then appear weak, if the ultra skeptics and ultra believers can't find some common ground then they aren't trying because it's not in their interests. Hmmmmmm maybe this would have been better off if I had put it in the gaza israel war thread.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I feel like I've seen it play out enough times.

Before I was able to identify as what most people would call a skeptic, I was bigtime into the paranormal. From the age of about 6 to the age of probably 20, I was an avid armchair investigator, archivist, and general fan of certain areas of the paranormal -- mostly cryptozoology, alien abduction, and esoteric high strangeness. I once even exchanged e-mails with Loren Coleman, back when he was a regular in the Compuserve paranormal forums, regarding the phenomenon of cryptid lake monsters. Over that period of time, there was a gradual building of my skeptical perception of the field.

That gradual incline took a step up once I was in my later teens. I'd read too much, heard too much, and personally spoken with too many people claiming experiences with paranormal phenomena, in a sense. The more I ingested, the less things made sense. I started drawing philosophical parallels between the way believers discussed the paranormal and the way the religious discussed religion. It didn't jive with my natural inclination to look to the order and checks-and-balances of science to explore and explain the rest of the universe around me.

It began to feel like professional wrestling felt to me when I had gotten too old to think it might be real, but could still appreciate it as a performance. Bigfoot was missing too many punches that the researchers were still reacting to; the persona of the "aliens" had changed too many times; I had seen the Sherman Ranch do one too many whacky tricks; I just couldn't defend it to the neigh-sayers, anymore -- I couldn't even defend it to myself. With a heavy heart, I had to surrender to the voice in the back of my head. I had to accept that I had become a skeptic.

Perhaps out of a feeling of resentment for having wasted time, or so I felt at the time, and out of a feeling of wanting to save others who were suffering from the same clouded judgement I'd felt I'd been subjecting myself to for so long, I began debating my former fellow believers in forums I frequented. These were far from friendly debates, most of the time. Eventually, I stopped going to those types of forums, all together. It wasn't until I started regularly using atheist.net in 2007, or so, that I got back into it. It was there that my fervor for debating maters of the metaphysical began to subside. I could see how ridiculous it was, and went from self identifying as atheist to ignostic (atheist leaning form of theological noncognitivism).

Last year I got back into the folklore aspects of paranormal, which is when I started listening to the Paracast. I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of where both sides are coming from, having played for both teams at one time or another. As such, in my perception, there is no real debate to be had.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

*Pew, pew* As if anyone would get us up from our asses anyhow

Speak fer yer self, partner

 

[Randall]

Interesting ... the "Tactics of the JREF" thread was closed by Angelo ( supposedly to avoid the fallout from all the controversy ). I never thought that was fair. Good to see the topic is open for discussion here again. I can tell you that I went through a baptism by fire over there. Until my recent experience over at Ron's URP I've never been treated so poorly. But to be fair, Ron's project is new and still has time to mature and become something better, however the JREF exhibited ingrained cyberbullying and character assassination tactics that were tolerated by their moderators. I had to write directly to the JREF board to have it stopped. In contrast, the skeptics who participate here ( especially lately ) participate in a much healthier and constructive way than what I experienced on the JREF, and I hope that we attract more like them .

 

[Randall]

I feel like I've seen it play out enough times ... The more I ingested, the less things made sense ... I started drawing philosophical parallels between the way believers discussed the paranormal and the way the religious discussed religion ... With a heavy heart, I had to surrender to the voice in the back of my head. I had to accept that I had become a skeptic.

Perhaps out of a feeling of resentment for having wasted time, or so I felt at the time, and out of a feeling of wanting to save others who were suffering from the same clouded judgement I'd felt I'd been subjecting myself to for so long, I began debating my former fellow believers in forums I frequented. These were far from friendly debates, most of the time.

Last year I got back into the folklore aspects of paranormal, which is when I started listening to the Paracast. I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of where both sides are coming from, having played for both teams at one time or another. As such, in my perception, there is no real debate to be had.

You come across to me as well informed, mature and fair minded. However one issue I'm trying to understand is why you feel there is no debate to be had. Is this a hardened position you've fallen back to because of your poor treatment elsewhere? If so, I can understand why. It's a very safe position take. The problem is that there is more going on in the world than scientific skepticism alone can explain. Of course if you admit that, then you'll open yourself up to attack from both sides of the fence. I know that feeling all too well. I'm right in the middle and I get flak from both sides pretty regularly. But in my view it's worth it. My quest is to pursue the truth, and scientific skepticism is only one tool tool to help us do that.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

You come across to me as well informed, mature and fair minded. However one issue I'm trying to understand is why you feel there is no debate to be had

As you said, you feel there's more than science can explain.

In the skeptical community, that's not a fair or qualified position to take. You can't debate something, in a scientific arena, that lacks the ability to generate genuinely falsifiable hypotheses. If something can't be falsified or confirmed, it's A) not science, and B) not open to a debate based on facts or evidence. There is certainly a debate to be had on the philosophical or ethical nature of paranormal phenomena within the community itself, but those aren't the type of debates skeptics are looking to have. If you have watched these debates, and I'm sure you all have -- it was one of my primary interests for about three or four years -- you'll see the skeptics go back to the same offensive every single cycle: "what you're talking about is either unfalsifiable, due to a lack of tangible evidence, or just plain wrong based on the facts inherent in this related field of conventional science."

The reason for that is that the skeptic can't accept even the notion of the possibility for the truth of any of the long standing paranormal phenomena (at least, not in the way presented), because these topics contain nothing in the way of tangible material that could be used to falsify, or legitimize, a claim. At the core of this version of the "we can't agree on what truth means" problem is the perceived value of particular kinds of evidence.

When you can't agree on how truth works, where truth should come from, what materials can be used to determine the truth, who is qualified to analyze the facts that make up the truth, then you can't even begin a debate regarding what the truth is. It's a discussion forever stuck at square one due to these philosophical difference for which there is no compromise -- you can't compromise science, it either is or it isn't. All debates between skeptics and believers, given all of this, are literally meaningless, as basic principals can't be jointly defined (thus remaining meaningless, like truth). You can't debate the state of something with no meaning.

 

[Muadib]

You come across to me as well informed, mature and fair minded. However one issue I'm trying to understand is why you feel there is no debate to be had. Is this a hardened position you've fallen back to because of your poor treatment elsewhere? If so, I can understand why. It's a very safe position take. The problem is that there is more going on in the world than scientific skepticism alone can explain. Of course if you admit that, then you'll open yourself up to attack from both sides of the fence. I know that feeling all too well. I'm right in the middle and I get flak from both sides pretty regularly. But in my view it's worth it. My quest is to pursue the truth, and scientific skepticism is only one tool tool to help us do that.

I think what he means is that engaging in a debate between hardline skeptic and true believer is an exercise in futility because of the fundamental differences present in the world view of both camps. I tend to agree. Some people may like arguing for the sake of arguing or they may just want to give someone something to think about, but let's be honest, have you ever seen someone who could be considered a hardline skeptic that changed his or her position based on a debate in an internet forum? I sure as hell never have. So while there's definitely an argument to be had, there can be no real debate because of the inability of either camp to agree on things like terminology or what qualifies as evidence, these are gaps that cannot be bridged and they are fundamental to any type of productive debate. I'm sure he can explain his position better than I can, I just wanted to offer some of my own thoughts on the matter.

In my case I wouldn't consider myself a true skeptic, I tend to be a little more open minded when it comes to the topic of UFO's simply because of personal experiences I have had where I've seen strange craft that don't correspond to any (at least publicly admitted) known technology. I'm not convinced that anyone, either skeptic or believer, has any valid answers as to what these things are or where they come from, however. Like I've said before I think a lot more data is needed, in many fields, before we can be sure either way.

 

[Bob Watson]

Problem is without randi frauds like peter popoff would still be preying on the gullible. Geller is nothingbut a fair magicain.heis jaded because so many frauds have come to him.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I had to write directly to the JREF board to have it stopped.

