• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Turning skeptics into believers

Tamazon said:
Sorry, but I just had to have a little rant on something.

Almost every news piece I read or see on TV about paranormal stuff states something along the lines of how so many skeptics have turned into believers just because they went to a haunted building or saw some pyschic. Arg! It's just flat out lying or the "skeptics" weren't very skeptical to begin with to be convinced so easily.
Click to expand...

It's a hard word to pin down, so this can happen with all sincerity. I usually interpret it to mean that the person was skeptical about this particular issue. As opposed to skeptical in general.

Again: we're all like this, to some degree. I had a coworker who was a naturopath that focused on herbalism. Homeopathy, to her, was obviously a scam. Acupuncture, on the other hand, was legit. She felt it was scientifically proven, and this was important to her assessment of the credibility of the modality, because she respected science. Is this person a skeptic? Not in my opinion. But she has most of the attributes.
 
Tamazon said:
Here's the whole article if anyone wants to lose some brain cells. Not sure how long the link will work though.
Click to expand...
I had to use the archives: http://cgi.bowesonline.com/pedro.php?id=10&x=story&xid=264761

I'd write a letter to the editor to complain but I'm really not that eloquent
Click to expand...
You don't need to be eloquent. Just honest. Just write and say, "Is that really true?"

Here's my letter:
Angry Yahzi Dog said:
I realize you are writing for the Entertainment section, but does that automatically resolve you of all journalistic requirments?

Jackie Stewart claims to have seen thousands of clients turn from skeptics to believers. Did you obtain any verification of this claim before you repeated it as fact?

There is one easy way for Stewart, or any psychic, to convert millions of skeptics into believers in an afternoon. I refer you to the James Randi Educational Foundation Challenge; wherein Mr. Randi will pay $1,000,000 to anyone who can do anything paranormal. Mr. Randi has the support and respect of too many prestigious scientists to name; he has been a recipient of the McArthur award for his efforts at educating the public; he has been a professional magician for half a century, a guest on the Tonight show too often too recount, and he knows every trick of the trade. Which is precisely why psychics flee him like rats from a giant-rat killing terminator robot.

Can you explain to me why you did not ask Mrs. Stewart why she has not claimed the million dollars? For that matter, can you explain why you did not ask Ms. Stewart to provide any scientific credentials of her claim whatsoever? Since when did your job turn into free advertising by simply parroting what the client says, without even questioning it?
Click to expand...
This is the same tone that got me into trouble with the Phoenix Entertainment write. In sheer point of fact, the job of the Entertainment editor is to provide free advertising, but they hate it when you rat them out as a corporate shill.


And to his editor, Andrew Thomson:
I find it necessary to object to Michael Spears piece, "Tips to enjoy your reading — a psychic fair primer," on Tuesday, October 31.

Mr. Spears repeats outlandish claims as if they were true, without the slightest attempt to verify them.

Please consider the following situation: suppose I were to claim I could turn a pumpkin into a dragon, and then cause it to give $100 bills to everyone in the audience. Suppose I was selling tickets to my next performance for $50 (have to pay for the pumpkin, you know). Would you consider it good journalistic ethics to repeat my advertising claims without investigation, or even question?

How is what Mr. Spears did for Jackie Stewart any different?
Click to expand...
It's not that I object to corporate shills. I just object to shills who pretend to be journalists.

And to their publisher, Wayne Jobb:
I have a wonderful idea for your newspaper. On October 31 your entertainment writer, Michael Spears, wrote a piece about a local psychic, Jackie Stewart, who claims to be able to convince skeptics of her powers.

James Randi, the venerable magician, has a standing challenge - $1,000,000 for any psychic who can demonstrate any paranormal power.

Put together, these two represent a fantastic publishing oppourtunity.

If Mrs. Stewart could actually perform under scientifically controlled conditions (i.e. all possiblity of cheating removed), she would win a million dollars... and your newspaper would be the one to break the biggest story since the resurrection of Jesus. Richard Feynman got a Noble prize for drawing some funny diagrams; imagine how the scientific would would react to proof of paranormal powers. Imagine your paper being referenced and quoted by every news source on the planet.

On the other hand, if she cannot do as advertised, then alerting your readers to the fact that she is a fraud is exactly the kind of public service newspapers are supposed to provide. Don't you investigate plumbers and auto mechanics that swindle their customers? How is this any different?

If I can be of any assistance in helping your newspaper arrange this publishing event, please let me know. Or you may contact James Randi directly at http://www.randi.org/jref/media.html.

I look forward to the conclusion of this exciting milestone in history.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
T'ai Chi said:
Which raises the question of how to we know that other people claiming to be skeptics aren't really skeptics?

Or does the word skeptic only mean that one is skeptical in at least one area (and not 'I follow the lines that organized skeptical organizations do')? That would clear up the descrepancy.
Click to expand...

You could always see if they float.
 
Maybe it would help if we knew the actual names of these 'orgainzed skeptical organizations'? By the way, where did that phrase come from, the Department of Redundancy Department?
 
bjb said:
Maybe it would help if we knew the actual names of these 'orgainzed skeptical organizations'? By the way, where did that phrase come from, the Department of Redundancy Department?
Click to expand...

We've been down this road before. Seriously, man: do you think anybody on this forum believes you have never heard of skeptical organizations?

A few off the top of my head:

  • The Skeptics' Society
  • The New England Skeptics' Society
  • Australian Skeptics
  • UK Skeptics
  • CSICOP
  • Arcesilaus' (Plato's revived) Academy in Athens

Here in Canada:
  • Skeptics Canada
  • Ontario Skeptics
  • Ottawa Skeptics
  • Quebec Skeptics
  • BC Skeptics
  • UBC Skeptics

D'oh! - I almost forgot one:
  • JREF
 
I think they use "skeptics" the same way all those reader comments on the skeptic's dictionary website use it. You know, "I've always been a skeptic, but one time I had this paranormal experience. . . ."

You know the kind of skeptic that isn't skeptical.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think they use "skeptics" the same way all those reader comments on the skeptic's dictionary website use it. You know, "I've always been a skeptic, but one time I had this paranormal experience. . . ."

You know the kind of skeptic that isn't skeptical.
Click to expand...

Sure, but even among skeptics, there's disagreement about what the term means. I'm personally willing to admit that at this point any attempt to enforce one definition on 'skeptics' is doomed.

Nevertheless, I have tried to break it down into subcategories (and it makes me unpopular, because it appears that skeptics love to analyze everybody else but themselves). For what it's worth, many of these subcategories represent schisms that go back a very long time.

  • classical skeptics of the first type (Phyrro): "all arguments are weak"
  • classical skeptics of the second type (Arcesilaus): "some arguments are stronger than others"
  • modern skeptics: "if it fails scientific testing, it's bunk; otherwise, we'll have to think about it in terms of metaphysics"
  • pseudoskeptics: "it sounds so ridiculous that I'm declaring it bunk a priori"

I like to think I fall in the third category. I imagine every skeptic does.
 
blutoski said:
Sure, but even among skeptics, there's disagreement about what the term means. I'm personally willing to admit that at this point any attempt to enforce one definition on 'skeptics' is doomed.

Nevertheless, I have tried to break it down into subcategories (and it makes me unpopular, because it appears that skeptics love to analyze everybody else but themselves). For what it's worth, many of these subcategories represent schisms that go back a very long time.

  • classical skeptics of the first type (Phyrro): "all arguments are weak"
  • classical skeptics of the second type (Arcesilaus): "some arguments are stronger than others"
  • modern skeptics: "if it fails scientific testing, it's bunk; otherwise, we'll have to think about it in terms of metaphysics"
  • pseudoskeptics: "it sounds so ridiculous that I'm declaring it bunk a priori"

I like to think I fall in the third category. I imagine every skeptic does.
Click to expand...

We may not be able to agree on what skepticism is, but I think we can all agree on what it isn't. The very first step in skepticism is asking one's self, "Am I being fooled by what is being presented." Your "modern skeptic" definition attempts to answer that question every single time. The whole point behind the scientific method is that we are very good at fooling ourselves. People who don't list "I am being fooled" among the possible explanations for a perceived "strange" event aren't practicing skepticism whether they call themselves skeptics or not. As a previous poster pointed out, these people are using the word "skeptical" only to mean that they didn't believe until they did, not that they applied skepticism to come to the beliefs they now hold.

Through some informal research, I've identified some common elements to "I used to be skeptical until..." claims:

1) Some part of the events related will not have been observed by the "skeptic", but rather related to him by someone who "has no reason to lie."

2) Some of the events that he did witness can have mundane explanations that he will not have looked for.

3) Of the witnessed events that don't have readily available mundane explanations, deliberate fraud is immediately discounted by him because the person who could have acheived it "had no reason to lie" or "wouldn't do that".

4) Very many of them end with the phrase "I'm not saying it definitely was X, but I don't know what else it could have been."

As skeptics, we have to discount these claims because a) he could be lying/wrong and, more importantly, b) he did nothing to discount the possibility that he was being fooled. In the case of 4), the simple answer is "because you didn't look for anything else," or if he has, he's assumed that not being able to find a way the event could have been staged means there isn't one. He's violated the first rule: he assumed he wasn't being fooled, either by someone else or by himself. No skeptic, he.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom