• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What convinced you to be skeptical?

ExMinister

RSL Acolyte
E
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
2,982
This is my first attempt at starting a thread. Awhile back, someone brought up the point that even once someone like Sylvia Browne is shown to be a fraud, believers will continue to believe that there are other psychics and mediums who are real.

I'm curious what it is that finally convinced you to be skeptical about psychics and/or paranormal phenomena. Was there a turning point where you went from believing to dis-believing, and why? For those who never believed, was there a certain person or teacher in your life who influenced you?

For me, it has been a slow process - first my own experience with Sylvia Browne, then researching and realizing that con artists in this area are NOT rare - through this forum, reading James Randi's books and anything I could find to help me understand the world more scientifically. For example, the Bad Astronomer's blog showed me once and for all why astrology makes no sense. Carl Sagan and Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali showed me the damage that belief sans evidence can potentially do in the world. Studying current research on the brain has shown me that there are perfectly rational explanations for astral travel, lucid dreams and the like. I had always assumed that skeptics were only skeptics because they simply hadn't experienced astral travel or psychic ability for themselves! Sadly, many people do think that way. Again, this forum showed me just how un-true that is. I have decided that I do not want to be able to be fooled by the likes of Sylvia Browne ever again, and I no longer am willing to believe anything without evidence, partly because there is just too much deception in the world, whether deliberate or unintentional.

I am curious not just for my own information, but also when someone who is woo-minded comes to you sincerely wanting to know why they shouldn't believe that Sylvia Browne is an exception, what do you tell them? What convinced you personally? Who do you quote? Do you steer them toward certain books or web sites? Do you have a personal anecdote to share of a time when you believed and how you learned otherwise? Do you have favorite de-bunking stories? I know anecdotes are not evidence, but I would still appreciate hearing them, if anyone is willing.
 
Reading "Flim-Flam" by James Randi.

I was actually pretty relieved to find that it was all a bunch of hooie. I didn't have to waste time worrying about all the inconsistencies in the natural world.
 
That the Bible gives the value of Pi as 3 (30 / 10):

2Chronicles 4:2 reads thus, “Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”
 
Even though I didn't believe in god, I thought psychic phenomena was 'worth looking into' for quite awhile. Eventually I realized all the 'evidence' was anecdotal and didn't hold up. I grew infatuated with reason and developed a love for the natural world (genetic and anthropological studies for the most part) while any interest I held in the paranormal withered and died.

For a time I would debunk e-mails of a paranormal nature sent by friends only to find they didn't particularly care and I'd find another such e-mail in my inbox in a few days. So what do I say to friends who believe this stuff? Nothing. I've learned that all the reason in the world can't stop someone from believing in something if they want to believe it. The times I've tried they've viewed me as negative or a killjoy so now I let them live with their delusions.
 
Last edited:
For me, it's been a very long and slow process, giving up one bit of woo at a time over many years. I can think of lots of contributing factors, but I can't point to any one catalyst that was more important than all the others.
 
It's just the way FSM made me.

Actual answer: I like reality the way it is. Once I had some competant science/critical thinking education in college I gravitated toward skepticism naturally.
 
I always questioned things although as a youth I questioned science as much as any other philosophy. Gradually I recognized the power of science over all other philosophies in finding the truth about the world. The turning point for me was learning to accept that I would be uncertain about things. The acceptance of uncertainty was like a big breakthrough for me and did happen suddenly although I had been trying to get there for a while.
 
I spent years with some kind of new age woo-woo, but as much as i tried i couldn't swallow the whole package.
Then I saw James Randi on a BBC documentary who explained the mysteries of some of the woo-woo i liked to believe and suddenly new-age was over.
 
I've been skeptical from a pretty early age. When I was about 11 or 12, we were visiting my aunt and she gave me a book to look at. I'm almost certain it was Van Daniken's Chariot of the Gods. In the book is an X-ray of a rock with something inside of it, supposedly proof of alien contact in ancient times. I remember thinking to myself that it looked like someone had managed to encrust a spark plug with minerals. I wasn't impressed by it.

I was in high school when Sagan's Cosmos came out. That pretty well cinched it for me.

Steve S.
 
I remember reading an article about Randi testing diviners... I hadn't thought that you could test these claims... his whole philosophy of "if this is true, then we can expect this"
was an eye opening experience for me.
 
You'll laugh but it was Penn and Teller's BS. I didn't know much about paranormal phenomena and the ways in which these beliefs manifested themselves today- one way or another- before I discovered the show.

I had very vaguely heard of the idea of psychics and mediums- and I don't think I ever even heard of pet psychics before- and heard about divination and various methods of fortune-telling (but never about the charlatany and almost nothing of the actual practise of it) but didn't have the faintest idea that the John Edwards and Sylvia Brownes of the world existed.

The only image I had of mediumship was as a bunch of people sitting around a table and holding hands and chanting circa 1900 and I really didn't feel one way or another about it.

The show instantly convinced me it was a fraud and that it was something to be fought and exposed. Before then, I simply didn't know it even existed and therefore, could have absolutely no opinion of it. I actually had never heard of skepticism, either, before I discovered the show.

Most of the paranormal, I simply didn't know about, didn't care about or somewhat believed in it but wasn't at all invested in it. I was doubtful of some of it but I was more disinterested than skeptical.

I semi-regularly read my horoscopes and believed in some of it and I was intrigued by the Bermuda triangle and the possibility of UFOs and I did once attempt to learn the tarot. I had heard some of the skeptical point of view on it but hadn't heard most of the scientific, psychological, historical arguments against it and explanations for it but the second I did, I was convinced.
 
Greek Mythology. After reading different creation myths I couldn't help but notice they had as much proof as the Christian beliefs that I was being raised with.
 
I would say it was a few good high school science teachers, along with some sci-fi writers like Asimov and Clarke.
Toss in some natural history writers, and a few good beers.
Stir at will.
 
Penn & Teller's BS.

Even though I had been Wiccan for twelve years I didn't get into the psychic aspect of it; I enjoyed the rituals and did do a bit of candles, crystals, herbs and tarot but not very deeply. I had vague knowledge of the psychic stuff but really wasn't all that interested (much like EeneyMinnieMoe). I was on my way out of Wicca when I discovered P&T's BS. That lead me to Randi, Shermer, Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagan, etc.

So my being part of this forum and going to TAM6 is all P&T's fault!
 
I've always been a skeptic, but the moment that really flipped my switch from a passive skeptic to an active skeptic was a news report about the rapture. It had never hit me before that people REALLY believe they will be chosen and ascend. I had always looked at religious folks as just going through the motions...playing by the rules for the social aspect of their particular church.

Once that switch was flipped, I realized that people REALLY believe in astrology, dowsing, psychics, etc.

Then the frustration started...:)
 
That's a bit like asking what convinced me to be good. ;) Rather than being or not being skeptical, it's really more a matter of being more skeptical or less skeptical, in certain situations, about certain things.

I suppose the best answer is that I am interested in a multitude of disputed phenomena, need methods for weeding out information about them, and apply the same methods that are used for researching any other subject. I also like magic and mentalism, so there's always a tendency of thinking (regardless of subject) "That may seem impossible now, but so does the trick before you know the secret."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom