Scepticism, woo, magic, weirdness and tinfoil hats
This book review by Ben Six is a lovely thing and I recommend you take some time to have a look at it, because it really got me thinking. It's very pleasantly written as well:
One can only hope that such admissions point the way to fruitful comradeship. Not that I’m demanding limp accomodationism – “You believe in telepathy? Well, I always know when my wife’s in a mood!” – it just seems like collaboration might bust the unfortunate perception that sensible sceptics are forever batting down the potty paranormalists. McLuhan, never rude but prone – who isn’t? – to the odd generalisation seems impatient with the more obdurate critics. At one point he sighs that – like, perhaps, the spoilt teenage girls in U.S. reality shows: huffing that their limousines aren’t the desired shade of pink – they’d nitpick with any experiment, however rigorous. Even if that’s true the goal should surely be to make one’s tests so thorough that complaints would sound implausible to the agnostics. And, hey, one might as well retain some trust in the good faith of others. Remembering the one-time doubters of the early psychics, researchers in speculative fields should be wary of polarizing believers and their critics.
Now I consider myself as a sceptic, an atheist, a lover of science, and all of that, and quite pleased (if not smug, hopefully) about it all. But I think what BenSix uncovers through his review of Randi's Prize is something that I've been feeling in my water for a while (yes yes, I know, that's kind of the point) about the related ideas of scepticism and atheism - I find that, although I by and large subscribe to those schools of thought, there's something faintly unsatisfying about them. I find it faintly unsatisfying, anyway; for others, it may be perfectly fine. But let me try and explain.
Firstly, I don't have a problem with religion nowadays. I used to be a lot more of a shrill atheist than I am nowadays, for which I inevitably offer the meek and slightly hot-faced shameful apology of a bleeding heart. But now, I don't know. I think it is a really important part of people's lives - and I don't mean that in a supercilious "Oh, this must fulfil some kind of cultural/biological need and I'm sure it's a comfort for you" way, but in the sense of feeling that I really envy the joy, peace and happiness that people do get from their faiths and beliefs.
I can't share it because I don't really believe in any god or gods, and that's that; and I don't consider myself less of a good person, or less of a spiritually nourished person, because of my lack of faith or belief; it's just that I think a lot of people do find a good way of that enrichment through the things they sincerely do feel and believe, and who am I to question that? I have to choose a different path personally; not a wrong one, or a less good one, just a different one.
And I'm aware that religion has caused countless deaths, and misery; but faith, perhaps, has not caused so many - the personal faith, the kind of prayer and belief that Jesus Christ spoke about in the sermon on the mount, which is still a text that resonates with me, despite the fact I don't really believe the man ever existed, or was the son of god, or any of that. That doesn't matter: the idea of a personal spiritual relationship with the world is something that can be benign, and helpful, and a force for good.
Secondly, I have come to look at the term 'woo' as something a little snippy, kind of ugly, if that's the right word. You know, the "Oh, you believe in something that's not scientifically proven, you listen to anecdotes rather than peer-reviewed science; that's woo." Well, it may very well be, but I like the idea of being curious rather than shutting things off. I think curiosity is such a valuable part of science and exploration; without curiosity, we wouldn't have the scientific near-certainties we enjoy today. I don't like dismissing anything that doesn't fall neatly into certain parameters as 'woo'; it's a bit confrontational, aggressive maybe. Woo is the sceptical community's blasphemy if you like, and is occasionally pursued with similar zeal. Yes yes, oh the irony, but I don't care about that side of it; I'm more interested in a missed opportunity.
Which isn't to say there aren't charlatans out there, because there are; and it isn't to say that people exploit other people by making false claims, because they do; and it's not to say that people shouldn't be sceptical of claims that aren't proven, because they should. But it's something a little different from all of that. When you look at something like the recent mass deaths of birds, it provokes in me a huge curiosity. How the hell did this happen? How did it all go on? What does this even mean? Is it evidence of something or evidence of nothing?
