Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

In Memory of Skepticism

Who’s a skeptic, and who’s a believer? That’s the first thing that crossed my mind when I came across the ‘In Memoriam’ slides presented at the recent skeptical gathering in Las Vegas, TAM8. For some absurd reason, it was deemed necessary to have two separate slide shows featuring the names and photos of those who left this mortal coil in the past year – one for “Skeptics”, one for “paranormal and pseudoscience believers”.

So in the latter category we have the likes of Mac Tonnies, an atheist with an interest in Fortean topics who enjoyed speculating about possibilities, alongside Christian ‘end-times’ zealot Charles Meade. Also thrown in are the likes of long-time UFO investigator Richard Hall, a man who had extremely intelligent things to say about the phenomenon, and UFO experiencer Lonnie Zamora, of whom Project Blue Book investigators remarked that there was “no question about [his] reliability. He is a serious police officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area. He is puzzled by what he saw and frankly, so are we.” These are the “paranormal believers”.

In the skeptics section we have Martin Gardner, who was a theist, and whose beliefs and biases imposed themselves in many of his debunkings, to the detriment of scientific investigation. Happily, Michael Thalbourne is included in the skeptics section, though he was a long-time parapsychology researcher but is represented only as a ‘psychologist’ in the slideshow – I’m inclined to wonder whether one of his papers was to the liking of ‘skeptical believers’ and so he was given honorary membership. As for baby Dana McCaffery, the victim of a pertussis outbreak in Australia – while I think her tragic death serves as a harsh reminder of impact of anti-vaccination campaigns, her inclusion simply shows that these lists are not so much ‘skeptics’ vs ‘believers’, as “our side” vs “the other side”.

Editor
  1. Valid criticism I think.
    It

    Valid criticism I think.

    It would be easier to do this if done by topic. You can’t just have skeptics vs believers since there is no line down the middle when looking at all subjects. Even trying to do a ‘generally rational’ vs ‘generally irrational’ or ‘generally inclusive of evidence’ and ‘generally dismissive of evidence’ is susceptible to trouble, as we know well.

    What do you do if you are generally skeptical of dark energy; or what if you generally or firmly believe in general relativity while still knowing that until it is united with quantum mechanics we already know that it is highly likely to be an incorrect picture or even analogy of space and time.

    I also, personally, fail to see what UFO’s have got to do with the paranormal. Aside from the difficulties in getting here it would break no science whatsoever if aliens turned up (up does not become down even if relativity and QM require additions; such as how Newtons equations are not ‘wrong’, just incomplete). By definition (since we are already a space travelling species) space travel is ‘normal’, not para normal. Even energy beings from dimension X do not immediately invalidate anything (other than theories that say dimension X does not exist).

  2. Question
    Since the apostle of public skepticism, the Amazing Randi, has recently stated he’s *also* a skeptic of man-made global warming —which is currently accepted by mainstream science— what are they gonna do when the time comes to put him in the In Memoriam slides?? 😉

    1. mainstream
      [quote]
      which is currently accepted by mainstream science
      [/quote]
      There is mainstream acceptance, and then there is mainstream acceptance.

      Things like evolution vs creation are on one end of the spectrum. In this case, there is lots of disagreement on how evolution works in detail, but practically none on whether there is evolution. Also in this group is stuff like the age of the planet.

      Bing bang physics is different. It is the generally accepted current theory, but there is real and accepted research into alternative models. People who work with multiple dimensions and multiple universes are not considered un-scientific. People who don’t believe that dark energy exists, and work on different models are quite acceptable to the scientific community.

      Global warming is even less generally accepted. Serious scientists disagree, and have serious scientific models. The judgement that all these people are non-mainstream is purely in the policial public view, because this issue has become more political than scientific.

      Then you have topics like UFOs. Plenty of scientists believe that other intelligent life in the universe exists, having seen no evidence of it. Is this mainstream or not?

      So, I think the term skeptic here is as grossly abused as mainstream. If we mistake relative approaches as absolute conclusions, we end up not being able to say anything at all.

      1. Mainstream
        [quote=earthling]
        Then you have topics like UFOs. Plenty of scientists believe that other intelligent life in the universe exists, having seen no evidence of it. Is this mainstream or not?

        So, I think the term skeptic here is as grossly abused as mainstream. If we mistake relative approaches as absolute conclusions, we end up not being able to say anything at all.[/quote]

        Yes, fair point. I’m sure I’ve been guilty of that particular generalisation.

        Dave.

      2. Skepticism in absolutes
        So what you’re pointing out here is that the biggest flaw of the modern skeptic movement is that they like to deal in absolutes —just like *gasp* theologies! 😉

        It’s a pickle when someone might be 80% skeptic about most Fortean subjects, but 20% open to things that the current paradigm labels as “Fringe” —and YES, whether you like it or not, skepticism in global warming is nowadays on the Fringe side of the spectrum 😛

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal