SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[Jeff Corey]

Until I see better research that contradicts what I have already seen, why should I doubt the academic researchers (themselves atheists) who published it? ..

Well, there one exageration there. The first author was not an atheist.

Bruce was an agnostic, which helped him study both believers and atheists with an open mind and an even hand. It also meant he had no belief in God to sustain him when he learned in 1994 that he most unexpectedly had leukemia. He did not flinch, and was quite realistic about his fate, telling friends that no, he was not going to be cured, that he knew the disease would eventually kill him.

From an elegy by Dr. Bob Atlemeyer, his co-author.

 

[Beth]

That the observations on this matter are evaluated against a pre-conceived notion (i.e. the direction of proof is the opposite of what we usually consider).

I don't think that your point is particularly well taken since my observations occurred prior to my reading the book and my observations, if you'll recall, were of hostility, not anger and unhappiness. So it doesn't fit the hypothesis of a pre-conceived notion. My supposition is that higher than average aggressiveness combined with higher than average anger/unhappiness may be why I have perceived hostility.

The information you have provided isn't adequate for me to know whether your statement accurately represents their findings. I trust that that's the way you remember it (i.e. that you are not deliberately misrepresenting the results), but that isn't a particularly reliable way of knowing just what it was that they found.

Quite reasonable. My memory seems to be getting worse as I get older. I'm finding that I can trust in it less all the time.

For example, I don't know if it was based on something like "70 percent are angry about 'the role, dominance, or effects of religion in the world'".

Nothing that dramatic and it wasn't a huge difference. I don't recall how specifically how they measured those charactoristics, though I think they specified the survey questions they based the measurements on. At this point, I only recall that it was a statistically significant difference when compared to the general population results. It may have been correlated with some other charactoristic as well, such as intelligence, but I don't recall now.

You have to remember that I live in the Southeast. This book isn't something that any of my local libraries carry. If I had my Kindle (on my Christmas list), I'd have already answered my question. As it is, I have elected to e-mail one of the authors instead.

It will be interesting to hear from the author if he responds. I hope you will consider sharing it with us if he does.

 

[Beth]

Well, there one exageration there. The first author was not an atheist.

Bruce was an agnostic, which helped him study both believers and atheists with an open mind and an even hand. It also meant he had no belief in God to sustain him when he learned in 1994 that he most unexpectedly had leukemia. He did not flinch, and was quite realistic about his fate, telling friends that no, he was not going to be cured, that he knew the disease would eventually kill him.

From an elegy by Dr. Bob Atlemeyer, his co-author.

My apologies. I did not mean to exaggerate.

 

[Moochie]

"There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . . I have to say it — most of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type." -Susan Blackmore (bold mine)

".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth." -Dr. Richard Kluft (bold mine)

Genuine skepticism is rare, especially in activist skeptic organizations and communities such as this one. Sam Harris has said that religious liberals provide cover for religious fundamentalists. Maybe the genuine skeptics are providing cover for pseudo-skeptics in a similar fashion.

What is all this whining about?

I'd hazard a guess and suggest that most visitors and participants to this site and forum do not possess the wherewithal to "investigate strange claims, try out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves," not unless you mean checking out "altered states" by dropping the odd tab of LSD. Most of us depend on the major journals and organizations for our knowledge of science, and the facts seem to suggest that mainstream scientists are simply not interested in "investigating strange claims," perhaps because such claims merely indicate the claimant's tenuous grasp on reality.

Many years ago, when I was a lot younger and both my parents were still among the living, they and I discussed the possibility of communicating with each other once any of us had passed on. Both my parents have been dead for several years now and as far as I'm aware, I've received no messages from either of them, or indeed anyone else who's died -- including my wife's father who died last New Year's Eve. Now, I suppose believers in unmitigated nonsense such as an "afterlife" will roundly condemn me for not being "sensitive (enough)," and that this is the reason I'm not able to Skype the dearly departed.


M.

 

[Jeff Corey]

My apologies. I did not mean to exaggerate.

No need to apologize, but your error illustrates what social psychologists call "sharpening". It sharpens up the story to say that atheist psychologists proved that atheists were hostile. Perhaps the level of "hostility" was sharpened up, too.

 

[fls]

I don't think that your point is particularly well taken since my observations occurred prior to my reading the book and my observations, if you'll recall, were of hostility, not anger and unhappiness. So it doesn't fit the hypothesis of a pre-conceived notion.

Right. 'Hostility' is nothing at all like 'anger'.

Linda

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
"There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion......" -Susan Blackmore (bold mine)......

What is all this whining about?
I'd hazard a guess and suggest that most visitors and participants to this site and forum do not possess the wherewithal to "investigate strange claims, try out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves," not unless you mean checking out "altered states" by dropping the odd tab of LSD. Most of us depend on the major journals and organizations for our knowledge of science, and the facts seem to suggest that mainstream scientists are simply not interested in "investigating strange claims," perhaps because such claims merely indicate the claimant's tenuous grasp on reality......

My underlined and bold text above.

The underlining and partial bolding of your above comment is exactly the point here: Genuine skepticism is necessarily peer-based, and hence the impossibility of a pseudo-skeptical resolution of matters called 'paranormal/supernatural/psychic/occult'.

A good example of genuine skepticism, as opposed to pseudo-skepticism, is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Brillouin, where the great physicist is peer reexamined and criticized without pseudo-skeptical ridicule .

 

[Jeff Corey]

Right. 'Hostility' is nothing at all like 'anger'.

Linda

Or surprise, or fear or the fanatical devotion to pope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A

 

[tyr_13]

The underlining and partial bolding of your above comment is exactly the point here: Genuine skepticism is necessarily peer-based, and hence the impossibility of a pseudo-skeptical resolution of matters called 'paranormal/supernatural/psychic/occult'.

So only occultists can be skeptical of occultists? So only psychics can be skeptical of psychics? So only homeopaths can be skeptical of homeopaths?

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

[fls]

Well, there one exageration there. The first author was not an atheist.

Dr. Altemeyer is also not an atheist. He describes himself as an agnostic.

It will be interesting to hear from the author if he responds. I hope you will consider sharing it with us if he does.

Dr. Altemeyer did graciously respond.

He states that they did not measure anger in any way.

They did measure how much "joy, comfort and happiness they got from logic and science" and how much they got from "religious beliefs". Atheists received more happiness from logic and science and believers received more from their religious beliefs. This was particularly true for fundamentalists who received almost no happiness from science. Also believers received more joy from their religious beliefs than atheists received from science (he suggested that this was the source of your misinterpretation that atheists are "unhappy").

Some of these results are also mentioned in Chapter 4 of his book "The Authoritarians".

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/chapter4.pdf

Linda

 

[Beth]

Dr. Altemeyer did graciously respond.

He states that they did not measure anger in any way.

Thank you very much Linda. I apparently had misremembered. I was wrong and I apologize for misstatements.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by Moochie View Post
What is all this whining about?
I'd hazard a guess and suggest that most visitors and participants to this site and forum do not possess the wherewithal to "investigate strange claims, try out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves," not unless you mean checking out "altered states" by dropping the odd tab of LSD. Most of us depend on the major journals and organizations for our knowledge of science, and the facts seem to suggest that mainstream scientists are simply not interested in "investigating strange claims," perhaps because such claims merely indicate the claimant's tenuous grasp on reality......

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
The underlining and partial bolding of your above comment is exactly the point here: Genuine skepticism is necessarily peer-based, and hence the impossibility of a pseudo-skeptical resolution of matters called 'paranormal/supernatural/psychic/occult'.

So only occultists can be skeptical of occultists? So only psychics can be skeptical of psychics? So only homeopaths can be skeptical of homeopaths? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

If a 'genuine skeptic' is a 'genuine' 'occultist/psychic' then it is possible that for a 'genuine skeptic', but not for a 'pseudo-skeptic', a question of 'occultism/psychism' can be resolved.

Homeopathy is just a disputed alternative medicine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy.

 

[Pixel42]

They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves

In my experience the vast majority of sceptics have done a lot of investigating and weighing of alternatives, and have reached the conclusion that paranormal claims have no basis in reality. Many were believers of some kind themselves at some point, until they educated themselves. They have usually reached the stage where they are not prepared to reconsider their conclusions unless real evidence is presented. Yet more vague and unsupported claims of the kind they have previously investigated and which proved to be nonsense are simply dismissed.

 

[fls]

The underlining and partial bolding of your above comment is exactly the point here: Genuine skepticism is necessarily peer-based, and hence the impossibility of a pseudo-skeptical resolution of matters called 'paranormal/supernatural/psychic/occult'.

I agree with the underlined part, although I would change it to the source of genuine skepticism, as it makes no sense to suggest that one cannot approach any matters outside of one's peer-group.

I don't understand the last part, though. I don't understand why pseudo-skepticism has been introduced into this discussion or what relevance it has to whether or not peer-based issues can be addressed.

I also wonder if you are too narrow in what you would consider a peer. For example, I don't see how only 'genuine' psychics have knowledge and experience with respect to the capabilities of human cognition. In fact, it is my impression that many psychics lack basic knowledge in this area.

Linda

 

[Moochie]

If a 'genuine skeptic' is a 'genuine' 'occultist/psychic' then it is possible that for a 'genuine skeptic', but not for a 'pseudo-skeptic', a question of 'occultism/psychism' can be resolved.

Homeopathy is just a disputed alternative medicine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy.

I don't accept your definition of a "pseudo-skeptic," unless you're referring to those who accept the possibility that there is such a thing as "paranormal" without having seen a shred of evidence for same. I want to say, also, that if I were a scientist, my urgent goal would be to find cures for the most deadly diseases we're prone to, not the pointless pursuit of the "paranormal." If people want to waste their time in such pursuits by all means let them, but to me, after decades of seemingly unproductive activity in the field, those still attempting to find evidence to substantiate their odd beliefs are at least half crazy.


M.

 

[blutoski]

Genuine skepticism is rare, especially in activist skeptic organizations and communities such as this one. Sam Harris has said that religious liberals provide cover for religious fundamentalists. Maybe the genuine skeptics are providing cover for pseudo-skeptics in a similar fashion.

I'm sure this is true. Again, though, this seems to be skirting past the essay author's implication that there's something different about skeptics in this regard. The vibe I get about the essay, and the follow-up on the author's blog, is that this is pretty much cover for psi advocates to excuse their more hostile colleagues: It's OK because the skeptics started it.

When I started to work with a ghost and haunting investigation team here in Vancouver, I was able to get a glimpse into their community, and it looked pretty familiar. The group I was working (BCGHRS) with were ejected from the more established group (Vancouver Paranormal), because my guys thought that orbs and rods were photographic artefacts. They tried for quite a few years to convince the directors of Vancouver Paranormal that there was some credibility to the claim that these are caused by natural phenomena, and it came to a showdown, and ultimately they were declared persona non grata, and had to form their own group to continue operating.

Knowing how they treated believers with a slightly different view, you can imagine how they treated nonbelievers. ie: not very well.

My point is that I don't see any evidence that there's anything special about skeptics.

Here's an article that just passed my desk: [Fought Over Any Good Books Lately?]

 

[tyr_13]

If a 'genuine skeptic' is a 'genuine' 'occultist/psychic' then it is possible that for a 'genuine skeptic', but not for a 'pseudo-skeptic', a question of 'occultism/psychism' can be resolved.

Homeopathy is just a disputed alternative medicine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy.

I'll be honest; I have no idea what you are trying to say here. If a 'genuine skeptic' (A) is a 'genuine' 'occultist/psychic' (B) then it is possible that for a 'genuine skeptic' (A) a question of 'occultism/psychism' (C) can be resolved.

So if A=B then C, but if A !=B then !C? That means that someone has to be a 'genuine occultist/psychic' to question occultism/psychic claims? That is basically saying that you have to believe in order to say if you believe or not, is that not so?

If that's what you are asking me to believe, pull the other one.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
The underlining and partial bolding of your above comment is exactly the point here: Genuine skepticism is necessarily peer-based, and hence the impossibility of a pseudo-skeptical resolution of matters called 'paranormal/supernatural/psychic/occult'.

1... I agree with the underlined part, although I would change it to the source of genuine skepticism, as it makes no sense to suggest that one cannot approach any matters outside of one's peer-group.
2... I don't understand the last part, though. I don't understand why pseudo-skepticism has been introduced into this discussion or what relevance it has to whether or not peer-based issues can be addressed.
3... I also wonder if you are too narrow in what you would consider a peer. For example, I don't see how only 'genuine' psychics have knowledge and experience with respect to the capabilities of human cognition. In fact, it is my impression that many psychics lack basic knowledge in this area.
Linda

1... One needs the same or higher level and type of knowledge and experience.

2... In the context of putative psychism and related realities one cannot not be 'psychic' and simultaneously be a 'genuine skeptic' of psychism.

3... A 'genuine' psychic, if such exists, would potentially have knowledge and experience with respect to the capabilities of human cognition putatively categorized as psychic, and inaccessible to a pseudo-skeptic of psychic reality who necessarily lacks the same level of knowledge and experience of a genuine skeptic of psychic reality.

It is true many 'genuine psychics' would lack the level and type of knowledge and experience of certain given putative psychic realities with a range or complexity beyond their own experience, just as one possessing a true knowledge of a given level of, say, physics below that of the top scholarship could not be a genuine skeptic of the most advanced physics thinking.

 

[fls]

1... One needs the same or higher level and type of knowledge and experience.

Yes, those people with knowledge and experience at the same or higher level are the source of our skepticism (if we are not one of those people ourselves).

2... In the context of putative psychism and related realities one cannot not be 'psychic' and simultaneously be a 'genuine skeptic' of psychism.

I'd forgotten that you are the person who posits a secret cadre of true psychics.

3... A 'genuine' psychic, if such exists, would potentially have knowledge and experience with respect to the capabilities of human cognition putatively categorized as psychic, and inaccessible to a pseudo-skeptic of psychic reality who necessarily lacks the same level of knowledge and experience of a genuine skeptic of psychic reality.

It is true many 'genuine psychics' would lack the level and type of knowledge and experience of certain given putative psychic realities with a range or complexity beyond their own experience, just as one possessing a true knowledge of a given level of, say, physics below that of the top scholarship could not be a genuine skeptic of the most advanced physics thinking.

I am not an advanced physicist, yet I can understand that it is reasonable to be skeptical of cold fusion, but not black holes. I depend upon the most advanced physics thinking to direct my skepticism without necessarily having the ability to engage in that thinking myself.

Otherwise, what you are suggesting is that a true skeptic holds no doubt about anything except the exquisitely narrow range where their knowledge and experience (if present) approach the most advanced thinking. And a pseudoskeptic is someone who thinks it is possible to listen to the doubts of others who hold the expertise they lack.

That seems to be an outstandingly useless approach to the search for knowledge.

Linda

 

[tyr_13]

A form of an appeal to authority?