Four or five years ago, when i was active in the internet atheist community, I had actually started realizing the amount of hostility that was being permitted in a lot of the forums. Granted, most of these confrontations were in the form of "holy waves" -- large masses of users of popular Christian and Islamic forums flooding into existing threads on the atheist forums and starting hardnosed debates about whatever hot button topic was vaguely related to the original post. We were never sure why this happened, other than, perhaps, some radio or television, possibly internet, personality stirred up some kind of emotional pot and those people were looking for someone to let those emotions out on. Still, there were those believers who frequented the forums, seeking discussion and debate, who were otherwise well-mannered, if only severely misinformed. The type of hostility that was permitted when "dealing" with these guys was of equal intensity to the people who actually came to invade our good time. I never thought it was fair or even couth. It struck me that this was actually common practice amongst some of the forerunners of the "truth" movement (a name I'm not sure was coined by the aggressive party).

I e-mailed James Randi directly to ask about it, why [the attitude] was necessary, or if it was really necessary to write three page articles about things like the legitimacy of a type of wiring for sound equipment, or if these types of attitudes and nit-picky things could actually be more distractions than effective advocacy for truth. Say what you will about Randi, he responded to my e-mail personally -- snarkily and bitterly, but personally. We had an exchange of three rounds of e-mails, it was unpleasant, and he eventually shut down the discussion stating that I didn't thik the truth was important, he did, we agree to disagree, the end.

I've never really liked his approach to skepticism, which is adopted by many younger skeptics, and never cared for his dismissive attitude, in general (though, again, he did respond to the direct e-mail of some random asshole who was basically calling him out for possibly wasting time and effort).

I have never seen anything unfair about Randi's tests of the paranormal, and staunchly disagree with many claims that they are "unfair," but I do think they are stupid as an exercise. You can't falsify most of the things he "tests," and the results of the tests always become a matter of a disagreement regarding rhetoric. It's just dumb.

I'm sure he can explain his position better than I can

Nah. I'm verbose and pretentious. Those were pretty much the main points that I was after. I just don't limit the impossibility for debate to true believers and hardliners. I just think it can't be debated in that particular sense, at all.

 

[Wade]

I think what he means is that engaging in a debate between hardline skeptic and true believer is an exercise in futility because of the fundamental differences present in the world view of both camps. I tend to agree. Some people may like arguing for the sake of arguing or they may just want to give someone something to think about, but let's be honest, have you ever seen someone who could be considered a hardline skeptic that changed his or her position based on a debate in an internet forum? I sure as hell never have. So while there's definitely an argument to be had, there can be no real debate because of the inability of either camp to agree on things like terminology or what qualifies as evidence, these are gaps that cannot be bridged and they are fundamental to any type of productive debate. I'm sure he can explain his position better than I can, I just wanted to offer some of my own thoughts on the matter.

In my case I wouldn't consider myself a true skeptic, I tend to be a little more open minded when it comes to the topic of UFO's simply because of personal experiences I have had where I've seen strange craft that don't correspond to any (at least publicly admitted) known technology. I'm not convinced that anyone, either skeptic or believer, has any valid answers as to what these things are or where they come from, however. Like I've said before I think a lot more data is needed, in many fields, before we can be sure either way.

For the record I originally was going to drop your name as the antithesis of whom I thought prophet...as well as myself...were refering to but most everyone here is pretty even minded.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

THE PROBLEM WITH SKEPTICS IS................

They will take the following, and find some reason to doubt that the man mentioned 'is not a credible observer'.....sheesh
(I just stole this from Rich Dolan's piece on Black Triangles that Chris Linked on his NIDS papers post)

There is good reason to believe that the U.S. has developed a triangle. In August 1989, A former Royal Observer Corps member was working on a North Sea gas rig about 60 miles off the Norfolk coast. This man, named Chris Gibson, has been described as one of the world’s experts in aircraft recognition, and competed in international recognition tournaments where a long distance shot of an aircraft would be flashed on a screen for a fraction of a second. At the time of the sighting, he was writing an aircraft recognition manual.
What he saw that day was an matte black aircraft shaped in a perfect isosceles triangle, with the nose angle at 30 degrees, in a refueling operation with a KC-135. Two F-111 fighters accompanied the craft. The triangular craft was slightly bigger than an F-111. Aviation writer Bill Sweetman noted that "no aircraft other than a supersonic vehicle, or a test aircraft for such a vehicle, has ever been built or studied with such a planform."[5]

 

[Randall]

Problem is without randi frauds like peter popoff would still be preying on the gullible. Geller is nothingbut a fair magicain.heis jaded because so many frauds have come to him.

That's why I joined the JREF in the first place. I recognized all the positive facets and figured that it was like that for everything. Unfortunately that's not so. It was my experience that there was also a really dark side on the forums.

 

[Randall]

As you said, you feel there's more than science can explain.

In the skeptical community, that's not a fair or qualified position to take. You can't debate something, in a scientific arena, that lacks the ability to generate genuinely falsifiable hypotheses. If something can't be falsified or confirmed, it's A) not science, and B) not open to a debate based on facts or evidence ... All debates between skeptics and believers, given all of this, are literally meaningless, as basic principals can't be jointly defined (thus remaining meaningless, like truth). You can't debate the state of something with no meaning.

As usual you make some pretty good points. But it's not as cut and dried as you seem to believe. First off, the scientific community has its own set of problems involving most of the same kinds of problems we find outside the scientific community ( frauds, bias, errors, politics, sensationalism, etc ). But even if we strip all those problems away and deal only with the ideal of the scientific method, we still find that the line is more blurry than the skeptics want to admit. For example, when it comes to the issue of truth in science, what science is really dealing with are probabilities rather than absolutes. For example if some experiment is done x number of times and the same thing happens x number of times, then at some point it is declared that it is likely that the same thing will continue to happen x number of times out of x number of tries, and after enough tries it is assumed it will probably happen each time the same experiment is performed. However it is important to acknowledge that in science certainty is never a guarantee. This is evidenced most potently when we examine the principle of the Null Hypothesis ( see Wikipedia post ). The Null Hypothesis ( you alluded to above ) was named so by a statistician ( Ronald Fisher ), who developed rules for testing the null hypothesis. Those rules are scientifically accepted and based entirely on probabilities.

Unfortunately for some skeptics, the scientific principles of probability in the Null Hypothesis are often overlooked. Or worse, when they are not overlooked, they are ignored and replaced by watered down versions that suit their own bias in a given debate. This is where most skeptics fail because they know that if they accept the scientific principles of the Null Hypothesis rather than their own watered down and biased version, then evidence is no longer purely material. But the slope gets even slipperier. There is always a margin of error in every scientific experiment. No tolerance is perfect. No material 100% pure. No set of conditions is 100% duplicable. It varies widely from tolerances that are down to angstrom units to variables that are literally as unpredictable as the weather ( Meteorology ). Then there is medicine where anecdotal evidence is used as part of the evidence for determining a course of treatment. Then we move into psychology, the status of which is still under debate. In the end, when the situation is objectively examined, what we tend to think of a "solid science" is far from justified in holding itself up as the purveyors of certainty in truth except where pure logic ( like math ) is concerned ( but even that has more to do with philosophy ). What science can do is make reasonable claims for what the probable truths are based on empirical evidence ( evidence gained by the senses ) and nothing more ... and it's not the only tool for pursuing the truth.

So returning to your statement, "You can't debate something, in a scientific arena, that lacks the ability to generate genuinely falsifiable hypotheses." What are you really saying? What do you mean by "genuine"? What do you mean by "scientific area", "falsifiable" and "hypothesis"? Are you going to define them to suit yourself in each argument? That would hardly seem "scientific". We've discussed in previous posts the scientific validity of the stimulus response as related to making observations. Therefore all observations, including UFO reports can be as valid as other observations. It all depends on the quality of the report. Therefore in an unbiased argument quality observations should qualify as empirical evidence that is of equal value to other kinds of observations. To do any less would be an admission of bias. We've also discussed the scientific principles of the null hypothesis ( above ) which are based on probabilities. So why shouldn't an independent scientific report based on the probabilities associated with observations recorded in quality UFO reports be considered valid? Is it only "genuinely valid" if we're not talking about UFOs? Smells like a "No True ( genuinely valid ) Scotsman Fallacy" to me.