FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS last updated 3/20/00
"Why don't you spend X dollars and learn to do the ability to
do the claim" I already have paid money to learn a paranormal
ability - At first I felt like an idiot because I couldn't seem to do the
phenomena - later I felt like an idiot for having been cheated. Besides,
if people claim that the mere presence of a skeptic prevents paranormal
events - wouldn't it be even easier to rationalize a skeptic's failure
to produce the event. I think it would save time and be more likely
for me to see something if we take an "established expert" and merely
have them do what they claim is easy. I suspect that people paying
a lot of money to see a paranormal event frequently fall prey to cognitive
dissonance where it become easier to just lower standards for truth than
to admit having lost money.
Don't skeptics have a conspiracy to cover up evidence of the claim?. I can't speak for all skeptics, but I notice more of the exact opposite. Look at my web page or email list posts on the subject, I provide links to sites supporting the claims. Most such sites have ignored my polite requests to reciprocate links. Not only that, people who make big money on free energy claims have tried to stop MY information through threats of lawsuits. I've seen much more reluctance for believers to consider counter evidence than I've ever seen in skeptics. It seems to be leaders of the believing side making the real money having the motivation to suppress the real evidence.
Aren't you just trying to destroy this kind of claim? - No, actually if I'm truthful about being willing to honestly look at first hand evidence - I should be the best friend to the claim. If it really works, then people like me should be critical to establishing the proof to make it achieve mainstream acceptance. If the claim works marginally, testing could be the first step to improving performance. Please help me convince the main promoters to agree to more open examination of the claims.
Why don't you read this thick pile of evidence or theory for the claim? - you shouldn't comment on the subject until then I'm already familiar with the bottom line on the topic. For something you can't see, like flow of electricity - the theory can be described on a single page and the description of a proving experiment takes only two more. I'll be happy to go back and more thoroughly digest your material if you can just help me first see real proof of the underlying theory. To me, piles of anecdotes or weak "evidence" is no substitute for a single compelling demonstration. Again, I see potential for cognitive dissonance with people who make too long a journey of study- once you've taken weeks of time, it can be emotionally easier to acquiesce on the subject than to admit you wasted a lot of time.
Can't you picture the wonderful upside if this claim were true and more widely used? Yes, I'm well aware of many examples from history where a new theory was not accepted at first but then became established and greatly helped humanity. That is why I plead with you on behalf of humanity to try to convince the main promoters to be more forth coming in submitting to the kind of testing that could settle the question. Of course if the claim is garbage, one could still help save humanity from some pain and waste through skepticism.
Aren't you just trying to defend the status quo so you don't have to change your thinking? Actually on the contrary, I get bored with the existing laws of physics and would love see a whole new ignored extension to known Science. For that matter, I'd even more so love to achieve a lasting place in history for having been part of an effort to prove it. So I would find it exciting to change sides; but until I see worthy evidence to do so, I'll settle for just presenting a responsible rational point of view on the subject.
Q: How did you get drawn into it? A: I have a long running deep interest in Metaphysics and Philosophy - I also see ignorance at the root of much human suffering. A struggle against irrationalism and superstition is a struggle against ignorance.
Q: Sure, some claims are crazy - But why not just ignore them? A: Neitze and Hitler made the claim that one group of people are vastly superior to the rest. (Hitler was also very much into occult and astrology) These ignored unchallenged claims when believed by the teeming masses caused untold harm.
Q: What's the point of being skeptical? A: The real point is to sharpen your critical thinking ability. With in my company, someone will claim if we make this product with that protocol then we can make money. It is very valuable to have someone who can help determine if such a claim merits millions of dollars of resources. Throughout life it is critical to filter B.S from truth. You don't want to knee jerk reject exotic claims - but you also don't want to get sucked in to bogus ones.
Q: Skeptics have doubted many great discoveries which turned out to be true? A: . . and with good reason. But when things have turned out to be true (like the existence of apes, pluto, w particles etc.) skeptics have come around. By the same token, initial skepticism to recent claims of cold fusion, Hitler's diaries, and a 5th force have been well founded.
Q: Aren't you just closing your mind off to potentially great things? A: On the contrary, we are rare people willing to give exotic claims a look over. We don't want to reject things out of hand like most scientists. We seek the elusive open mind. A good skeptic will simply say, "I don't see enough evidence to believe in . . ." It's best to impartially examine claims. You don't want such an open mind that your brains fall out.. Being skeptical is not the "automatic nay saying of any proposition" (a quote from the Monty Python argument sketch). The cardinal rule of skepticism is that "EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DESERVE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF"
Q: What about religion? Does skeptical thinking apply there? A: Many of us consider it too hot to touch and would rather not get involved. But, skeptics will jump in where there are direct paranormal claims. For example, my hero, James Randi did a great job exposing tricks of phony "healers".
Q: Aren't you totally screwed up to believe in God and to call yourself a skeptic? Maybe, but I'm not out to be "skeptically correct". Most skeptics are atheists or agnostics. I take a bit of crap from both sides. But I think I can help both sides. Believers would be less open to the voice of an atheist. Christianity could greatly benefit by challenging bogus claims with in it (I.E. young earth nonsense, claims of widespread satanism, and phony miracle workers )
Q: Aren't skeptics just obnoxious people out to tear down the hopes of others? A: Many are. Some may get a sick joy from bursting peoples bubbles. In fact I know a number of people who have stopped subscribing to the main skeptical publication because they resented the surly condescending tone. I've tried to encourage members of our local group to show a little more sensitivity and diplomacy. I think skeptics should see them selves as servants of mankind who battle ignorance not people. But, it may be hard not to be elitist and forthright when you've seen so much human misery inflicted as a result of belief in fallacy.
Q: How come I never heard of skeptic's groups? A: Our message is not exciting and popular. Most people have difficulty understanding science and math. The general public would much rather be stimulated with exotic outrageous claims rather than listen to the boring truth. There are only about 100,000 world wide subscribing skeptics. Compare this with single astrology books or issues of supermarket "Alien meets with Clinton" tabloids selling millions of single copies. I'm hoping the rare voice of reason can slowly be made more fun and more widely heard.
Q: Why are you so fascinated with crack pots? A: I've seen so much waste due to irrationality - I've seen friends sucked into ridiculous conspiracy theories - I've decided that irrationality must be understood to be avoided. I think mental illness is much more pervasive than people think. Often the smartest people are most whacked out.
Q: Why do you think people are so easily mislead? Well to start with, we spend on average 10 years of our lives hallucinating (dreaming). In a rough unforgiving world, it's soothing to engage in some wishful thinking. It\ can give meaning to life's insanity. The fundamental behavioral mechanism of higher level beings is opperant conditioning - which is the first step to confuse correlation with causation. People are bored and appreciate an amazing exciting claim, they find science unexciting or not understandable (that's why paranormal books out sell skeptic books 100 to one). Many promoters of proparanormal thinking get rich selling books and are motivated to fabricate evidence. In the case of people buying into free energy scams, there's a strong element of greed.
I'm media chairman of The Philadelphia association for Critical Thinking .
Fortean Times Online
Creator of this page
get on Eric
Skeptic email list