It's not a short bus ride from there, unfortunately in my view, to the people who will tell you, with a serious and solemn face, that this represents the exposure of a secret weapon, that there is murder and intrigue involved, that this proves that contrails are spraying us with chemicals, and all of that. Can't we find a middle way between the tinfoil hat - to use another pejorative term for folks who take a different view of stuff - and the cold scientific rationalisation? If there is uncertainty and a mystery that can't easily be explained, I find something to enjoy about all that, and rejoice in. With stories like that, curiosity is what draws people in; people like a mystery and something that isn't easily solved, and patting them on the head and telling them we know what it is, even when we don't, most likely frustrates them, I think.
I love complexity and I think that's part of scepticism, if indeed scepticism a type of thought or a way of thinking at all, and I'm not always entirely sure it is. I love the idea that things aren't as simple as they're presented, and that there's always another layer underneath, if you keep digging - it's why I like chipping away at tabloid narratives all the time, to see what's really underneath and whether the presentation of facts stacks up against the available evidence.
I say this because there are, in my experience, things which have puzzled me and confused me and stung my curiosity, and for which I have no explanation. Many people, perhaps, experience similar things, but tell themselves not to be so stupid. And I have no idea as to why these things could have happened, or what they represent, or anything. But all I do know is this: I have known a couple of people, very near to death, who have experienced extremely vivid meetings with their parents, or ancestors, or dead friends. You can rationalise it, if you like, and imagine that's the human brain comforting itself somehow at the point of death; but I fail to see the advantage, evolutionary or otherwise, in that kind of phenomenon. And I have heard this kind of thing from others - experiencing intimate contact with people who have recently died, as if they were still present; or having a sense that someone would die on a particular day; or when close relatives, even when separated from each other, die at the same time; or, more importantly, the testimony of those who are about to die, and what they say they are seeing and feeling. There's a certain amount you can put down to palliative care, or drugs of one kind or another, and whatever, but is it just that 'sceptics' sometimes force themselves to look for rational explanations, just as 'woo' types force themselves to look at spiritual ones?
I don't know what it means or what happened or why, because I have not experienced it myself - I'm still very much alive. You can say it's some kind of cultural projection, some kind of meeting of expectations, something like that, and maybe it is, and I'm not ruling that out; but I am curious. I have a curiosity as to whether that is what it is - and I speak as someone who thinks that when you die, that's that. That's what I believe, but I have these strange events which point in the other direction. That's the complexity to enjoy. That's the kind of complexity that just makes you wonder, and want to know more, and to delve into the science, and the anecdotes. Sure, there are a lot of anecdotes involved with these things, but then that is because we have eyes and ears and brains to process it all with; why have those ways of experiencing the world if you won't trust what they tell you? I find it hard to trust a book rather than what I have seen and heard, and that is why, I imagine, so do other people.
It's that curiosity that keeps burning, and which I don't want to see go anywhere. It's also the reason that, even though I don't believe in life after death or religion of any kind, I try to keep what you might call an open mind. Not in the hope or expectation of ever having the curiosity satisfied, but just because it feels the right thing to do. And despite what I might think about 'woo' or magic or weirdness of any kind, why I refuse to close these things off forever.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Emily on Update
- Angela Webb on This isn’t a flounce
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
January 6th, 2011 - 15:09
Well, that’s you burned as a heretic.
January 6th, 2011 - 15:15
I disagree on one point: something described as “woo” falls not into the category of “not scientifically proven”, but of “demonstrably false”. Perpetual motion machines are woo, as are detox kits, because they’ve been proved to not work.
January 6th, 2011 - 15:18
Great post. There is a huge difference between scepticism and what its proponents refer to in the Americanised spelling as ‘skepticism’. The former is an entirely admirable thing, the latter all too often becomes a *refusal* to take some evidence into account, a shoring-up rather than a pulling down of dogma. The fact that in the majority of cases that dogma happens to be factually correct is rather beside the point – someone who comes to a wrong conclusion by the right means can always change their mind, while someone who comes to *any* conclusion (true or false) on the basis of dogma won’t change theirs no matter what the evidence.
If dealing with, say, life after death, the rational – the sceptical – thing to do is to look at *all* the evidence. That includes reports of witnesses who claim they’ve seen evidence of such things. I think doing so, a rational person will still come to the conclusion that there is no strong evidence for survival after death, but they’ll have come to it *honestly*.
January 9th, 2011 - 23:16
“There is a huge difference between scepticism and what its proponents refer to in the Americanised spelling as ‘skepticism’. The former is an entirely admirable thing, the latter all too often becomes a *refusal* to take some evidence into account, a shoring-up rather than a pulling down of dogma. The fact that in the majority of cases that dogma happens to be factually correct is rather beside the point – someone who comes to a wrong conclusion by the right means can always change their mind, while someone who comes to *any* conclusion (true or false) on the basis of dogma won’t change theirs no matter what the evidence.”
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Thanks.
January 6th, 2011 - 15:38
With atheists, I often wonder how long it would take them to resort to prayer if something terrible were to happen in their lives? A seriously-ill family member/loved one… probably within 24 hours.
Doesn’t the fact that they would give it a go negate any claims of atheism and – at the very least – make them agnostic?
January 6th, 2011 - 16:38
Thats a little bit smug isn’t it? You seem like you’re just guessing.
I can tell you from personal experience that you’re wrong.
January 6th, 2011 - 16:42
Your second paragraph asks a question prompted bya completely invented posit in your first paragraph.
It wouldn’t be any more (or indeed less) relevant if you had used the words “ducks” or “beachballs” in place of “atheists” in your first sentence.
January 6th, 2011 - 17:06
I think that’s incorrect, I’m an atheist and I’ve been through crap and never once did I think “I know, I’ll turn to something I don’t think exists.” Praying has no meaning for me, I can hope for things to get better, but actively praying to a deity I don’t believe in is counter-productive.
January 6th, 2011 - 17:09
You’re confusing “fact” with “thing you have just made up and appear to dearly wish was true” there. Speaking as an atheist, I managed to get through my mother’s hideous and drawn-out death following a series of strokes without feeling the need to ask for help from an imaginary man who lives in the sky. I found it rather more useful to rely on those who actually existed and were readily available, such as my family and circle of friends.
January 6th, 2011 - 17:26
Oh, the old “There are no atheists in foxholes” shtick.
Not in the least bit smug, that.
Also, back to the original post:
Doesn’t separating the choice of explanations into ‘rational’ and ‘spiritual’ undermine your point a little bit? Surely if a supernatural explanation is correct, it is rational. I blame the X-Files for this, but then again, “There’s probably a perfectly naturalistic mechanism for this!” isn’t very snappy.
January 6th, 2011 - 17:30
You’ve made a huge assumption there which I don’t think is at all true… It certainly isn’t true for me. In fact that’s the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, one would resort to prayer in a desperate situation, the other wouldn’t.
January 6th, 2011 - 17:51
I’m an agnostic who prayed when I was in a health crisis (that, happily, turned out to be much less of a crisis than I’d thought). If an atheist had done the same I don’t think it would say a lot about their views. Firstly because I wasn’t acting on the basis of my opinions, I was acting out of panic; someone else might have screamed despite the fact that, if they’d mulled it over, they’d doubtless conclude that screaming is a little futile. Our intellectual positions are at least somewhat distinct from the emotional reactions our environment – from parenting through education and culture – instill in us. Acting on them inconsistently needn’t mean that we don’t believe them. For example, if a Catholic should have an unfortunate meeting with the bonnet of a car his brothers and sisters in Christ would doubtless think it a tragedy, despite the fact that, as far as their beliefs are concerned, he’d be lazing on a cloud somewhere, basking in the divine holiness of the Lord.
Thanks for the link and kind words, Anton (and a very interesting piece).
January 7th, 2011 - 10:57
Well it would if they did but they don’t. Just because you can’t imagine getting through a difficult life event without whichever God you believe in please don’t think this is true for everyone else.
When bad things happen to people in my life resorting to prayer would not even be a passing thought. I may as well decorate my car with shellfish for all the good it would do.
January 7th, 2011 - 12:04
Rather depends on what exactly you mean by “prayer”… I think what you’re referring to is more accurately termed “wishing” or “hoping” – “prayer” implies a belief that somebody is actually listening. Sure, I sometimes use a form of words involving the word “God”, but it’s just a figure of speech, in much the same way that I can call someone a dick without actually believing that they literally are a penis.
January 6th, 2011 - 16:02
There’s a huge difference between keeping an open, rational mind about things that are unexplained and believing in ‘woo’. Indeed, from what I’ve seen in on-line forums of those who subscribe to one or more brands of woo, a more incurious, close-minded lot you would be hard pressed to find. Not only do they hold on to their beliefs in the face of all evidence with all the tenacity of a bulldog but they simultaneously decry other flavours of woo, even (and often especially) those which only differ from their own by a small amount. Their counterarguments rely on ad hominem attacks and linguistic gymnastics, evading and diverting lines of questioning they find uncomfortable.
Lastly, and the thing which really nails it for me, is that they never seek to explain any underlying theory behind their magic. They say things like “I don’t care why crystal therapy makes me feel better, just that it does” and that betrays just how incurious they are. They wouldn’t look, to use your example, at the recent spate of bird deaths and ask “Why is this happening?”, instead they will insert their favourite conspiracy and then wash their hands of it. Birds dying, well it’s clearly God’s Wrath, or the Masons. And that suffices for them as an explanation.
It might be tempting as well to say, “Oh these beliefs aren’t hurting anyone. If it makes someone feel a little bit better, what’s the harm?” but therein lies the danger. By abandoning the tools of reason to rely on ‘gut-feeling’ and belief, we open the doors to the fraudsters and con artists. We get the Daily Mail and it’s crusade to categorise everything in the world as giving or curing cancer. we get the MMR scare. We get people going to Africa and selling CDs with homeopathic mp3 files on to cure AIDS. We get people who believe that those who disagree with them can and indeed must be killed for their own good.
January 6th, 2011 - 16:58
I really enjoyed the article but there was just one small thing I’d like to point out: namely that Jesus was a demonstrably real historical actor. It doesn’t undermine your points at all but you just mentioned that you’re unsure of whether Jesus actually existed and I thought it worth pointing out that the historical consensus is that he did. He appears in a couple of (pagan) Roman records – as do other people like Pontius Pilate – besides the Bible. Anyway, really good article otherwise.
January 6th, 2011 - 18:05
It is certainly not true to say that “Jesus was a demonstrably real hisorical actor”. It is true that the historical consensus is that he probably existed, which is not the same thing, and it is also true that some good historians think otherwise. Certainly the evidence for existence is not remotely as convincing as it is for other figures of the time.
This strikes me as an even-handed treatment of scepticism as to Jesus’ existence (which scepticism I share).
I am not sure which Roman records you refer to.
January 7th, 2011 - 14:46
Actually, he appears in one source, written a long time after the events it describes, and is conspicuously absent from every other contemporary or even vaguely close source. That’s not to say there certainly wasn’t a preacher named Yeshu in Judea at the time, but the way a single mention of the name in an unreliable document is exaggerated to signify absolute proof consistantly annoys me.
January 6th, 2011 - 18:24
On the existence/non-existence of Jesus, an interesting book is ‘Challenging the Verdict’ by Earl Doherty. The Jesus-myth theory doesn’t seem to be widely known even among atheists – I suppose because it’s not really a big deal whether or not a person called Jesus existed if you don’t think he was the son of a god – but it is intriguing.
One small thing – it’s not a bad thing always to want a rational explanation, is it? Do you mean (in 3rd para from end) a ‘rational*ist*’ explanation as opposed to a spiritual one, ie. naturalist vs. supernaturalist? (If I’ve read that wrong then sorry.)
January 6th, 2011 - 19:06
Interesting post, but I think you’re drawing a false dichotomy between scepticism and a lack of curiosity. In my experience the only things that have been dismissed out of hand are the things that are obviously bananas. Sceptics wouldn’t get involved in trying to test these claims if they weren’t curious about what was really going on and interested in applying scientific rigour to them. Of course there are people out there who have gotten their ways of thinking stuck in one gear and allowed them to get rather rusty, but that can be said of any group, so it isn’t fair to point it out in one and hold it up as a specific failing.
Which is why I struggled so much with Ben Six’s article. It felt like both he and the author were using this as a big stick to attack “sceptics” with, taking this loose claim of closed mindedness and (at least in the author’s case, Six seems more agnostic) using it as a shield to protect particular beliefs. A lot of the case stuides Six mentions seem highly anecdotal, and rather old. If these were the big proofs that were being rubbished by sceptics all over the world, I can’t say I’m too excited about his position. I’m not going to argue against any of them myself, but it does seem like he’s working with the same lack of rigour he’s accusing sceptics of.
But I do really agree with what you have to say about curiosity. I think it’s incredibly important to be of a curious mind, and that’s what got me interested in scepticism in the first place. Here were people making all these strange and interesting claims, but what made the whole thing more enticing is that behind them all there were other explanations that were deeper, more complex and more satisfying. I think there’s something amazing in looking into something and finding that the answer is even more odd or exciting than you thought. I’d like to believe otherwise, but from that article it feels like McLuhan wants explanations that agree with his beliefs.
January 6th, 2011 - 19:11
Er, I mean…. Get out of Atheism you credulous fool! (Did I do that right?)
January 6th, 2011 - 19:40
Would it be pretentious to reply? (Ooh, go on, I so rarely get the chance to reply.)
Some of them, perhaps, which is why they’re not enough to convince me. (It’s worth saying, though, that Piper was being studied by professional researchers and Sheldrake’s and the ganzfeld experiments were exactly that. Lots of it is proper research, not just spittle-flecked claims to fame.) On the other hand, a bad explanation for something is bad however valid the assertions it addresses. And if something can’t be explained, even if we’re to remain agnostic with regards to it, one should at least admit to an element of mystery – not spout off, as many do, as if believers in the “paranormal” are akin to Cleetus from the Simpsons (with a pinch of Ned Flanders and a dollop of the Mad Cat Lady).
January 6th, 2011 - 23:06
I completely agree with Andrew above me – I’d be comfortable with the label of s[c|k]eptic and for me the whole thing about scientific and rational explanation of the universe is all about that spark of curiosity; not being content with “it’s magic” or “God(s) did it” but seeking a deeper explanation. It’s also independent of atheism, although the two do almost always go hand in hand. For me, finding out that the universe was created by some sort of deity would lessen its beauty ad wonder by killing off all the mystery.
The term “woo” is indeed derogatory and dismissive, and it’s deliberately so – a lot of the skeptical movement is about fighting the real and genuine harm done by practices which have been scientifically proven not to work (and in some cases to be directly harmful) – chiropractic, homeopathy, ear candling, anti-vaxxers and the like all cause palpable harm to individuals and society and it renews my battered faith in humanity whenever efforts to reduce that harm are successful. Same for efforts to protect people from being exploited by fraudulent ‘psychics’ and the like.
January 7th, 2011 - 23:05
“Finding out that the universe was created by some sort of deity would lessen its beauty and wonder by killing off the mystery”?
Not at all. If we discovered that in fact the universe had been created by some supreme being after all, that would raise significantly more questions than it would answer, and create a much deeper mystery.
By what mechanism did it create the universe? How did it acquire the power to create a universe? How did it decide to make the universe this particular way, and why did it even bother in the first place? And most importantly, where did that creator and it’s own reality come from?
(This is all quite academic though, as all reason and available evidence strongly support the lack of a creator)
January 7th, 2011 - 05:17
To pick one part of the article to comment on:
“You can rationalise it, if you like, and imagine that’s the human brain comforting itself somehow at the point of death; but I fail to see the advantage, evolutionary or otherwise, in that kind of phenomenon.”
Not everything the body and mind do have a direct evolutionary benefit. It’s a fairly common misconception of evolution to claim that everything does need a direct benefit, actually.
January 7th, 2011 - 09:55
Perhaps we can separate ‘woo’ from science thusly:
An event occurs of unknown origin.
Science: Examine other events that occurred around the same time (or even further back) to see if any might have caused it. Replicate these possible causes to see if event reoccurs; check for similar events and cross-check causes.
Woo: Consider what might have caused this event to occur then look for it.
Major woo: As with ‘woo’ but if you don’t find the evidence of the cause you thought of consider that it existed anyway.
Major major woo: As with ‘major woo’ but use the fact that you can’t find any evidence of the cause as evidence itself that the cause existed.
January 7th, 2011 - 23:29
Your definition of woo is, in my opinion, too forgiving!
It would be great if woo-proponents did look for evidence to support their baseless opinions (however they might choose to respond to the results), that would be almost scientific, but they don’t even do that. The whole point of religion/superstition/woo is that they plug the gaps in our knowledge by simply making stuff up, then making no effort whatsoever to consider whether these made-up ideas might be supported (or otherwise) by reason or hard evidence.
Take homeopaths for example. Does the homeopathy community propose that their system works, then make an effort to investigate whether they’re right or not? No they don’t. That would be far too scientific. They simply take a completely unproven and unscientific theory and treat it as hard fact, refusing to even entertain the possibility that they might be wrong. As far as they’re concerned they don’t need to investigate their claims, because they know already that they’re right.
January 9th, 2011 - 23:24
“Science: Examine other events that occurred around the same time (or even further back) to see if any might have caused it. Replicate these possible causes to see if event reoccurs; check for similar events and cross-check causes.
Woo: Consider what might have caused this event to occur then look for it.”
Unfortunately, there are many “skeptics” who (out of an understandable desire to fight against the rising tide of irrationalism) take the second approach to phenomena that might warrant further investigation.
January 7th, 2011 - 13:42
I never like the idea of neatly dividing up ‘rational’ (or natural) and ‘spiritual’ (or supernatural) explanations as though they are simply alternate points of view.
A ‘spiritual explanation’ is not an explanation at all, it’s just a statement that ‘weird stuff happens.’
That doesn’t mean that telepathy, psychic powers, Ghosts, the afterlife etc should be dimissed regardless of the evidence. What it does mean is that if decent evidence is found that shows that one of these really exists then that is the beginning, not the end, of the investigation.
Lets say someone is able to reliably and repeatedly demonstrate psychic powers, then the sceptic accepts that these things are real and looks for explanations as to how. It then becomes a natural phenomenon and perfectly rational to investigate. In the mean time science has no trouble accepting the existence of phenomenon it cannot fully explain – Quantum theory, the Placebo effect, the precise operation of the brain and so on.
It’s rather like the distinction between ‘alternative’ and ‘conventional’ medicine. If it works it’s just medicine, ‘alternative’ is a label used to hide that there is no evidence to support it works. In the same way a ‘spirtual’ or ‘supernatural’ explanation just tells people to stop asking awkward questions.
January 7th, 2011 - 15:38
Well put.
January 9th, 2011 - 00:16
I read science news and blogs because generally it’s good news. It makes me happy to read that someone has been cured of HIV, solar panels are getting so cheap we wont need to dig up coal, there’s life that lives on arsenic, etc
Its a shame that science reporting has to descend to the polemic that we hate so much from the Mail and Sun. “Woo” is up there with “NuLiebor”, “ConDems” and other such shit.