The British Disease

Recently, I noticed an announcement of a debate to be held in London, entitled "Cynicism - The British Disease" ( http://21st-centurynetwork.com/blog/?p=1282 ). This particular subject has become something of a thorn in my side ever since I returned home to England after spending some 15 years in South Africa during the 80's and 90's. Perhaps it was always thus but, after spending so long away, I had perhaps forgotten just how cynical the British could be.

Arriving home in 1997, I began to notice that the whole British cynicism thing was based upon a sneering variety of humour and that had witty TV and radio personalities as well as stand-up comics in the vanguard. They set the style of delivery to be copied by journalists, writers, academics and pundits everywhere. Foremost among these celebrity wags was Stephen Fry - already worshipped by the "quality" press for his seemingly boundless knowledge and mastery of the language - his ego inflated as he became ubiquitous in the media. He presents a long running TV series called QI (Quite Interesting) in which he dispenses pearls of wisdom with the fabled wit that brought him fame and fortune. In the show, he is surrounded others - usually comedians - who have helped hone the blade of British cynicism. Beware all ye who do not fit the British norm: thy public humiliation shall be merciless.

I watch the show and I laugh along with the rest: these guys are very funny. The same can be said of that other ego-inflated TV personality, Jeremy Clarkson. He's funny. I laugh. What's wrong with that? Well, what's wrong is that he has influence. Extreme he may be but so are many of those who follow his shows and read his books and tabloid articles. Fry is of a different order though. Ironically, for an avowed atheist, he's a High Priest in sceptical circles. On one episode of QI he crassly invited any of his viewers who happened to believe in astrology to switch off immediately (to huge applause, as I remember).

Like Clarkson, I enjoy watching Stephen Fry. But, like Clarkson, it is his influence that bothers me. Too many people believe what he says without question - and I suspect he likes it that way. Yet Fry's brand of cynicism is usually quite restrained and polite. Not so, those who attempt to imitate him. There is no reasoned debate in the British media. There are those - such as Fry himself - who conform to a certain "OK" philosophy and it is open season on the rest. That philosophy can be summed up with a few ism's: materialism, atheism, scientism, empiricism. In short, we are insignificant specs of dust in a pointless universe; our lives have no meaning and oblivion is inevitable.

I'm an idealist. I believe that the universe itself is conscious and that reality is multi-dimensional - with dimensions some would call spiritual. This view is generally dismissed in my country as being wooly, New Age, hippy clap-trap. The fact that I share a similarity in philosophy with the likes of Plato and Gandhi matters not a whit: according to the prevailing view, I'm a credulous idiot.

Rupert Sheldrake is, first and foremost, a scientist. He is a very meticulous scientist who sticks to the scientific method and publishes his experiments and statistics for all to check. His ideas don't go down too well with sceptics. When assessing his work, they quickly revert to their natural cynicism and sneer en masse. I spent a good part of this weekend listening to many of the audio clips he has posted on his website. Whether you agree with him or not, when you listen to him speak you cannot help but appreciate his quiet intelligence and dedication to his life's work. He seems like a lovely man so why is it that sceptics and cynics seem so threatened by his ideas that they feel the need to ... well, I'll let this link to the (appropriately British) UK Sceptics forum speak for itself:

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthre...

Anyhow, the reason I bring up Sheldrake is because I listened to a debate between him and Chris French - a well known British media sceptic and debunker. Now it is clear that Rupert has a lot of respect for French. He sees him as one of the more open-minded sceptics and describes him as a friend. Now, for anyone reading this blog, I'd invite you to listen to that debate and comment. Firstly the tone is somewhat unfortuantely set by the chairman, Prof. Simon Blackburn, when he describes (laughingly) those who raised their hands as being open to the possibility of telepathy as a "credulous lot". Then again he tried some Fry-like sarcasm by describing the subject of Sheldrake's investigations as "dark powers at work". But I'd really like you to listen to Chris French. Perhaps I'm being too critical but I 'm sure that I detect a level of condescension in his reply. He's obviously secure in the knowledge that he's one of the "OK" philosophy crowd. That nobody who matters will ever sneer at him. And because of that security, and despite the fact that he regards Rupert as a friend, he casts doubt on Sheldrake's integrity by implying (perhaps) sloppy science or even dishonesty. To make his point, he invokes historical cases of fraudulent research. Why? Everyone knows there is fraud in paranormal research. Rupert points out that there is fraud in orthodox research too ... lots of it.

Nevertheless, Sheldrake is right in saying that Chris French is unusually fair minded compared to the majority of sceptics. I still, however, lament the fact that Rupert Sheldrake should have to contend with poorly disguised cynicism, even in a friendly debate.

Sheldrake's Audio Clips: http://www.sheldrake.org/B&R/audiostream/

Look for:

Rupert at the Perrott-Warrick Public Debate, Trinity College Cambridge, November 29th 2006
Rupert debates with Professor Chris French, Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths College, University of London
Does Telepathy Happen?
Chaired by Professor Simon Blackburn