Debunking Pseudo-Skeptical Arguments Of Paranormal Debunkers
Introduction
Hello and thank you for your
attention. 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
article rebuts and critiques the most common arguments made by pseudo-skeptics
(those who claim to be skeptics but in fact are cynics, debunkers, scoffers)
regarding paranormal and psychic phenomena, showing the flaws and limitations
in their thinking, philosophy and methodology. I’ve listed their common
arguments one-by-one and pointed out the weaknesses and problems in them based
on years of experience in debating and discussing with them. First
though, let me tell you how I came to write this article.
How this article came to
be written
I’ve always had a sense of
adventure and interest in esoteric things. And I’ve always been drawn to
spirituality, religion, and 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 describing my de-conversion
experience entitled My
Rise to Christianity and My Transcendence From It at http://www.happierabroad.com/Christian_Story.htm
(updated version) or http://www.angelfire.com/me2/mccl/index.html
(old original version). Also, I have completed a long treatise in similar
form to this one, debunking and refuting 15 main arguments of Christian
fundamentalists and Evangelists (such as Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis),
point-by-point with scholarly citations and quotations, entitled Debunking
Every Argument of Christians Fundamentalists and Evangelicals at http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Christian_Arguments.htm.
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 against scams and shady business
practices such as extended warranties and multi-level marketing. See The
Truth Exposed About Sears Maintenance Agreements and other extended warranties
(or the Consumer Affairs edited version at http://www.consumeraffairs.com/retail/sears_maint_con.html)
and 12
Reasons Why Sears Maintenance Agreements are a Scam. Also The Truth
Behind the Smoke and Mirros of Multi-Level and Network Marketing.
For my other writings and links, see my index page at http://www.happierabroad.com/Articles.htm.
After my Christian
de-conversion, I found that the Atheist paradigm didn’t have the answers to
life’s mysteries or even to unexplained phenomena, I
knew that its paradigm was insufficient as well. Neither Atheism nor
Evangelical Christianity seemed adequate, but oddly enough most Americans 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.
(Although the main focus of
this treatise is to critique skeptical arguments, some of the evidence for the
paranormal will often be presented as well. If
you have any questions about a particular phenomena or want to know the
evidence for some of them, feel free to email me at the address above under the
title, and I will try to respond.)
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 and educating hobby.
During the discussions and
debates, I was led to skeptical material such as Professor Bob Carroll's The
Skeptic's Dictionary (www.skepdic.com),
editions of Skeptical
Inquirer
(published by CSICOP
www.csicop.org), articles by infamous
paranormal debunker James Randi (www.randi.org), 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 “pseudo-skeptics” because although they pose as skeptics, their skepticism
is “pseudo” meaning “False or counterfeit; fake.” (American Heritage
Dictionary) Hence the title of this treatise.
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. 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.
(As a matter of fact, after
the original version of this article was written in 2001, a skeptic named Paul
Sandoval attempted to refute my arguments by publishing this article: http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/winstonwu.htm
As you can see from it, he simply does more of the same, quoting axioms,
theorems, and putting labels on things, none of which invalidates my arguments
nor erases the evidence for paranormal phenomena from existence. In other
words, he uses labels and semantics to refute my arguments rather than facts or
logic. In a sense, people who do that are “in their own world”, so to
speak. To see a great example of word games from pseudo-skeptics, see my
online exchange with one at http://www.happierabroad.com/skeptic_word_games.htm
in which one pseudo-skeptic on my list was proven to have lied several times
beyond any shadow of doubt.)
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 pseudo-skeptic 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 article came to be written.
The first version of it was written
back in 2001. Many paranormal enthusiasts considered it to be the
“Gospel” against pseudo-skepticism. You can read the original version at http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/winston.html.
This is the 2004 version, which includes many updates and revisions to the
original version.
(Since the first edition of
this article in 2001, I have been interviewed about it on several radio shows,
the most recent of which was at Ghostly
Talk Radio. The show went very well and we all had great
rapport. You can listen to my interview online in their website
archives (In the archives list, scroll down to show number 91 for my
interview). Or you can try these links that will take you directly to my
interview (part 1) http://www.ghostlytalk.com/archives/winstonwu1.mp3,
(part 2) http://www.ghostlytalk.com/archives/winstonwu2.mp3.)
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 contradict the facts of the case. 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 article
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 counterarguments to their positions.
