Skeptical of the Skeptics

An on-line acquaintance of mine, Trevor Tocco, and someone I connected with through Chris Knowles Secret Sun, wrote the following terrific piece - which Trevor graciously agreed to have us re-print for the Lexicon blog - This offers a balanced overview of the contemporary ‘skeptic’ movement that has dominated certain areas of scientific inquiry. Skepticism has its place when it is founded on the scientific method – ala Dana Scully, the problem lies when such a foundation is built more on a ‘feeling’ in place of legitimate research, and inquiry. Ultimately, the end game, like all others in life should be the pursuit of Veritas. The question that is explored is if the skeptic movement is built upon such a pursuit.

Skeptical of the Skeptics by Trevor Tocco

According to Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, the word “skepticism” means “the philosophical doctrine that the truth of all knowledge must always be in question and that inquiry must be a process of doubting” (“Skepticism”). There is a movement known as the Skeptic movement which prides itself on debunking claims such as UFOs, ghostly phenomena, the occult, and many other bizarre topics. The movement promotes “freethinking” and “rationalism” in its crusade against religious fundamentalism and con artists. Even mainstream science and society has practically elevated such members as James Randi, Penn Jillete, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and others to sainthood. However, even though skepticism is a good thing, the Skeptic movement has taken the word as their own and skewed its meaning. Despite being labeled as scientists, the methodology used to “disprove” such things as UFOs and the occult may suffer from flaws. The same can be said about the movement itself. The reasons for this include inaccurate methodology, the hypocrisy of the movement, and even the scientists, along with sci-fi authors, that the movement frequently brings up would be considered “kooks” by today’s standards. Even if there is no proof of UFOs or any other weird topic, that does not mean we should not be skeptical of the Skeptics.

One of the main problems with the movement is that they use faulty methods and so-called experts. The movement continually cites people such as James Randi, Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens when supporting an argument. However, certain “experts” lack scientific credentials. It is true that this can also be said about fringe research (the actor Dan Aykroyd doing a documentary of UFOs), but when leaders of the movement proclaim themselves to be “experts” (as well as by the media), it should be known if they have knowledge of the subject. Even though Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, more revered leaders, such as Randi and Penn Jillete, have more background in entertainment than science. Randi dropped out of high school and joined the circus while Jillete graduated from the Barnum and Bailey Clown College. “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).” (Alfvegren).

Then there is Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge, a method used by the James Randi Educational Foundation to determine if someone has supernatural abilities. Even though it is praised for “exposing con artists,” there are some who point out that it is a scam. The complaints leveled against it include the length of time it takes can be corrupting to evidence, the fact that all evidence is surrendered to Randi or any other monitors, and even the prize is actually in the form of bonds. Of course, the main aspect of the challenge is “can it be replicated?” However, a recent New Yorker article explains how even this can be problematic: “But now all sorts of well-established, multiple confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology.” (Lehrer). So a simple “background check” can certainly raise questions when the person or group being checked uses faulty methods.

A major concern about the movement is the level of hypocrisy. The movement claims it supports freethinking, but they insult anyone who disagrees with them or they label them as “pseudoscientific.” The movement claims it revolves around scientific progress, but whenever a claim is made that could be a major discovery if proven, the leaders tend to treat it like a joke. Even though there are things that have been proven to be pseudoscience and superstition, other claims, such as UFOs or even magical traditions in some cases, can benefit from research, but these topics are largely ignored. Also, as cliché as it sounds, many major discoveries were considered ridiculous at one point, most notably claims made during the Renaissance. Another hypocrisy is how the movement fights against religious fundamentalism, but it has become no different than its enemy. When discussing the politics of the late Christopher Hitchens, Jeff Sparrow explains that contrary to the opinion of his more liberal admirers, the “atheist Hitchens” and the “political Hitchens” were one in the same as he praised Bush’s cluster bombs. (Sparrow). It seems pretty clear that the Skeptic movement is not based on the foundations of “rationalism,” but a biased agenda no different than an extremist group.

Then there is another interesting point: How certain scientists, and even sci-fi and comic writers, are quoted and praised by the movement, despite the fact that these particular people displayed an interest in fringe topics! Thomas Edison, the inventor of the light bulb, once tried to make a device to contact the spirit world. Nikola Tesla was likewise interested in the weird, up to the point where he has now reached celebrity status in the paranormal community. The movement also praises Sir Isaac Newton, yet Newton was involved in the occult world, notably alchemy. Then there are icons of sci-fi, fantasy, and comics that showed in interest in the paranormal. Even though it cannot be said for all of them (i.e. Isaac Asimov), some of the icons of the genre, notably Jack Kirby, Alan Moore, Philip K. Dick, and even Jules Verne and Edgar Rice Burroughs, displayed in interest in the occult, UFOs, etc. Kirby (Captain America, X-Men, The Hulk, etc.), Dick (who wrote the stories that would become Total Recall, Blade Runner, The Adjustment Bureau, and many others), Moore (Watchmen and V for Vendetta), and a list of others have made marks on pop culture, but what most people don’t realize is that many of the themes in their works are elements of the paranormal and occult, spurred on by their interest in these topics. Of course, figures such as Verne (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea), Burroughs (Tarzan, John Carter of Mars), and most notably Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes) were involved in spiritualism, which isn’t surprising since they were around for the Victorian occult explosion.

Not to mention sci-fi conventions that feature Skeptic tracks, despite the fact that John Whiteside Parsons, one of the founders of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and attendee of some of the first sci-fi conventions, was an associate of famous (or in some circles, infamous) British occultist, Aleister Crowley. Author Christopher Knowles explains in his book Our Gods Wear Spandex: “Although most of us don’t realize it, there’s simply nothing new about devotion to superheroes. Their powers, their costumes, and even their names are plucked straight from the pre-Christian religions of antiquity. When you go back and look at these heroes in their original incarnations, you can’t help but be struck by how blatant their symbolism is and how strongly they reflect the belief systems of the pagan age. What even fewer people realize is that this didn’t occur by chance, but came directly out of the spiritual and mystical secret societies and cults of the late 19th century-groups like the Theosophists, the Rosicrucian’s, and the Golden Dawn.” (Knowles, p.18). Despite the high rate of scientists and sci-fi fans who promote the ideals of the Skeptic movement, many of their heroes would be considered “kooks” by today’s standards. Many would probably ask “What about the lack of proof?” This can be a tricky question. On one hand, there has not necessarily been “solid” proof of otherworldly (or inter-dimensional) visitors or the effectiveness of magical practices. On the other hand, these ideas were spawned by some phenomena rather than simply being randomly thought up. For example, many Skeptics will explain how there is no “solid proof” that our ancient ancestors were visited by “ancient astronauts.” However, the reason why this theory is prominent is not because it was randomly thought up, but because of the similarities between what the ancients recorded and what is being reported today. It might not be “solid evidence,” but it could be evidence of some phenomena. Also, the Skeptics would probably say “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But what classifies as extraordinary evidence? The idea that the earth is round or that humans evolved from chimps probably sounded extraordinary to people. Then there is also the risk of Skeptics claiming that a piece of evidence “is not evidence” and the requirements are increased.

Another question would be “What about how crazy proponents of the paranormal can sometimes be?” It is true that there are proponents of the paranormal that can be “crazy.” Even other proponents will agree. However, that would also mean that the idea that “all paranormal researchers are crazy” is a generalization. An example is how the Skeptic movement sometimes views people interested in the paranormal no differently than “religious nuts.” First, not only is this still a generalization, but certain proponents of the paranormal chose this as an alternative to organized religion. Ancient Astronaut Theory seems to be an alternative view to the ideas of mainstream religion, not to mention the occult explosions of the Renaissance and the Victorian era were reactions to the dominance of mainstream religion. As for credibility, Skeptics like Randi and Jillete lack credentials while writers of paranormal topics do have credibility. Jeff Kripal, whose book Mutants and Mystics explores the relationship between sci-fi and the paranormal via the experiences of Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Whitley Streiber, etc., is a professor of Philosophy and Religious Thought and even Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Rice University. Jacques Vallee, who not only claims that we have been seeing UFOs for centuries but that they may actually from higher dimensions, holds degrees in mathematics and astronomy and has been a research assistant at MacDonald Observatory.

Jacques Vallee

Then, the big question could be “Why does it matter?” Why does any new discovery matter? From the discovery of fire to the flight of the Orwell brothers to the establishment of robotics, there was never really such thing as an “insignificant discovery.” What if we discovered that the beings we call “aliens” were real? Or that we were capable of talents we only dreamed of? Things like this could change many worldviews and, in the process, the world. Whether it would be positive or negative or somewhere in-between is unclear, but it would still have an effect on the status quo.

The views of the Skeptic movement are popular in our society. However, the movement’s claims are built on faulty research, hypocritical ideas, and contradicts the ideas of the figures that the movement praises. Despite its popularity, the Skeptic movement suffers from fallacies and hypocrisy, so who’s to say that UFOs are not extraterrestrial (or maybe inter-dimensional) craft, or that we may be capable of talents beyond our wildest dreams?
  
Works Cited  

1. Alfvegren, Skylaire. “The Problem with James Randi and his Foundation on the Paranormal, Pseudoscientific, and Supernatural.” Skeptical Investigations. 26 January 2006. Web 

 2. Knowles, Christopher. Our Gods Wear Spandex. San Francisco: Red Wheel/Weiser, 2007. 

Print 

3. Lehrer, Jonah. “The Truth Wears Off.” The New Yorker. 13 December 2010. Web. 

4. Sparrow, Jeff. “The Weaponization of Atheism.” Counter Punch. 9 April 2012. Web.

The Value of reasonable "Skepticism"

(Some parts of the following blog might be disturbing for some people, but I hope it will not be misconstrued. This isn’t an attempt to rationalize certain behaviors, but is a call for objective assessment on a case-by-case basis.)

I was working on another blog post, when this recently came to my attention, and I felt compelled to address it. I found within a circle of peers a certain Schadenfreude over the bizarre developments with the "Amazing" James Randi. As well as some bile over Penn Jillette’s skeptical atheist screeds. I’m not a fan of Penn Jillette’s more scathing attacks on various subjects that deal with esoteric topics, the paranormal, conspiracy theories, and the like. I have thumbed through his recent book, and the fact that Glenn Beck is a major advocate, leaves one more example as to why Jillette’s credibility is suspect. But, while I find Jillette’s brand of "Skepticism" to be obnoxious, I can’t discount the possibility that informed skepticism can have real value. After all, Dana Scully was willing to meet Fox Mulder half-way in many cases.

Some of the following points might be uncomfortable for some readers, but I want to address them to illustrate how proponents of certain fields, in countering attacks on their detractors, can end up sinking to the level of the detractors they condemn. The "Amazing" James Randi is a former magician / illusionist, who is a professional skeptic known for being scathing, condescending, elite, and cruel to the people he targets. The latest real scandal about James Randi can be summarized in the following:

James Randi’s partner, Jose Luis Alvarez, is under investigation by South Florida Federal authorities for identity fraud. Jose Alvarez has been celebrated as a plantation artist who has been showcased in Florida galleries, but to Federal authorities, Alvarez is a cipher, a man who might have stolen the identity of a New York artist, and has been using it over the last twenty years. Authorities have been referring to him under the acronym "FNU LNU." Alvarez first began "channeling" the spirit of an ancient "seer" named "Carlos," in the late eighties, for the purpose of being exposed by James Randi. It was an elaborate hoax you could argue, that played out as performance art.

It’s been surmised that Randi and Alvarez have been long-time lovers; Alvarez was a teen when they first met, and thus, it has been inferred by Skeptic debunker Tim Bolen that James Randi is a serial pedophile. There’s a problem here; in studying the evidence that Tim Bolan offers to tag Randi as a pedophile, Bolan cites other encounters with male teens, as well as includes an audio clip of a conversation with someone that sounds about sixteen or seventeen. What is supported by the evidence is that James Randi is by definition a ephebophile: Someone attracted to young teens. Do I condone his behavior? No. Do I suspect Randi has been guilty of statutory rape? Certainly. To counter the accusation that I am rationalizing such behavior, would I ever defend an organization like NAMBLA? Absolutely not.

But I’m a little uncomfortable with Tim Bolan’s angle in so much as that it has a distinct undercurrent of homophobia, and whether intended or unintended is unclear. Many anti-gay organizations have attempted to conflate or shoehorn the idea that all homosexuals are pedophiles, and the psychological data just doesn’t support it as demonstrated from here*. Homosexuality and pedophilia are very different behaviors. Often, people will hide under the guise of ‘protecting the children,’ while operating with a completely different agenda. The entire subject of pedophilia triggers such a visceral reaction, and rightly so, that I have personally observed people’s IQs drop by twenty points, when they accept an accusation based on something inferred at face value. Such accusations should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, the guilty parties who practice such behavior should be ostracized. But the term 'pedophile' has become so loaded and overused to the point of abuse, and the subject has become the witch hunt de jour of the past two decades, that the term itself has become the perfect tool for character assassinations, and there is little critical assessment by the public when the accusation is made. Interestingly enough, the Millennium episode, "Monster," illustrated the witch-hunt mentality I cited.

I realize that what I am arguing here is nit-picking semantics, but accurate definitions, for those who seek truth, should always matter. To those who believe in the paranormal or esoteric fields, it can devalue your cause if you sink to the level of your opposition. While this might be bordering on sacrilege to suggest, is Tim Bolan really all that different from James Randi?

One of the reasons why Bolan’s closing insinuations weaken his earlier arguments in the aforementioned piece, is that James Randi’s past history as a debunker should have been given enough ammunition to discredit him without delving into his personal life. I doubt that James Randi’s work as a professional skeptic has been sincere. There are other professional skeptics who are well-intended, sincere, and are driven by a concern to see that people don’t get exploited by frauds.

A colleague of Randi James, Joe Nickell, has managed to offer an approach to professional skepticism that isn’t condescending to the innocent bystanders of paranormal, unexplained events. While I don’t agree with him on many points, he seems willing to met people half-way on a subject-by-subject basis. Joe Nickell has espoused 'Humanistic Skepticism,' and has managed to define his brand of paranormal investigating as neither "mystery mongering" nor "debunking"” Unlike some armchair skeptics, Joe Nickell has traveled the world and has done field research in various areas, such as cryptozoology. He has been known to chide fellow skeptics who seem to not care to honor claimants with on-the-ground investigations, but as he has personally explained:

"I decry both a credulous and a close-minded approach, holding that mysteries should neither be fostered nor dismissed but rather carefully investigated with a view towards solving them."

While not a scientist, he has taken a forensic approach to his investigations, and interestingly he doesn’t make the mistake of dismissing the experiences of witnesses, and manages to respect their perception, and that their perception has validity:

"I've spoken with many witnesses, and they are sane, intelligent, sober, honest people who have seen something that, yes maybe they've mistaken for something else, but even skeptics have been mistaken."

Joe Nickell’s approach seems to work to his credit, as I haven't found much bile directed toward him. In other words, his approach differs from skeptics who adopt skepticism as an ideological faction as opposed to a method of inquiry.

Of peripheral, albeit fascinating note, many skeptics are former illusionists / magicians. Now it is hard to ascertain if this point is driven by the influence of the iconic illusionist Harry Houdini, or if these skeptics all share a similar mindset that would compel them into these areas.

Perhaps proponents of paranormal investigations should not be as reactive to well-intended skeptics, as they both seek the same objectives–to find the truth behind such mysteries.

For paranormal investigators, there needs to be a filter and a willingness to not just accept things at face value. While I personally might not agree with someone like Joe Nickell, his approach can challenge people to examine every possibility of a subject, even if the answers turn out to be mundane.

Special thank you for editorial assistance from XScribe... and for keeping me honest.

* The following cited represents one group of data that clarifies the debate over why homosexuals are not pedophiles, even legitimate Catholic psychologists cannot make a simplistic distinction on the subject. In the case of exceptions, the statistical evidence of homosexuals being pedophiles is below one percent.