Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[Pallas_Athene]

I’ve studied such things for many years and scientists are simply silent about the paranormal or the supernatural or anomalies As the story goes, careers could be ruined or virtual exile would occur if a scientist spent any time studying these events, After all, we all already know that superstition and chance play a role, so why bother?

Did you ever think about the reason that such claims are not taken seriously? Investigation of these claims would cost time and money - a LOT. And research grants must be fought for. The people who are willing to invest money want to see a return for their investment, and there is nothing wrong with that. So the scientists investigate problems which might have positive results, not the claims about the curative powers of pyramidal contraptions.

I’ve spent years studying inexplicable phenomena to see if there is any scientific answer, and, in a few cases, I think there is good evidence. But again, detailed study? The official answer is no.

If you think that there is good evidence, maybe you should pledge your money and offer it to more research. If there would be a result, your investment would be rewarded multifold. The number of people who come up with crazy ideas is staggering. Even today, there are some who present a detailed description of “perpetual motion machines”.

If they want to be taken seriously let them pay for the research, and if there are positive results, they will be taken seriously.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What, exactly, would you want to have as evidence for the supernatural?

It is childishly simply to present such scenarios. If you are interested, I could present quite a few. But what are the objections to such thought experiments?

One is: “how dare you demand that God would present an irrefutable evidence based upon YOUR terms”?
Another one is: “If God would accommodate you, then he would have to take away your freedom of will, because you would be “forced” to believe in his existence…”

Or something equally inane.

 

[PRmerger]

It is not outright rejection, it is the null-hypothesis, which can be falsified, IF and ONLY IF there is proper, convincing evidence that warrants it. And the skeptic does not present “special” demands. The demand is always the same. Present your evidence.

Of course.

But we are agreed that the position: the answer can’t be the supernatural…because I don’t believe in the supernatural!

is

1. illogical
2. unscientific

Right?

Do you live according to this principle?

The principle of “I will follow the truth wherever it leads”? Absolutely I do.

Let’s use paranormal experiences. Suppose that someone comes forward and says that he can move things around with the power of his mind. Maybe bend spoons, or moving pencils without touching them. You go and look at him and his demonstration, and it “looks” convincing, very, very convincing. Do you accept his claim? If you do, you are gullible.

As a skeptic, I would not.

But if he could offer proof that this is what he is asserting, I’d certainly entertain it.

I would NOT say: I will believe if you show me evidence, but I don’t believe in paranormal, so no matter what you show me, I know it won’t be due to paranormal activity.

That would be the most close-minded and fundamentalist-thinking paradigm, no?

I recently read an amusing thing: Napoleon said scratch a Russian, you’ll find a Tartar. I say scratch an atheist, you’ll find a fundmentalist.

#itsappearingtobetruerandtruer

 

[PRmerger]

Quite right. But I mean, for heaven’s sake, with over two thousand posts on the board you will not find one where I have even said that God doesn’t exist, let alone the supernatural.

Well, let’s take this back to Shermer. You do agree that, in speaking for him (which we will presume for the sake of this discussion you are accurately representing his POV) as professing: “Shermer does NOT think it was a supernatural event. He is absolutely CERTAIN that it wasn’t a supernatural event. That’s for the very good reason that he doesn’t BELIEVE in supernatural events”…

that is is circular reasoning?

It’s also not very scientific-minded.

It’s also very close-minded.

Right?

Doesn’t science purport to look for answers, wherever they may lie, not in just a specific subset of arbitrary criteria?

Imagine if Alexander Fleming had said, “I’m searching for anti-bacterial agents, but I certainly won’t look at mold…for the very good reason that I don’t BELIEVE that mold can produce anti-bacterial chemicals.”

That wouldn’t be very scientific, right?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

But we are agreed that the position: the answer can’t be the supernatural…because I don’t believe in the supernatural!

I never said that. There is a wise observation: once you eliminated all the impossibilities, whatever remains - no matter how unlikely - must the true. As I said, it is easy to create a thought experiment which would substantiate the existence of some “supernatural”.

But if he could offer proof that this is what he is asserting, I’d certainly entertain it.

Excellent. We are on the same wavelength. (Thought I would prefer the word “evidence” instead of “proof”. Proof is reserved for the abstract sciences.)

Now here comes the 64thousand dollar question: “what sufficient evidence” you would request for the existence of the paranormal? I suspect that it is similar to the requirement I would demand for the existence of God. There are several levels of evidence. I would stick to the one used in the most serious cases of criminal justice: “beyond any reasonable doubt”. Which definitely excludes “hearsay” evidence or appeal to authority. And excluding those… what is there that remains to be “entertained”?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Oh, and don’t you just love his line of argument in any case? There could be a gazillion miracles and only one has to be true for his position to hold, yet all of them have to be false for the callers to be true. ‘So’, he says. ‘Which is more likely!’ Holy Toledo, is that an example of high level Christian apologetics? The guy is a clown.

No of course not! None of the people at Catholic Answers are “high-level” apologists. This organization exists to answer the basic questions and undermine the assumptions of regular average people. They aren’t trying to satisfy or engage the tiny fraction of people with philosophical education or those who practice consistent deep reflection.

Though I am no longer a Christian, I found some works by Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig to be much more compelling. I’m not convinced to believe in Christianity by their arguments, but I do believe they make excellent defenses against the common arguments against the existence or goodness of God. I also think Joseph Ratzinger is an interesting and compelling thinker, although I think that his “Introduction to Christianity” was one of the pivotal moments in my walk away from it, ironically. Others may have a different reaction.

 

[PRmerger]

If no evidence is presented, then yes.

No, Bradski.

The fallback position should never be anything except, “I will go where truth leads.”

NOT: I won’t consider the possibility that the answer may lie in the supernatural.

I beg to differ. In the first instance you have no reason at all to believe they exist and in the second, you have no interest in investigating.

So here’s the thing, Bradski…don’t you find it extremely odd that Shermer has no interest in investigating this very, very curious event that is oh-so-personal and emotionally charged?

It’s odd for many reasons, but the most egregious is the fact that Shermer is…an investigative scientist. He has, as provided by the link you gave (that.I read.) had his temporal lobes stimulated with EM fields, for Pete’s sake, in the name of science, investigation and knowledge!!

Yet, here is something which screams “It’s the supernatural, stupid!” (hence, the skepticism “shaken to its core”)…and, peculiarly, he’s all, “let’s just revel in the mysterious. Let’s just totally forget about my scientific soul which begs to find out the how and the why”.

 

[PRmerger]

I would be literally astonished if I heard you were seriously investigating a neighbours claim that he had seen a unicorn in the woods. You would, as would all reasonable people, discount it out of hand.

Interesting.

I think the source is important here.

So let’s say it was your wife, and not your loony neighbor, who claimed to have seen a unicorn in the woods…would you discount it out of hand?

I don’t think you would.

I think you would investigate.

Most emphatically they do not. If someone keeps investigating something which proves to have not happened, then eventually they decide that unless there is some exceptionally compelling evidence to the contrary, all further examples will be discounted.

So with Alexander Fleming…if he had investigated turnips for antibacterial properties, and then nutella, and then Vegemite, and then etc etc etc…and all of them came up “no antibacterial properties at all”…it would have been smart for him to dismiss the mold on his bread?

#notscientificatall

Incorrect. There I no evidence for the supernatural that I HAVE accepted. If someone comes up with evidence that I find personally credible, then I will accept it.

Excellent.

So it’s odd for Shermer, who has some very, very compelling evidence for the supernatural, to not investigate.

I won’t, actually, have a choice other than to do so.

You could reject it…but it wouldn’t be the intellectually honest thing to do.

And what evidence? Well, Grandad’s clock springing back into life won’t cut it.

And yet…it shook his skepticism to its core.

 

[PRmerger]

No, Shermer (and I) don’t believe it was grandad because there are rather simplistic explanations for a radio starting to play after being dead for any length of time.

Don’t forget to add this part (from the article you linked. That I read.)

“Why would it happen at that particular moment, and be perfectly tuned to a station playing love songs, and be loud enough to hear out of the desk drawer?”

 

[PRmerger]

It is childishly simply to present such scenarios. If you are interested, I could present quite a few. But what are the objections to such thought experiments?

One is: “how dare you demand that God would present an irrefutable evidence based upon YOUR terms”?
Another one is: “If God would accommodate you, then he would have to take away your freedom of will, because you would be “forced” to believe in his existence…”

Or something equally inane.

No. Just give an example of what would constitute proof for you of God’s existence.

 

[edwest2]

Did you ever think about the reason that such claims are not taken seriously? Investigation of these claims would cost time and money - a LOT. And research grants must be fought for. The people who are willing to invest money want to see a return for their investment, and there is nothing wrong with that. So the scientists investigate problems which might have positive results, not the claims about the curative powers of pyramidal contraptions.

If you think that there is good evidence, maybe you should pledge your money and offer it to more research. If there would be a result, your investment would be rewarded multifold. The number of people who come up with crazy ideas is staggering. Even today, there are some who present a detailed description of “perpetual motion machines”.

If they want to be taken seriously let them pay for the research, and if there are positive results, they will be taken seriously.

Such research has been done in the case of some subjects. Over the years, various private groups have been formed to study different phenomena as well. I’m not interested in money for my own research and the time and effort that went into it. Publication would be fine.

I read about the latest scientific research almost daily. I also read the more credible, non-supermarket tabloid, fringe literature. Your comment about the number of crazy ideas is staggering is not supported by my library and other sources. In decades of research, I’ve found the list to be relatively short rather than staggering. New ‘crazy ideas’ do keep coming up, but infrequently. There may be one or two that take hold for a while but then disappear, to be replaced by a new, small number.

I’ve noticed a pattern surrounding unusual claims, and that pattern repeats for some of the newer claims as well.

I agree with the poster that wrote scientists should investigate certain claims, but I’ve read time and again that ventures into such areas would be met with not only disapproval but censure. I understand that.

Ed

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If there is life after death, then the supernatural exists. If there is life after death, then someone who is most definitely dead in the here and now exists somewhere else. If you can get someone who knew me to send me a message from that somewhere else that can only have come from that person, then I will accept that as proof. . . .

You are looking for physical proof - unicorns.
Be aware that everything physical involves physical causes and interactions.
I don’t believe anyone would expect that the radio in the story, turned on without a circuit being closed.
So, when:

• the sun comes streaming into the room, the moment the person dies
• tears flow down the face of the deceased when a son enters the hospital room
• the recently deceased person’s car battery is dead, where it was used to bring the person to hospital hours before
• the person has a dream of a deceased friend or relative, at the very moment of death
• etc, etc, etc
  there are always physical causes.
  If you are looking for something supernatural in physical reality you will never find a miracle. It is like looking for your keys under the lightstand, when they were lost in the darkness beyond.
  Similarly, bigger events such as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah would have involved physical forces, but these forces are not mindless, random events. they are executing a purpose.
  In the same manner, I am thinking and typing with a purpose, while the entire material brain activity can be described solely in physical terms.
  All I can suggest is that you extend your skepticism to include what you might hold as rock-hard truth.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

No. Just give an example of what would constitute proof for you of God’s existence.

At your service The very first post I made when I joined this forum dealt with this question. You can read it here. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=956959

So, now would you reciprocate this and tell me what would you accept as good evidence (not proof) for the existence of the paranormal?

 

[PRmerger]

At your service The very first post I made when I joined this forum dealt with this question. You can read it here. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=956959

Ah. Interesting.

Let me ask you this: what is your explanation for the (alleged) miracle at Fatima? It does sound quite similar to what you have proposed as proof for God/Christianity.

 

[PRmerger]

So, now would you reciprocate this and tell me what would you accept as good evidence (not proof) for the existence of the paranormal?

I suppose that if the Church investigated and found no normal cause for the event, and declared it to be the result of paranormal activity, then I would accept that as good evidence.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Such research has been done in the case of some subjects. Over the years, various private groups have been formed to study different phenomena as well. I’m not interested in money for my own research and the time and effort that went into it. Publication would be fine.

Yes, that is correct. Both the American and the (back then) Soviet governments wasted a lot of good money to investigate the claims of such nature. And NOT one of them presented evidence for the existence of any paranormal. On the other hand, all the properly designed and executed double blind experiments came back with a huge “NO”.

 

[SonOfMan]

We acknowledge our ignorance, and then spend the rest of the day looking for the answer to fill the void of that ignorance.

God of the Gaps, exactly my point. You always have all the answers.

You need to spend more time in dialogue with more Believers then.

Well, the RCC speaks with authority, they dont speak from a neutral point. When asked about the specifics, it basically amounts to “We dont know, but, we know we’re right.” So they cant tell you how they got there, but they can certainly tell you they are right and you are wrong. That isnt the same as admitting we dont have the answers today, but we may one day have the answers.

 

[SonOfMan]

Actually, and I hate to refute you, I admit that I don’t know a great deal–nearly every day. There are many things in nature we simply can’t understand, as well as supernatural things we can’t understand, and life is full of paradoxes. If there were no pardoxes we wouldn’t have a word to describe the phenomenon. Exactly how the Incarnation happened has not be revealed to us, neither has how electricity actually works. They’re not in the same realm of importance theologically, but in the physical the latter is very important. Each question has a place in our lives. To deny that parts of us exist that we can’t understand is just as strange to human reason as to deny the things we can for both are legitimate expressions of our understanding. At least, that’s how I see it.

How can you insist with any authority that you are correct when you admit that you don’t know?

You admit that you dont have the specifics on the Incarnation and you just dont know, but you still insist its real and it happened. That seems like a jump in thinking to me. Youre also still taking the position of having all the answers, just that you cannot explain the details.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Ah. Interesting.

Let me ask you this: what is your explanation for the (alleged) miracle at Fatima? It does sound quite similar to what you have proposed as proof for God/Christianity.

It is a hearsay story, nothing to investigate. That is the common problem with the professed miracles, especially the ones connected to “miraculous healings”. There is a good reason that skeptics would prefer the regrowth of missing limbs. Cancer can be misdiagnosed, cancer can go into spontaneous remission. On the other hand, missing limbs can be seen by everyone, they cannot be misdiagnosed. And there is no documented event that a missing arm would regrow - even though some animals have very good regeneration abilities.

So the miraculous healings at Lourdes would be excellent testing grounds. The way to do it, get a bunch of people with missing limbs, send them to Lourdes, and examine the results. In science only “prediction counts”. I make a prediction: “there will be NO miraculous regeneration of missing limbs”. I am also willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you willing to bet against me?

There is one huge difference between my hypothetical experiment and alleged events at Fatima. What I suggest is an ongoing phenomenon, available for everyone. Day after day, year after year, the celestial bodies would perform their “dance” in the sky and display a new passage from the Bible. There are many laws of nature which we don’t know - yet. But the celestial mechanics is not one of them.

I suppose that if the Church investigated and found no normal cause for the event, and declared it to be the result of paranormal activity, then I would accept that as good evidence.

Thank you for your reply.

I figured that, and therein lies the problem. The church is simply not qualified to perform such investigations. The everyday, run-of-mill scientists are also not qualified. There is only one group of people who are qualified - the professional stage magicians, who can detect deceptions, because they are the professional deceivers.

There is the James Randi foundation which was explicitly established to investigate these types of claims. There is also a million dollar reward for a successful demonstration. So far there were very few takers, and no winners. Can you guess the reason?

 

[Aloysium]

How can you insist with any authority that you are correct when you admit that you don’t know? . . .

That which is true, is true. It is not so much a matter of being correct as it is of being open to the truth. It provides the authority on which one speaks.