Yesterday, I read a fascinating article by a Vinstonus Wu in Atlantis Rising magazine (get your copy as a downloadable PDF for just $2.95 from http://www.atlantisrising.com/index.shtml – great issue this month #77). The article talks about pseudo-skeptics, those people who make a good living by going on TV and getting paid to debunk anything that can’t be nailed down by geometry or trig, or replicated in a laboratory.
Then, later I was in the Pioneer Saloon (see previous post), telling a guy about the subject of my books and learned he was from the “Death Is Oblivion” School. He also denounced reincarnation, and wasn’t amused when I assured him that he would believe in his next life. But when he got into his “The Bible is the infallible word of God” spiel, I said to myself, “Save your breath, Tony.”
Wu's debunking article talked about the standard kneejerk responses these people use to dismiss solid evidence of phenomena such as survival of death and NDEs. These tactics include:
1) Ignoring facts and evidence that don’t fit into their preconceived world view, rather than updating their beliefs to conform to the facts, which is more logical, (e.g., “I don’t think it can be real, therefore it isn’t!”), as used by the Church to throw Galileo in jail for saying the Earth orbits the Sun.
2) Creating forced and false explanations for paranormal phenomena without regard to whether the facts have been explained. In other words, cynical skeptics prefer to invent false and inadequate explanations such as, “He’s just cold reading,” rather than to accept any paranormal ones.
3) Moving the goal posts or raising the bar whenever their criteria for evidence are met. When you give them what they want, but they demand more, such as replication in another session. They don’t realize that in metaphysics, results depend on the people, how they are feeling that day, and even what they had for breakfast. It also matters whether the researcher is pro, con or neutral towards the subject.
4) Using double standards in what will be accepted as evidence. Anecdotal evidence for the paranormal will not be accepted, they say, because they consider it unreliable, but then they turn around and use anecdotal evidence themselves.
5) When your evidence can’t be explained away, they will attack your character and undermine your credibility. This tactic has been frequently used with the direct eyewitnesses of the 1947 Roswell UFO crash.
Of course, their cynical skepticism serves to keep those of us in this work on point, so we don’t get sloppy and vulnerable to criticism, or fail to use due discernment. So, I hear their dismissals, smile and write another blog post.
This little gem is to be found on this site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vks49Bfn544
"What
skeptics fail to understand is that skepticism involves being skeptical of your
own position, it does not mean just being skeptical of that which you do not
believe in, otherwise we are all skeptics and that renders their use of the term 'skeptic' meaningless. A true skeptic casts skepticism on their own position as
well. Since the Randi crowd do not employ skepticism in this respect then they
are fairly termed pseudo skeptics and demean the term skepticism."
Wu's article doesn’t, however, discuss why the debunkers do what they do. They claim to be protecting the naïve from all the woo-woo, but I believe it’s because they are scared that if truths like this blog are true, then they have to step up and be accountable to their own soul, and that thought brings up a lot of fear in them. So they go to incredulous lengths to nay-say the prospect. It’s time they woke up to Occam’s Razor, which says, “The simplest explanation is the most likely.”
I recall the incredible lengths to which John Edward’s debunkers went to dismiss his gift: (1) a small army of private detectives following studio audience members around, probing every aspect of their lives, or (2) a network of microphones under studio seats and an army of production assistants listening in for juicy clues that John can use. Both options would have bankrupted the production company. As for the cold reading claim, John often told people things they had to later verify with other family members. No, Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explanation is the most likely – that John really can do what he says he can … oh, and that means we do survive death, of course.
The defense rests.
Hi Tony,
Thanks for mentioning my site SCEPCOP!
All who are interested in truth and objectivity are welcome to view the resources at SCEPCOP and join our forum.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com
By the way, great blog!
Vinstonas Wu
Posted by: Vinstonas Wu | July 25, 2009 at 06:17 AM