First, I want to 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
pseudo-skepticism. Therefore, let us differentiate between the two.
The true skeptic vs. the
pseudo-skeptic
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."
That definition of a skeptic
fits me and other critical thinkers who analyze both sides in the pursuit of
truth or a broader perspective. Of course, there are many ways of being a
skeptic, and many issues to be “skeptical” of.
Some are skeptics of the paranormal, others are
skeptics of anything conventional – established thought, government, etc. so
not all skeptics are the same or on the same side.
However, the pseudo-skeptics
like CSICOP members and Randi 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 narrow tunnel-view of reality, and their righteous
indignation of what’s real and what’s “quackery” (a word they
love to use). They do not seek to understand, but instead seek to
discredit and invalidate. Their skepticism is what I and others like to
call “pseudo-skepticism”. According to the American Heritage
Dictionary, the term “pseudo” means “False or counterfeit; fake.”
Therefore, these debunkers exhibit a false mask of skepticism. In
actuality, they are cynics, debunkers, and deniers. They deny and dismiss
all evidence, scientific or anecdotal, no matter how credible or plentiful, and
look for an excuse to justify it. They are not about seeking the truth or
open-minded investigations at all, only in discrediting what doesn’t fit into
their view.
Of course, every skeptic is
going to say that they are open-minded true skeptics (just like every
thief says they’re not a thief, every liar says they are not a liar, every high
pressure salesman says they are not high pressure, etc.), but the proof of the
pudding is in their actions, how they reason, and the system of philosophy they
use, which you can recognize from the arguments I outline in this article.
In fact, here are typical traits of true skeptics vs. pseudo-skeptics.
· True skeptics / open-minded skeptics
Typical
traits: honest doubt, inquiry and investigation of both sides, considers
evidence on all sides and seeing their good/bad points, asking exploratory
questions, acceptance of evidence, good common sense, nonjudgmental, seeks the
truth
· Pseudo-skeptics / closed-minded skeptics (also known as pseudo-skeptics, debunkers, hard core
materialists, scoffers, atheists)
Typical
traits: automatic dismissal of all paranormal claims, predisposed to discredit
all testimonials of a paranormal nature, denial of any and all evidence,
scoffing, giving off an air of superior rationality, judgmental about things
they know little or nothing about, quick to draw conclusions without evidence,
using philosophical semantics to win arguments and invalidate paranormal or
spiritual experiences
The late Marcello Truzzi, former member of CSICOP
and considered an open-minded skeptic who always sat on the fence, wrote an
article about pseudo-skeptics
which you can read about here: http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html
One of the tell-tale signs of
pseudo-skeptical 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.
Skepticism should be a tool
and method of inquiry to help one learn things and find truth, not as a cover
to defend one's own paradigms and cynicism. Doubting things and looking
for answers will help one learn things, but trying to debunk everything outside
your world view does not lead to learning. Therefore, the arguments I
critique here refer to the arguments of pseudo-skeptics, not true skeptics.
These kinds of skeptics have
an extreme belief system that is closed-minded and on the opposite extreme end
of Christian fundamentalism in terms of their black and white thinking.
Here is an example that demonstrates this. A popular book among skeptics
is Carl Sagan’s The
Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark.
The mere title of the book and its cover (which you can see by clicking the
link to it) demonstrates this analogy. The world is seen as “demon
haunted” just as in Christianity, with the majority of people living in the
“dark”, believing in superstition and religion, but ignorant of science.
While, on the other hand, those who rely on science and are skeptics are the
“candle in the dark” or the “light of the world” in Christian Gospel
terms. This is the same kind of black and white thinking that puts
everyone into two categories, in the light and in the dark,
that Christian fundamentalists use as well. In my opinion, it’s
unhealthy thinking to have belief systems like that.
It is interesting to note
that while Carl Sagan is a great teacher of astronomy
and science, he has a very inadequate knowledge of 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, however, 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 “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 Carl Sagan who just
dismiss the subject off-hand without any deep investigation for truth.
Recently, my long-time close
friend Michael Goodspeed, a writer and paranormal
radio show host, has done a lot of research into paranormal claims vs.
pseudo-skeptical arguments. He wrote a series of excellent articles
examining both sides and posing challenging questions and arguments to the
closed-minded skeptics. Here are the links to his articles on paranormal
claims and pseudo-skepticism:
Michael
Goodspeed (writer and experienced paranormal talk
show host)
On Randi’s hypocrisy: http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm
On
psychic claims and skeptical explanations: http://www.rense.com/general51/ebramce.htm
On
UFO phenomenon: http://www.rense.com/general51/embr.htm,
http://www.rense.com/general51/seek3.htm
On
alien abduction claims and skeptical explanations: http://www.rense.com/general51/ppr.htm
On
monsters, creatures, and Bigfoot: http://www.rense.com/general52/seek.htm
Michael Prescott, a successful
published author of crime and mystery novels, makes similar analyses of
pseudo-skeptics and their claims in Why I’m Not A Skeptic.
And, one of the most passionate researchers on life after death,
retired lawyer Dr. Victor Zammit (www.victorzammit.com) of
Perhaps Robert Anton Wilson described these closed-minded skeptics best in an interview where he termed them “irrational rationalists” and “fundamentalist materialists”. He writes:
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.
Common tactics of
pseudo-skeptics
In debating skeptics, I’ve
noticed some common flawed tactics that they use. These include:
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 false explanations to explain a
paranormal event regardless of whether they fit the facts. In essence,
cynical skeptics tend to prefer inventing false explanations rather than
accepting any paranormal ones. 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, they don’t accept
anecdotal evidence for the paranormal, but when it’s against a paranormal
claim, then they accept it as evidence against. (an unequivocal sign of bias) (e.g. “Others never
reported any paranormal activity in the area”, “He/she saw something
different”). For instance, when a psi experiment
shows well above chance results, 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 an
online article 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.
(For more on skeptical
tactics such as these, see Zen and the Art of Debunkery and Stupid
Skeptic Tricks.)
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.
The wikipedia
online encyclopedia lists similar attributes for pseudoskeptics
in its entry on pathological
skepticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_skepticism
The difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the conduct of an
individual's actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical
actions are:
1. Resorting to various logical
fallacies (usually in an attack against those disputing a theory).
2. The assumption of facts
(such as, stating theories determine phenomena).
3. The obfuscation of
facts.
4. The use of attractive or
neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions.
5. Insisting that
fundamental framework and theory of science hardly change.
6. Unwavering belief that
science is a consensus and run on majority rule.
7. Maintaining a stance of
hostility and intolerance.
8. Instituting hurdles
against new theories by "moving the goalposts".
9. Ignoring intellectual
suppression of unorthodox theories.
10. Judging a theory or
phenomena without investigation and insisting on ignoring the details
thereafter.
Pseudoskeptics have been blamed for
cases where a scientific theory met a great deal of criticism before eventually
being accepted. Commonly cited are Galileo's
heliocentric theory; the myth that Christopher Columbus' contemporaries thought
the Earth was flat; Alfred Wegener's theory of continental
drift, and pseudoskepticism towards rocks
falling down to Earth.
Thomas
Jefferson himself commented: "I would more easily believe that two
Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven."
A common fallacy these
skeptics make is to assert that those who claim to have paranormal experiences
do not consider other mundane explanations for their experience, and instead
jump to paranormal conclusions. Well that simply isn't true at all.
In almost every story you read or hear about of a paranormal experience, the
claimant almost always describes the possible mundane explanations that he/she
considered, and how they were ruled out before coming to their unconventional
conclusion. It's there in simple plain language, yet somehow skeptics
never seem to see this. What skeptics don't understand is, if the possible
mundane explanations don't fit the facts or are too improbable to be believed, then they can and should be ruled out.
Let me clarify something
now. It is NOT my position to argue that all paranormal claims are
true. It is not my intention to be a defender for all general paranormal
phenomena and claims. In fact, I happen to be skeptical of many claims
myself. Instead, I am for open minded inquiry, taking anecdotal evidence
into account rather than just dismissing it. I argue that the evidence
for any paranormal phenomenon should be CONSIDERED and INVESTIGATED rather than
rejected automatically just because it doesn’t fit in with prevailing beliefs
and world views. I do not claim to have 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 (ESP, ghosts, astrology, feng shui, etc.) have something to them other than mere
superstition, chance or delusion. I go by the simple mantra that “if it
works, then it works” and one should keep at it unless otherwise, regardless of
how accepted it is in the scientific community.
Let’s begin now. Please
enjoy this article and keep an open mind.
(Note: I have assigned
numbers to each skeptical argument below so that I can make references to them
throughout this article.)
Previous
Page
Back
to Table of Contents
Next
Page
