From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 23:45:47 MDT
By Greg Taylor of The Daily Grail - The beginnings of a book
manuscript, "Debunking for Dummies."
Looking for a new hobby? Why not try 'debunking', which seems to be
growing in popularity and requires little except a narrow viewpoint
and a handful of faulty arguments. Let's be clear from the outset
though - we mustn't confuse debunking with 'skepticism'. The latter
requires broad knowledge, critical thinking, and the ability to
doubt your own viewpoint as much as any other. Obviously a much
tougher proposition, as the lack of true proponents shows, so I
would advise against trying this unless you are a serious masochist,
or at the very least a true seeker of knowledge.
The first step in becoming a debunker is to immediately relinquish
that title and establish your credentials by calling yourself either
a skeptic or a scientist. Never mind that you are actually trying to
impose your personal viewpoint on others, rather than following the
scientific process and applying critical thinking to all sides of
the argument. Actually, the best debunkers are those that don't even
know their true identity, having such poor critical thinking skills
that they truly believe that that they are exhibiting all the open-
mindedness and mental sharpness of the true skeptic or scientist. As
such, some might reprimand me for writing this short article, seeing
it as a hazard to the serious debunker's faith in themselves -
little chance of this however, as the real top-notch debunkers have
a force-field of ignorance that is nigh impenetrable.
Okay, next you'll need a few handy tools. The best method, being a
pseudo-skeptic, will be to take some of the skeptic's best tools and
misuse them. First up, that venerable favourite, Occam's Razor,
which implies that the simplest explanation is often the best. The
trick for the debunker is to take Occam's Razor and use it not as a
handy rule of thumb to aid critical thinking, but instead to impose
it as a literal and immutable law of the universe which immediately
destroys your opponent's arguments. Don't worry that complicated
things happen all the time, thus disproving the 'Law of Occam'. That
would make things complicated.
Just in case you're caught without your bag of tricks, and cornered
by a rabid pack of irrational pseudo-scientists, I recommend busting
out a move I like to call 'The Extraordinary Sagan'. Espouse with
great enthusiasm that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence'. Ignore the fact that a true scientist would say that all
claims require the same proportion of evidence. Someone might even
point out this statement isn't meant to be taken literally, but
should be seen in terms of the acquired evidence of human experience
(e.g. if you know from past experience throughout your life that a
ball falls down when you drop it, and then someone says their ball
fell 'up' yesterday, you would require evidence of a proportion to
prove this singular event over the accumulated evidence of your life
experience). The best thing is, you can apply this to all sorts of
things inappropriately, like the discovery of a secret chamber, lost
city, or lost knowledge, where the application of acquired knowledge
is virtually without merit.
There are plenty of other tools and techniques to be had, and
mastered, with a minimum of effort. Found a fraud, or a badly
performed experiment? Immediately use "guilt by association" to
apply this judgement to all researchers and theories in this
particular line of inquiry. Did somebody earn some money, or at
least get a small grant for their research? Obviously, you can tar
them with the brush of the con-man, or at the very least label them
opportunists, who are not at all interested in scientific integrity
(because we all know that scientists and skeptics don't make any
money). The following chapters outline the best methods(1)
Okay, so I'm being facetious. Satire can sometimes provide the
harshest realisations, and with my use of it here I expose my
particular prejudice and desire - namely to remove the debunker's
smug air of respectability and intellectual superiority, and expose
them for what they really are: a pseudo-skeptic. I'm playing on the
title of 'pseudo-scientist', of course, a term which every pseudo-
skeptic is quick to label their adversary with when their arguments
are starting to fail. The problem in this case, is that the pseudo-
skeptic has as much understanding of 'science' as they do
of 'skepticism' - very little at all.
The derivation of the word science comes from the Latin scientia,
meaning 'knowledge'. Science has always been, at its core, the
search for knowledge. Early Indian science is seen as including such
things as yoga, which was a systematic approach to gaining knowledge
about the mind, and the relationship between consciousness and the
cosmos. Early Greek science was influenced by Pythagorean thought;
that there is a correspondence between the workings of the human
mind and nature, through numbers and music. Indeed, most sciences
began as a mode of inquiry into man's place within the cosmos. Human
consciousness was obviously of high importance - from yoga and
Pythagorean thought, through to the Kabbalah and magic, throughout
the ages man has developed systems of mapping and exploring
consciousness and has held the knowledge gained through these
practices in the highest regard. If science truly is a search for
knowledge, one might ask who has more right to be called a
scientist - a Kabbalist or a taxonomist?
The modern conception of science, which the debunker holds so dear,
is based upon a particular branch of science which has become
dominant over the past four centuries. To grossly simplify
historical developments, the physics of Newton and the philosophy of
Descartes combined with other factors during the 'Enlightenment', to
give central importance of one strand of science - modern science,
as we know it. This science is basically physicalism - "the belief
that reality is reducible to certain kinds of physical entities"(2)
(and if you want illustration of this, ask a group of physicists and
chemists whether psychology is a science). With this newly dominant
science came 'the scientific method'. Many people are surprised to
learn that the scientific method is not a gift from god which
determines whether something is 'scientific' - it is actually one
method of gaining results, amongst a number of possible others (put
forward throughout history, from the Gnostics through to Karl
Popper). The fact cannot be overstated - the modern scientific
method which the pseudo-skeptic virtually deifies, is simply one
particular method of revealing information about one particular type
of knowledge.
A first criticism of this deified science, which pseudo-skeptics
fail to grasp, is that although modern science is a mode of
knowledge which is particularly conducive to maintaining bodily
survival, it is not as helpful with the actual 'living' part.
Physicalism trivialises the human experience, reducing it to the
interactions of chemicals and 'pure physics', leaving no room for a
spirit or soul. An example is in the 'scientific' explanations for
NDE's (Near Death Experiences) - as much as someone who has
experienced an NDE may be told various possible physical reasons for
the onset of an NDE, very rarely do they hold much weight. The
awareness that occurs during such events is not something that can
be described by a physical process, hence the ineffability of the
event. To quote the aviator Charles Lindbergh, in relation to an OBE
(Out of Body Experience) he had during his 1927 transatlantic
flight: "My visions are easily explained away through reason, but
the longer I live, the more limited I believe rationality to be"(3).
Another problem with the modern scientific viewpoint is that too
often it is considered complete. A cursory glance at the history of
science shows, however, that this assumption has been wrongly held
throughout the ages. Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigm changes has
gained quite a high level of acceptance, yet the pseudo-skeptic's
ignorance of examples throughout history has led to some very flawed
thinking. For example, in a recent article in the New York Times,
Lawrence M. Krauss argued:
"How often have I heard the cry from the audience, 'Yeah, but 300
years ago people would have said it would be impossible to fly!'the
problem with that assertion is that 300 years ago people did not
know enough about the laws of physics to make the assertion, so the
claim would have been improper."(4)
One wonders whether it crossed Mr Krauss' mind that in 300 years
time, someone much like himself might be writing about him in the
same terms?
Two of the most famous examples of paradigm changes are Copernicus'
heliocentric model and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. However,
there are other smaller examples: for instance, the distinguished
medical journal Lancet once described hypnotic subjects as trained
criminals who were paid for their stage acting(5). Other anomalies
that were once 'fiction' include ball lightning and meteorites. Of
course, it has to be noted that for every 'vindicated anomaly',
there are thousands of misconceptions, wishful thoughts, and
outright frauds. This never invalidates investigation of anomalous
data though, as most pseudo-skeptics would have us believe. Niels
Bohr summed it up perfectly, when he said "the task of science is
both to extend the range of our experience and to reduce it to
order"(6). Science requires both speculation and methodical
examination to evolve, and to deny either is madness.
At this point, perhaps a quick caution to the pseudo-scientist is
necessary: you are on a downward spiral into nazism and other
nastiness. Or apparently so, according to the debunking fraternity.
The BBC's Horizon feature titled "Atlantis Uncovered" warned against
this 'fact'(7), portraying fringe thinking as a descent into
irrational thought, and ultimately (of course!) National Socialism.
Similarly Michael Shermer, in "Why People Believe Weird Things:
Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of our Time",
states "today's paranormal beliefs probably seem relatively
harmless. They are not. The reason is that if someone is willing to
accept such claims on nonexistent evidence, what else are they
willing to believe?"(8). This sort of thinking is nonsensical, as
similar outcomes can be assigned to nearly any type of human
endeavour. As physicist Henry Stapp argues, physicalist science on
its own is dangerous, because it leaves "no rational basis for
anything but self-interest the collapse of moral philosophy is
inevitable"(9).
But maybe the pseudo-skeptics are just referring to all those
everyday crazy people out there, with nothing better to do but
believe in pseudo-science and polish their jack-boots. Surely they
think more of actual scientists who investigate anomalies with an
open mind? Not so, apparently, if we look at the evidence in James
('The Amazing') Randi's attack on Dr Gary Schwartz of the University
of Arizona, who upset the gods of debunking by being foolish enough
to initiate a scientific study of 'psychic' John Edwards (which is
odd, seeing as one of the core values of those gods' magazine of
choice, Skeptical Inquirer, is "freedom of thought and
inquiry"(10)). In this 'debate', Randi twists words to name Schwartz
as a believer in the tooth fairy, and resorts to about every trick
written in the pseudo-skeptic's handbook. The reader may want to
view a complete transcript of the dialogue at the "Debunking the
Debunkers" website (11), which shows clearly where any irrationality
lies. Interestingly, Randi only published his 'devastating critique'
on his website (12), and not the responses, explaining that Dr
Schwartz had "issued frenzied responses to my comments, which I am
tempted to publish here, but that would make a very long document
indeed".
So what drives the pseudo-skeptic to such extraordinary lengths? Why
do they attack their 'enemy' with such ferocity, and accusations of
nazism and other name-calling?
A primary motivation of the debunker would seem to be, quite simply,
jealousy. I've grown weary of the number of times I've been told how
unfair it is that Graham Hancock has experienced such success. But
don't mistake this jealousy as simply being in terms of personal
gain. James Alcock writes in Skeptical Inquirer:
"rather than honouring science, the public is generally disdainful
of both science and scientist, while welcoming to their bosom the
purveyors of magic, shamanism, and supernaturalism" (13)
One pertinent point to note from this statement is how pseudo-
skeptics always talk in terms of how the general public needs to be
told what is best for them (by the pseudo-skeptic of course). And
yet they wonder why the public is disdainful. The other point is
that the jealousy of the debunker has at its root their deep-seated
desire to have their particular worldview validated.
So what is the underlying reason for the debunkers position? Why do
they feel the need to "portray science not as an open-minded process
of discovery, but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery"
(14)? The obvious conclusion is that behind this behaviour lies a
large amount of insecurity. In particular, anxiety that a carefully
constructed world-view, which helps them to make sense of the world
and also often bestows upon them a position of power, may be
dismantled at any moment. Any attempts by 'pseudo-scientists' to
investigate outside this world-view are regarded as a threat, an
attempt to pull the comfortable rug out from beneath the debunker's
feet. As much as the true skeptic harbours doubts about their
stance, the debunker attempts to convince themselves and others,
through any means possible, that they are right. How can the
debunker, therefore, ever be considered anything more than a pseudo-
skeptic.
That's not to say, however, that criticism of alternative theories
is incorrect or somehow morally wrong in any way. Ideas and theories
should always be questioned, but in a respectful manner, and with
the humility to realise that any position may prove to be completely
incorrect. We should always question what we believe, and also why
we do so. In the end though, it is each person's inalienable right
to construct a view of the world which fits the evidence of their
experience best, and helps them to understand the world. The
debunker does not believe in this philosophy however, and feels the
need to impose their personal viewpoint upon others. It is high time
that all parties showed more respect for philosophies different to
theirs, and made an attempt to understand them. If the pseudo-
skeptic does not take my word for it, perhaps they'll listen to
James Alcock, who wrote in Skeptical Inquirer (with the emphasis
added being mine) "we may differ in our assumptions about the
underlying nature of reality, but we are much the same as each
other" (15).
-- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1@msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 23:57:40 MDT