Interview with a Demonologist

[RemieV]

For a while now, I've been communicated via e-mail with Keith Johnson of New England Anomalies Research and The Atlantic Paranormal Society.

When I asked him for an interview for the article on exorcism, he very kindly said yes. Then finals week came, and the article was due, and I never had time to complete the interview.

Well, yesterday, I got hold of him on the phone, and he very kindly told me all about what, exactly he does, and whether he believes there's any fakery on "Ghost Hunters". He was very nice to talk to, and said that I could call again any time. (Yay, Keith!)

Now, before anyone visits, I should warn that with this one I've taken a different approach. I don't tear apart what he told me and demand that anyone reading take a skeptical approach because, at this point, I think most people have realized that SAPS is a skeptical society (and because there is no way to invalidate anything that he said, really, except to say "That's ridiculous".)

So anyway, if you would like to hear the opinions of a very nice demonologist, by all means, go here.

Thanks, and drop me a line if you like at Founder@skepticalanalysis.com

-- Remie

 

[RSLancastr]

Remie, the article reads like it belongs on a "believer" site.

Was that your intent?

 

[RemieV]

Now, before anyone visits, I should warn that with this one I've taken a different approach. I don't tear apart what he told me and demand that anyone reading take a skeptical approach because, at this point, I think most people have realized that SAPS is a skeptical society (and because there is no way to invalidate anything that he said, really, except to say "That's ridiculous".)

Voila!

The intent with this was an interview - to relay what he said. It's completely unbiased. "For once," I thought to myself, "I'm not going to shove in the skepticism at every possible turn. I'm just going to say what he said."

This article is supposed to be a tad more newspaper-style than usual. If I was interviewing for a newspaper, the goal wouldn't be to turn what the person said into what I wanted it to be. It's a personality profile, and has nothing to do with the writer

It is hoped that the article will be read amongst the many that are already there - in which I express my personal opinion quite fully.

 

[RSLancastr]

Voila!

The intent with this was an interview - to relay what he said. It's completely unbiased. "For once," I thought to myself, "I'm not going to shove in the skepticism at every possible turn. I'm just going to say what he said."

I think I understand your intent, but overall, I think the article goes beyond merely reporting what he says, and into stating some of what he has said as though it is a fact, such as:

Demons fall into the category of "inhuman spirits," rather than ghosts, which are "human spirits." The difference is one that's difficult to quantify.

It is not a quote, it is a statement by you.

Same with:

Though the potential for danger is definitely there in his line of work,

and

An individual can be mentally ill as well as possessed, and he believes that demonic forces can manifest themselves even more easily in some mentally ill individuals.

I would imagine you got tired of throwing in phrases like "according to Keith", but without them, or exact quotations, or some comment from you that a statement is contested by skeptics (or whomever), it sounds as though you are stating things as fact.
Just my two cents.

 

[RemieV]

True, though it should also be noted that all "facts" in newspaper articles come from sources. And I say "according to Keith" about nine billion times. But, I'll go in and put a little note at the bottom that says "all 'facts' on demonology, possession, and exorcism were stated by Keith in the interview, and do not come from prior knowledge or research by the writer."

 

[RemieV]

P.S. RSL, check your messages for a lengthier explanation.

 

[chillzero]

I agree with RSL.

This is not an interview - it is an article, with some quotes thrown in. As well as the quotes RSL picked up, I take issue with the following:

Though Keith and his twin brother Carl are billed on "Ghost Hunters" as demonologists, they are more like "lay-demonologists" in that they have not been trained, and do not officially hold the title.

Is there a recognised qualification? I believe that anyone who wants to call themself a demonologist - like a psychic - can do so without needing to verify or justify it.

I've enjoyed a lot of your site so far, but in danger of sounding harsh I found this one disappointing. It does not seem to be written from a skeptical - or even neutral - viewpoint at all.

 

[RemieV]

chillzero,

In journalism, it's called a "Personality Profile". Which is an article that focuses on a specific person, wherein the subject is interviewed, and the entire article is about them and what they do. It is not an excuse to editorialize.

What I have difficulty understanding is why, when in every single possible direction there are articles about why the basis of what he is saying is false, I have to go out of my way during the article to say what he's saying is false.

Please explain.

And now I've added at the very top, in big black text, that all opinions expressed within the bounds of the article are *his*. And again, if anyone is interested in why the basis for what he says is false, they can click on a different article to see that information. That just wasn't the focus in this particular one. This was just to delve into a particular person.

The SAPS site isn't about pushing a particular opinion, for the most part. It's about examining different things, trying different things. Trust me, I get crap all the time for actually paying to see psychics. Well, sometimes people visit the site because they've never been to a psychic before and want to know what it's like.

This article was for those who want to know what demonologists are like.

Though about 99% of the articles that appear on the site are soaked in liberal amounts of skepticism, that is definitely not the only intention. In different areas, you can click to see the opinions of Patrick Burns, star of "Haunting Evidence," a group of Sylvia Browne fans, members of the Church... It's about Presentation/Deconstruction. While for a while now I've had a serious deconstruction of ghost hunting (and of inhuman spirits and what the heck that means) I hadn't had someone give me their opinion on *why* they believed it yet, or what exactly it entailed.


I hope that makes sense. Apparently, lately I'm having some difficulty getting *anything* across. I want the site to be a place for believers or skeptics. Maybe the skeptics can learn to actually listen to someone else's opinion, and maybe the believers can learn something about critical thinking.

 

[RemieV]

P.S. I know it's an article. In the first post of the thread, I say "When I asked him for an interview for the article..."

The reason the thread title is "Interview with a Demonologist" is I am explaining how, in fact, I got an interview with a demonologist, and where one can find the article that is the account of said interview.

 

[Brainache]

I'm on your side Remie. When the guy starts talking about classes of demons or the dangers of seances whatever, I think it's appropriate to assume your readers can decide for themselves. Especially when read in context with the rest of the SAPS site.

 

[Richard]

Remie is doing a fine job you know. I support her and her site. She is letting the other side talk about what they think. I support that.

 

[Richard]

AND.... you know how hard it is to get someone from 'the other side' to have an interview on a skeptic site? Well done Remie. It gives me an insight and I know exactly where she is coming form. So, some of you may not like this or that about the style.. well, there you go. Hey, you set up a site. It's hard work and Remie is doing almost all of it.

 

[CFLarsen]

It is not a quote, it is a statement by you.

I don't see a problem with that. Randi does the same in his Encyclopedia.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

I'm with Remie, also. This is a completely neutral article. It's up to the reader to draw a conclusion. Skeptics are accused time and again of being biased. Well, this is an unbiased article, as stated in the introduction.

Keep up the good work Remie. You are reaching far more people than many of us!

 

[chillzero]

I didn't say I was against Remie, and in fact I mentioned my support for what she does in my post.

I was giving an opinion, as requested. You don't like it? what can I say.

 

[CLD]

Bravo on the article. The professional level of writing is evident, and it's a good example of objective mainstream journalism style. But I can see why one would feel it is out of place on the SAPS site. The POV is strikingly different than the rest of the Remie-authored material on the site, which is confusing, even with a caveat attached.

I think you have a great piece there, but perhaps you have tried to 'force-fit' it into your skeptical site. If the objective is to connect and build credibility with believers and fence-sitters, a better strategy might be to submit that piece to a mainstream or semi-woo site along with your byline and url.

The following is a criticism of Keith, not the author:

We asked whether Keith was aware of any fakery on "Ghost Hunters."

"I myself have never faked anything. I have never been a part of anything that was faked," Keith said, "If I were called to testify in a court of law I could say that I've never personally been involved in anything that was faked."

You asked him if he was aware of any fakery. He did not answer that question, he deftly sidestepped it. Very telling.

 

[Yahzi]

What I have difficulty understanding is why, when in every single possible direction there are articles about why the basis of what he is saying is false, I have to go out of my way during the article to say what he's saying is false.

Because we are human beings.

Simply by giving him a place to speak, you have endorsed him; simply by repeating his words, you have lent your support to them. By remaining silent in the face of falsehood, you have tacitly verified it.

This is how oppressive governments function. Not by manufacturing credible support, but by silencing dissent - which automatically transforms any support into credibility.

I think the way to resolve this is to have two articles; the first one, in which you present him in his own words (without qualifiers, even); and an immediate follow-up (on the same page), in which you present your position. Even if no one actually reads the follow-up, it makes it clear that you have a different opinion; clear in a way that no amount of weasel-words can possibly make clear. Because the point of weasel-words is to register your disapproval without actually disapproving; to conceal your disagreement under a cloak of niceness non-confrontation.

Silence is assent. It always has been, it always will be. To not speak up is the same as to approve.

 

[Yahzi]

This is a completely neutral article.

But Remie isn't neutral.

In any case, we can hardly let Remie get away with what we complain about in the press. Should the mainstream press run nothing but "neutral" articles? Especially when the other side doesn't get its neutral rebuttal.

I would like to present two views of the reality of the Holocaust. Both views will be presented neutrally, and the reader may decide.

For the case against, here is KKK grand-wizard David Buffoon: blah blah blah.

For the case for, here is... oh, look, we're out of time.

They do this to us all the time. And we're right to be outraged. Now arguably Remie's site has plenty of other articles expressing the skeptical view; but I bet you dollars to doughnuts it's only a matter of time before some woo sees the one article Remie doesn't savage and touts it as proof that particular article is true - because it was the only one the skeptics didn't attack!

 

[Yahzi]

He did not answer that question, he deftly sidestepped it.

Which is why a rebuttal piece is needed: to make sure no one is fooled by his sidesteppery.

I hate it when journalists let politicians get away with side-stepping issues. I wish they would just keep asking the question until they got a straight answer (like Jim Leherer did to Clinton way back in the day!).

The job of a journalist is not just to repeat, but to report. There's nothing wrong with letting someone have their say, but if you don't follow it up with an immediate rebuttal, you might as well just be shilling for the guy. Because he knows that lots of people will be fooled by his trickery, and he's thanking you for helping him fool all those people.

 

[Yahzi]

Having actually looked at the piece, I have to say, the headline "So you think SAPS can't be fair" strikes me as pretty confrontational and clear.



Still, I stand by my comments: it is human nature to assume silence is approval. And furthermore, we know from studies that if you tell people falsehoods, and then interrupt them and divert their attention before they have time to fully think about the falsehood, they are more likely to believe the falsehood.

Again, my answer is just have a paragraph at the bottom pointing out his most egregious errors.