Reformed skeptic? Born again woo woo?

[tdn]

This has been knocking around my brain for some time now, but I have never shared it before.

Is it possible to become a reformed skeptic? Once a person gets the critical thinking bug, is it ever possible for that person to go back to blind acceptance of woo woo ideas?

Barring head injury or somesuch, that is.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by tdn
This has been knocking around my brain for some time now, but I have never shared it before.

Is it possible to become a reformed skeptic? Once a person gets the critical thinking bug, is it ever possible for that person to go back to blind acceptance of woo woo ideas?

Barring head injury or somesuch, that is.

Sure. It's easier. And costs you less on the blood-pressure front.

But seriously, anyone can change their mind. Not necessarily based on the best reasons--often emotional response to something plays a role--but it can and does happen.

[thaiboxerken]

Hmm, it's possible. I have a hard time believing that a person would just stop thinking critically, but how often do you hear "I used to be skeptical BUT..."?

[Aussie Thinker]

Personally I reckon NO..

Once that little thing clicks in your brain that says “this is a load of ********” you wont ever turn back.

The only thing you run the risk of is being OVER sceptical… I think you should always give something at least a cursory examination before dismissing it.

Something the resident woo woo’s always whinge about is us dismissing things out of hand.. over time we see so much unsubstantiated crap that we do tend to start to dismiss things out of hand.. the FACT that we are always right tends to reinforce this method !

[Clancie]

Posted by tdn

Is it possible to become a reformed skeptic? Once a person gets the critical thinking bug, is it ever possible for that person to go back to blind acceptance of woo woo ideas?
Well, it's only anecdotal...but after being a definite skeptic in all ways for many years...I now have learned here at this board that I'm now really just a "woo woo" after all. :p

Why? Because after three years of reading and experiences, I still entertain the idea that something that violates the "Skeptic Credo" (mediumship) may --just may-- have something to it after all.

For this "deviation from accepted beliefs" am I regarded as a "lapsed skeptic"?

A "woo woo outsider" regardless of -what- topic or thread I post on? A fellow skeptic with one area of fallibility?

Or as a person who has done what skeptics are supposed to do--looked into a subject to the best of their ability and formed their own opinion, an opinion which can be respected (for the process, if not the conclusions) even if it differs from "the conventional wisdom"?

Interesting choices. If you ever see my posts on other topics, in other threads and forums, I hope you'll think about it.....

[JimTheBrit]

Originally posted by tdn
This has been knocking around my brain for some time now, but I have never shared it before.

Is it possible to become a reformed skeptic? Once a person gets the critical thinking bug, is it ever possible for that person to go back to blind acceptance of woo woo ideas?

Barring head injury or somesuch, that is.

I know of one case ...

A Letter From An Ex-Skeptic (http://www.skeptic.org.uk/pub/ex_skeptic_letter.htm)

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Or as a person who has done what skeptics are supposed to do--looked into a subject to the best of their ability and formed their own opinion, an opinion which can be respected (for the process, if not the conclusions) even if it differs from "the conventional wisdom"?

I've always loved this comment from you Clancie, implying that anyone who disagrees with you hasn't done this.

When will you accept that most of us have put in the same amount of effort into investigating what you accept and found it wanting?

When will you stop stereotyping or, at the very least, say who it is you're talking about?

Who here hasn't done the right amount of research, but has reached conclusions anyway?

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by TLN

When will you accept that most of us have put in the same amount of effort into investigating what you accept and found it wanting?


TLN,

I think that the only way to get at something like this is to be very specific on a case by case basis. For instance, let's say that Clancie posted that she felt a certain medium was honest and furthermore might actually be communicating with the dead. And then others here stated that the medium in question was a fraud and that the whole claim was ridiculous. If Clancie was then to say that her critics had not put the same amount of effort into investigating the claim that she had, we could only know whether or not her statement was true by Clancie specifically describing her investigation--the books and articles she'd read, any personal experiences she'd had in connection with the claim, etc. And then each critic of hers would have to do the same--by specifically describing his own investigation.

Mike

[Cecil]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Hmm, it's possible. I have a hard time believing that a person would just stop thinking critically, but how often do you hear "I used to be skeptical BUT..."? Not often, that's for sure.



But sometimes people just put too much faith in the perceived infallibility of their own memories. (http://www.skeptic.org.uk/pub/ex_skeptic_letter.htm)

[TLN]

Originally posted by Mike D.
I think that the only way to get at something like this is to be very specific on a case by case basis. For instance, let's say that Clancie posted that she felt a certain medium was honest and furthermore might actually be communicating with the dead. And then others here stated that the medium in question was a fraud and that the whole claim was ridiculous. If Clancie was then to say that her critics had not put the same amount of effort into investigating the claim that she had, we could only know whether or not her statement was true by Clancie specifically describing her investigation--the books and articles she'd read, any personal experiences she'd had in connection with the claim, etc. And then each critic of hers would have to do the same--by specifically describing his own investigation.

Agreed, but we get none of these specifics. Only Clancie painting with broad brushstrokes yet again.

How does she know how much research we've done and on whom? What is she talking about exactly? Specifics would give us something to address; without them, I'm forced to comment on the lack of specifics.

[aerosolben]

UCE/Geoff might well be classified as an ex-skeptic.

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

How does she know how much research we've done and on whom?
TLN,

I live with the hope that some day you will actually make the effort to -understand- what I post.

A hint: this one (responding to the thread topic) has nothing whatsoever to do with whether skeptics here have researched mediumship well...are highly knowledgable about it...or not.

Nothing to do with that at all....

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
I live with the hope that some day you will actually make the effort to -understand- what I post.


And perhaps some day you will get specific instead of posting vague generalities.

[TLN]

Meanwhile, you've done it again! It's my fault. I'm not making the effort to understand. I'm a big bad meanie. Anything and everything but you.

Clanice, hopefully one day you'll be ready to treat me as a person instead of an obstacle you need to rationalize out of your way.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, it's only anecdotal...but after being a definite skeptic in all ways for many years...I now have learned here at this board that I'm now really just a "woo woo" after all. :p

Well, yeah. You see, you deliberately ignore the evidence that John Edward is a fake.

You could also be called a Willing Ignoramus.

Originally posted by Clancie
Why? Because after three years of reading and experiences, I still entertain the idea that something that violates the "Skeptic Credo" (mediumship) may --just may-- have something to it after all.

But that is exactly what a skeptic thinks. The "Skeptic Credo", as you so condescendingly say, is about the possibility of the existence of any paranormal phenomenon (not just ADC, which you seem so close your mind around).

And it is exactly this stance that makes your argument so ludicrous: You know what skepticism is, you just choose to pervert it. That way, you can summarily dismiss any criticism.

Originally posted by Clancie
For this "deviation from accepted beliefs" am I regarded as a "lapsed skeptic"?

No, from this perversion of skepticism and ignoring facts, you are regarded as a woowoo.

Originally posted by Clancie
A "woo woo outsider" regardless of -what- topic or thread I post on? A fellow skeptic with one area of fallibility?

Where have your arguments, e.g. on politics, been rejected because you believe in ghosts? Ah, who am I asking? We all know you don't give concrete examples, you just like those broad sweeps with the brush...

Originally posted by Clancie
Or as a person who has done what skeptics are supposed to do--looked into a subject to the best of their ability and formed their own opinion, an opinion which can be respected (for the process, if not the conclusions) even if it differs from "the conventional wisdom"?

Hey, I've done it. You know that I have. So, you put me on ignore, and still continue to claim that skeptics don't look into subjects.

Originally posted by Clancie
Interesting choices. If you ever see my posts on other topics, in other threads and forums, I hope you'll think about it.....

Stop playing the persecuted victim. It gets dull after a while, especially since it is not the case.

Originally posted by TLN
Meanwhile, you've done it again! It's my fault. I'm not making the effort to understand. I'm a big bad meanie. Anything and everything but you.

Exactly. It is never Clancie's fault. She is in the know, she is educated, she knows the answer, she can judge others.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Hmm, it's possible. I have a hard time believing that a person would just stop thinking critically, but how often do you hear "I used to be skeptical BUT..."?

....usually in the first sentence of any Woo Woo Testimonial. Of course, I have serious doubts as to how skeptical these people were in the first place.

Barkhorn.

[Keneke]

It's me, Keneke, chiming in late as always.

I just wanted to say that reformed skeptics seem rare, but pop culture romanticizes such a thing. Movies always have the grandfatherly old bookkeeper with the twinkle in his eye, or someone of that sort, in their movies. It seems to imply that skepticism is a stage of life consigned to middle-aged men, and that in the end there's magic, goodness, and God just over the retirement-age border.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Keneke
I just wanted to say that reformed skeptics seem rare, but pop culture romanticizes such a thing. Movies always have the grandfatherly old bookkeeper with the twinkle in his eye, or someone of that sort, in their movies. It seems to imply that skepticism is a stage of life consigned to middle-aged men, and that in the end there's magic, goodness, and God just over the retirement-age border.

Good point. I was as credulous as they come when I first saw The Santa Claus. After I discovered critical thinking, I watched it again. The only rational person in it was made to look like a fool. (That would be Neil/Judge Reinholt.) Made it very hard to watch. Skeptics are nearly always portrayed as close-minded buffoons.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by tdn

Skeptics are nearly always portrayed as close-minded buffoons.

We are souless and kill the "magic".

What do you expect from the that Woo Woo meca, Hollywood??

Barkhorn.

[Clancie]

(Trying to restate my previous point in a different way....)
Posted by tdn

Is it possible to become a reformed skeptic? Once a person gets the critical thinking bug, is it ever possible for that person to go back to blind acceptance of woo woo ideas?
Hi tdn,

Imo, some people regard skepticism as "either/or"....as a set of acceptable ideas one endorses rather than what it really is--a method of inquiry.

I think it would be more fruitful to see it as a spectrum. Even once they apply the skeptical method in -some- areas of inquiry, many people who consider themselves skeptics are still unwilling to apply it equally to -all- of their cherished beliefs (whether health...religion...politics, etc.).

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by tdn
This has been knocking around my brain for some time now, but I have never shared it before.

Is it possible to become a reformed skeptic? Once a person gets the critical thinking bug, is it ever possible for that person to go back to blind acceptance of woo woo ideas?

Barring head injury or somesuch, that is.

Very simple. Once the Devil is sure of you, he stops gnawing on you soul. He will guzzle the whole thing later. :p

Are you asking this out of purely disinterested intellectual curiosity? :p :p :D

[tdn]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Are you asking this out of purely disinterested intellectual curiosity?

Yep, pretty much.

I was recently wondering to myself if I should go back to being my old credulous self, believing in conspiratorial psychic space aliens from Atlantis. I wondered if life would suddenly be easier. Then I realized that I can't un-ring that bell. I will probably be a skeptic the rest of my life.

But I'm fine with that, really.

[Witty Smitty]

I used to be skeptic, until I realized that my mind was closed off to the wonderful world of reality. Reality is where gods and magic are. Skeptics live in their own world. They deny anything that scares them because they are haters of hope. I suspect that skeptics are simply people that just aren't bright enough to see the evidence of magic all around them.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Clancie
Imo, some people regard skepticism as "either/or"....as a set of acceptable ideas one endorses rather than what it really is--a method of inquiry.

Yep, but I would bet most of those people are not actually skeptics. Cynics, perhaps. Or the credulous.

Too many times I have read on message boards (not this one -- I'm new here) complaints that skeptics have a fixed set of arbitrary ideas, and are like a members-only club house. "It's like a religion" is what I often hear. This usually comes from people endorsing the latest hokum (often creationism or the moon-hoax). The accusations of close-mindedness and "old-boys-club" usually follow a failed attempt to convince the target audience of the wonky claim.

Which is understandable. If you think you have some clever new idea, but your audience has heard it all before, you may well get the impression that you are being dismissed out of hand and with extreme prejudice.

[c0rbin]

I still entertain the idea that something that violates the "Skeptic Credo" (mediumship) may --just may-- have something to it after all.

Check you baggage at the door!

Of course there is something to it. But just because you or I might not understand it does not mean that there is life after death, alien visitations, PSI-what-not, or bigfoot.

Even if you were to show me Jesus, skepticism would still be a part of my life because I would still have questions for the man.

[voidx]

There are many different levels of "skeptics". Some people that label themselves skeptics aren't really very skeptical at all. In many cases reformed skeptics appear to be people who previously held religious beliefs in God. As a way of rebelling they often then claim themselves atheists or skeptics as a way of striking out against their previously held beliefs as they don't work the way they'd like them too. Often they are eventually brought back into the fold by a particularily convincing proponent of that belief system and are therefore reformed. It's also a marketing tool, I was super skeptical of this, but once I saw it, wowee it was amazing! Its a cheap way of showing that people just didn't buy into something, that they looked at it and it proved itself worthy of their belief. Often what passes for convincing demonstrations in these cases is not something a serious skeptic would agree with. As for any person that took their skepticism seriously I'd find it hard to believe they could convert back, without knowingly or unknowingly becoming less critical in their thoughts and beliefs. While I myself know that the notion of a god, or of say an immaterial world cannot be ruled impossible, neither has it been shown to be overwhelmingly possible either. While I might be convinced that some things may be more likely than what I believe given enough logical evidences, at this point nothing is so concrete that I could completely convert myself to say religion or other such things as they are still, at most, no more likely than my worldview, and in most senses seem entirely less likely. I think any serious skeptic would be the same way.

As for what people want to consider a skeptic on this board, and what behaviour is typical of most "skeptics", I give up. Many peoples definitions are somewhat self-serving, and contain bias. I merely accept that this will always be the case. When you take into account some of the heavy topics we deal with here, any particular person, and their level of skepticism, or their tolerance for contrary opinions will always vary to some degree. Labels of "woo-woo" and "skeptic" are equally useless in my opinion because they can never apply to a whole forum community, especially one as large as this. To me the real question is, ok yah sure a "skeptic" can reform, but the the crux of the matter is, "How skeptical were they REALLY, in the first place?"

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Witty Smitty
I used to be skeptic, until I realized that my mind was closed off to the wonderful world of reality. Reality is where gods and magic are. Skeptics live in their own world. They deny anything that scares them because they are haters of hope. I suspect that skeptics are simply people that just aren't bright enough to see the evidence of magic all around them.

Lemme guess--trying to be the anti-Towlie?

Or did you just pop too many acid tabs before starting a D&D game?

[voidx]

Originally posted by tdn


Good point. I was as credulous as they come when I first saw The Santa Claus. After I discovered critical thinking, I watched it again. The only rational person in it was made to look like a fool. (That would be Neil/Judge Reinholt.) Made it very hard to watch. Skeptics are nearly always portrayed as close-minded buffoons.
I immediately thought of The Santa Claus as well. Don't watch The Santa Claus 2, its even worse. It shows that people that are skeptical are miserable and unhappy and close-minded and that there is no "magic" and joy to their life until they learn to "buh-lieve" again. Why can't one believe in the spirit of christmas, the good will of man, while at the same time knowing that Santa Claus the person is a bunch of nonsense? Believe that there is generosity in others(or at least the possibility of it), don't believe there is a Santa Claus grrrrrrr. Obviously these movies are just popcorn hollywood fluff and so must be taken as such, but the sheer pervasiveness of this overall gloomy opinion of people that are skeptical and critical is rather annoying.

[TLN]

Originally posted by voidx
Obviously these movies are just popcorn hollywood fluff and so must be taken as such, but the sheer pervasiveness of this overall gloomy opinion of people that are skeptical and critical is rather annoying.

It's the last perfectly acceptable form of bigotry: stereotyping skeptics.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by voidx

I immediately thought of The Santa Claus as well. Don't watch The Santa Claus 2, its even worse. It shows that people that are skeptical are miserable and unhappy and close-minded and that there is no "magic" and joy to their life until they learn to "buh-lieve" again. Why can't one believe in the spirit of christmas, the good will of man, while at the same time knowing that Santa Claus the person is a bunch of nonsense? Believe that there is generosity in others(or at least the possibility of it), don't believe there is a Santa Claus grrrrrrr. Obviously these movies are just popcorn hollywood fluff and so must be taken as such, but the sheer pervasiveness of this overall gloomy opinion of people that are skeptical and critical is rather annoying.

I immediately thought of several episodes of the TV series 'Becker' where Dr. Becker expresses skepticism of something (i.e. astrology, alternative medicine etc), all of his friends tell him not to be so closed minded (and all the usual things along those lines), and by the end of the show they (his friends) are vindicated because the horoscope turned out to be right or the alternative treatment worked or whatever.

It also shares the trait of portraying the skeptical character as grumpy and mean. Though with them they kind of do it the other way around, they took a character that was always grumpy and mean and apparently decided that skepticism went with the territory.

[tdn]

Originally posted by voidx
I immediately thought of The Santa Claus as well. Don't watch The Santa Claus 2, its even worse.

I watched it and enjoyed it. Probably because I went in fully aware of what I'd be in store for. Besides, Mrs. Claus was HOT.

And I realized it was for kids. Kids already have a sense of magic, and to them skepticism is all old and fuddy duddy. I understand this, and Buena Vista pictures know how to make a buck by pandering to their target demographic.

I just wish that more people were aware of people like Sagan, who was a great critical thinker and yet still filled with a childlike sense of wonder.

[voidx]

Originally posted by tdn


I watched it and enjoyed it. Probably because I went in fully aware of what I'd be in store for. Besides, Mrs. Claus was HOT.

And I realized it was for kids. Kids already have a sense of magic, and to them skepticism is all old and fuddy duddy. I understand this, and Buena Vista pictures know how to make a buck by pandering to their target demographic.

I just wish that more people were aware of people like Sagan, who was a great critical thinker and yet still filled with a childlike sense of wonder.
I enjoyed it for the most part as well, althought it was a little heavy on the sappy schtick. Its a cutsey kids story and so should be watched as such. And yes Mrs. Claus was HOT, but she's the character I'm talking about. All mean and grumpy and miserable until she's finally convinced to believe in Santa Claus again, and then hey, life is hunky dory. As Nyarlathotep mentions, those that believe blindly are vindicated in the end while those that question and ask questions are proven wrong. "See, Santa does exist you doubting Thomas old grump". Its not surprising and I don't expect it to change anytime soon cuz the alternative wouldn't be "entertaining". That doesn't change the fact that its annoying to have watch it over and over again in almost any movie/tv show/whatever you see.

[tdn]

Originally posted by voidx
Its not surprising and I don't expect it to change anytime soon cuz the alternative wouldn't be "entertaining". That doesn't change the fact that its annoying to have watch it over and over again in almost any movie/tv show/whatever you see.

One of the worst movies I ever saw was The Messenger: The Joan of Arc Story. Horrible on every level. Not one single redeeming feature.

Except one: The scene where Dustin Hoffman debunks the sword. Immensely satisfying. Not only because reason and skepticism win out, but because he puts that whiny ^*%$# in her place.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by tdn


Yep, pretty much.

I was recently wondering to myself if I should go back to being my old credulous self,,.

Oh sh** man, almost anything but that! :p