Do famous Skeptics hide their true opinions in interviews?

[schlitt]

I have read many an interview with famous Skeptics regarding psychic phenomena, mediums etc. I have found that it is very rare for prominent skeptics to state they do not beleive these things are possible.
They usually seem to take the line of "we have not been able to find a genuine psychic yet, but i wont rule out the possibility".

do you think this is genuinely how they feel, or are they just protecting themselves from the dreaded closed minded accusation?

Personally, i think this type of non-commital statement from the skeptics leaves the option open for beleivers to think "If he just saw the medium i go to, he would realize there are genuine psychics!", and continue with their ridiculous beleifs, because the skeptic has basically implied "it is possible".

Thoughts?

[Cuddles]

If they didn't think that, they wouldn't be skeptics.

[SezMe]

It is, admittedly, very hard not to say, "Aw, you're full of [rule8]" sometimes (most times? :) ) But doing so would, as Cuddles notes, expose one to be dogmatic and closed to new information.

There is an additional value to this position. When believers shout, "You're closed-minded" we have this postion to rely on and can rejoin, "What evidence would change YOUR mind?"

[AgeGap]

One day we may be able to read each others minds. The way to do this though would be through scientific principles not some wooly woo belief.

To quote Arthur C. Clarke:

" 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Just look at the things we can do today that only a few decades ago would be impossible. Inventions such as sat-nav, mobile phones, games consoles and of course the internet. No matter what the woo belief, I believe science and technology will go one better.

[Tipush]

first of all, as far as I can see it, a skeptic's point of view is "it might exsist, but I won't believe it before I see it".

Secondly, I think the interviewed skeptic's aim is to make believers start questioning themselves and their psychic/healer/homeopath.... saying "there's no such thing as magic" leads to the listener's response of either "you are right" or "you are wrong" and does not make him question what he heard/knows.

It leaves their claims open for discussion.


Tip

[schlitt]

One day we may be able to read each others minds. The way to do this though would be through scientific principles not some wooly woo belief.

To quote Arthur C. Clarke:

" 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Just look at the things we can do today that only a few decades ago would be impossible. Inventions such as sat-nav, mobile phones, games consoles and of course the internet. No matter what the woo belief, I believe science and technology will go one better.


Science may very well make these things possible by means we cannot understand now. But, in terms of a normal human being in 2007, with no external help from Science surely a lot of skeptics would think it emphatically NOT possible to receive images from the dead, or remote view etc? And therefore saying "it may be possible (not refering to future science), but we have seen no evidence of it yet" is not revealing their true feelings?

or do most of you here beleive that in this day in age a normal human may be able to do these things?

[schlitt]

first of all, as far as I can see it, a skeptic's point of view is "it might exsist, but I won't believe it before I see it".

Secondly, I think the interviewed skeptic's aim is to make believers start questioning themselves and their psychic/healer/homeopath.... saying "there's no such thing as magic" leads to the listener's response of either "you are right" or "you are wrong" and does not make him question what he heard/knows.

It leaves their claims open for discussion.


Tip

How do you think the following view would be regarded?

"no i do not beleive it is possible to speak with the dead, however if i was shown proof of it, i would then have to admit i was wrong and change my beleif"

[timhau]

first of all, as far as I can see it, a skeptic's point of view is "it might exsist, but I won't believe it before I see it".

Secondly, I think the interviewed skeptic's aim is to make believers start questioning themselves and their psychic/healer/homeopath.... saying "there's no such thing as magic" leads to the listener's response of either "you are right" or "you are wrong" and does not make him question what he heard/knows.


Agreed on both counts. I don't believe in the paranormal, and if presented with a seemingly supernatural incident, my first instinct will be to look for mundane explanations; however, it is not -- or at least, I hope it's not -- a belief that transcends evidence. We have right to our own opinions, however misinformed they are, but we don't have right to our own facts.

Second point is right on the money. If you're trying to talk to a believer, stating emphatically that you're a non-believer is the most effective way to make them stick their fingers into their ears and start going "La-la-laa, I'm not hearing this".

[plumjam]

yes, i think you're right in pointing this out. Professional Skeptics are the equivalent of Priests, they just happen to be preaching from the other end of the see-saw. Their adherence to "objective scientific evidence" soon breaks down on the occasions when that same evidence would argue against their own deeply held beliefs about reality.

[Rasmus]

or do most of you here beleive that in this day in age a normal human may be able to do these things?

No, I think these things are indeed impossible.

Being a good sceptic I realize that most of humanity could theoretically be wrong about nearly everything - but then it would no longer make sense to debate the "possibility" of anything. In the sense that everything is possible, the word loses its meaning.

Other things are of the show-me-and-i-might-believe-you variety. Only, I'm probaly not gonna hold my breath.

[Zep]

yes, i think you're right in pointing this out. Professional Skeptics are the equivalent of Priests, they just happen to be preaching from the other end of the see-saw. Their adherence to "objective scientific evidence" soon breaks down on the occasions when that same evidence would argue against their own deeply held beliefs about reality.Invalid logic there, and a strawman fallacy (putting words in someone else's mouth).

Their adherence to objective scientific evidence is PRECISELY the basis for them saying that something MIGHT be possible...in the future.

Objective scientific evidence is those facts we know UP TO NOW, for certain. And given that, they CAN say that there is no evidence today to support these paranormal claims. What is more, the preponderance of evidence over time up until now tends to indicate that the possibility of such paranormal claims being upheld has become increasingly UNlikely. To the point that the probability of them being supported by any reasonable evidence is so minutely small that it equates to zero for all practical purposes.

It is merely the fact that these probabilities are not exactly zero that allows the "Priests" to say that it MIGHT be possible. The chances are infinitesimally small and getting smaller, but still there... Of course, there's also the chance that the world was made by Martians last Thursday from breakfast cereal and putty, but that would be just silly, now, wouldn't it! ;)

The strawman fallacy is to use the word "belief" in the same way that paranormalists do. There is a marked difference, and it is to do with the abundance of evidence for that belief. Paranormalists (and many other woos) "believe" a lot with little or no evidence - in fact, most continue to believe their own stories DESPITE total lack of evidence, or even stacks of evidence to the contrary. Skeptics, however, use the word much more in the form of: "The spoons are in the cutlery drawer, I believe", or "I believe I will have another piece of pie!"

In short, woos hold their beliefs above the evidence; skeptics hold the evidence above their beliefs.

[Normal Dude]

Their adherence to "objective scientific evidence" soon breaks down on the occasions when that same evidence would argue against their own deeply held beliefs about reality.

Do you have any examples in mind?

[schlitt]

Which of these two statements do you regard to be the more sound stance?:

"psychic phenomena could be possible, but we have not seen evidence of this yet" - this statement leaves the possibility that there could be thousands of genuine psyhics out there that have just not been tested.

Or

"From looking at the evidence. We have reached the conclusion psychic phenomena is not real, therefore due to that conclusion, claimed psychics must be frauds" - this statement bluntly negates any possibliity for genuine psychics to ever exist

personally i think a lot of people would agree with the second statement, but shy away from stating it bluntly, ending up stating their opinion more like the first statement to seem diplomatic.

[timhau]

Which of these two statements do you regard to be the more sound stance?:

"psychic phenomena could be possible, but we have not seen evidence of this yet" - this statement leaves the possibility that there could be thousands of genuine psyhics out there that have just not been tested.


I could go with this, if you added the following:

"Since no alleged psychic has been able to demonstrate psychic powers under adequate testing conditions, our tentative conclusion is that the non-tested ones are also either fake or deluded. This conclusion can be reversed by demonstrating psychic powers in a test that has proper safeguards against fraud (and dumb luck); given the track record of psychics so far, we find it exceedingly unlikely that such a demonstration is forthcoming."

[Normal Dude]

I'd take a stance between the two listed. "Psychic phenomena could be possible, but we have not seen evidence of this yet and until concrete evidence comes to light I will assume it to be false". It's not proper to throw around absolutes, although it is tempting to do so and we all slip up from time to time.

[Miss Whiplash]

Which of these two statements do you regard to be the more sound stance?:

"psychic phenomena could be possible, but we have not seen evidence of this yet" - this statement leaves the possibility that there could be thousands of genuine psyhics out there that have just not been tested.

Or

"From looking at the evidence. We have reached the conclusion psychic phenomena is not real, therefore due to that conclusion, claimed psychics must be frauds" - this statement bluntly negates any possibliity for genuine psychics to ever exist

personally i think a lot of people would agree with the second statement, but shy away from stating it bluntly, ending up stating their opinion more like the first statement to seem diplomatic.

On what evidence do you base this conclusion?

[schlitt]

On what evidence do you base this conclusion?

i dont have evidence, just an opinion :)

Basically what i am getting at is, i think people may soften their stance a little when expressing their viewpoint publically, for fear of being called closed minded.

[Cuddles]

Which of these two statements do you regard to be the more sound stance?:

"psychic phenomena could be possible, but we have not seen evidence of this yet" - this statement leaves the possibility that there could be thousands of genuine psyhics out there that have just not been tested.

Or

"From looking at the evidence. We have reached the conclusion psychic phenomena is not real, therefore due to that conclusion, claimed psychics must be frauds" - this statement bluntly negates any possibliity for genuine psychics to ever exist

Both statements are the same. "It could be possible but there is no evidence" is just another way of saying "There is no evidence so it probably isn't possible". There are different ways of putting it so that believers will be more or less offended, but the actual content is exactly the same.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Schlitt, it'd be more useful I think if you gave even 1/10 this level of scrutiny to the pronouncements of astrologers, psychics, homeopaths and the like.

The fact is, these are the people making outrageous claims. Skeptics pretty much say that these claims are baseless. For myself, what a person believes is irrelevant. Skepticism really doesn't have anything to do with beliefs, but focuses on claims and evidence.

While not on the topic of the paranormal, this from Carl Sagan's intro to CSICOP's The Outer Edge seems appropriate:

I'm often asked the question, "Do you think there is extraterrestrial intelligence?" I give the standard arguments—there are a lot of places out there, and use the word billions, and so on. And then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course there is as yet no compelling evidence for it. And then I'm asked, "Yeah, but what do you really think?" I say, "I just told you what I really think." "Yeah, but what's your gut feeling?" But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.

[JoeEllison]

i dont have evidence, just an opinion :)

Basically what i am getting at is, i think people may soften their stance a little when expressing their viewpoint publically, for fear of being called closed minded.I'm always glad when people use the phrase "closed minded" directed at skeptics... it shows how worthless their position is, and saves me the trouble of having to spend very much more time on them.

My response is that I'm totally open to any evidence that they'd like to present... :D

[Sasha]

i dont have evidence, just an opinion :)

Basically what i am getting at is, i think people may soften their stance a little when expressing their viewpoint publically, for fear of being called closed minded.

I don't know many skeptics who "fear" being called closed minded. It's a common response from people who want to believe incredible claims but don't have anything other than anecdotes to back up their claims which, of course, are no back up whatsoever. These people usually say, "I don't have any evidence, just an opinion." That seems a small minded way of thinking to me, and a lazy way of approaching questionable ideas. Why don't you look for some evidence? And if you have looked, what did you find? We'd love to see the proof.

[schlitt]

I don't know many skeptics who "fear" being called closed minded. It's a common response from people who want to believe incredible claims but don't have anything other than anecdotes to back up their claims which, of course, are no back up whatsoever. These people usually say, "I don't have any evidence, just an opinion." That seems a small minded way of thinking to me, and a lazy way of approaching questionable ideas. Why don't you look for some evidence? And if you have looked, what did you find? We'd love to see the proof.

Thanks for calling me lazy, however I am not about to conduct a study on this, as i do not think it worth the time and effort. I am quite happy giving an opinion, and receiving opinions back, to try and learn from.

To clarify for you, i have been reading a lot of the interviews on Badpsychics and other sites, and noticed a theme of "i dont want to say its not possible, but i have not seen any evidence", and it got me wondering, do most skeptics really beleive it is possible or not? The standard disclaimer of being shown real evidence always applies, regardless of whether someone comes out saying "i dont beleive it" or "it may be possible but i doubt it".
so my question was, do people express their viewpoint in a way which is worded to seem as though there is a very real possibility of the phenomena being discussed, for the sake of seeming open minded?

I have received many helpful replies and opinions back.

Thankyou

[Sasha]

Thanks for calling me lazy, however I am not about to conduct a study on this, as i do not think it worth the time and effort. I am quite happy giving an opinion, and receiving opinions back, to try and learn from.

To clarify for you, i have been reading a lot of the interviews on Badpsychics and other sites, and noticed a theme of "i dont want to say its not possible, but i have not seen any evidence", and it got me wondering, do most skeptics really beleive it is possible or not? The standard disclaimer of being shown real evidence always applies, regardless of whether someone comes out saying "i dont beleive it" or "it may be possible but i doubt it".
so my question was, do people express their viewpoint in a way which is worded to seem as though there is a very real possibility of the phenomena being discussed, for the sake of seeming open minded?

I have received many helpful replies and opinions back.

Thankyou

I think the answer to your qustion is yes and no. Who can answer for all people? Some may soften their opinions in public to avoid seeming controversial or argumentative. Some may just come out and say it's a load of bunk. This is true no matter what the subject.

I have to answer with my own belief that from all I've read, experienced and learned, I don't think supernatural phenomena is possible. If and when I see genuine evidence to the contrary, I'll rethink my think. Does that make me close minded? Not necessarily, as I'll continue to consider and discuss the subject(s) and learn all I can while remaining skepical.

The closed minded argument can go either way. I can just as easily point to someone who is thoroughly convinced that Sylvia Browne talks to dead people and call them the same. It's pretty much the same as my calling you lazy for not wanting to do your own research - it just doesn't matter, you'll do or not do what you want.

I'm interested to know what sort of replies you imagined you'd get when you started this thread.

[schlitt]

I think the answer to your qustion is yes and no. Who can answer for all people? Some may soften their opinions in public to avoid seeming controversial or argumentative. Some may just come out and say it's a load of bunk. This is true no matter what the subject.

I have to answer with my own belief that from all I've read, experienced and learned, I don't think supernatural phenomena is possible. If and when I see genuine evidence to the contrary, I'll rethink my think. Does that make me close minded? Not necessarily, as I'll continue to consider and discuss the subject(s) and learn all I can while remaining skepical.

The closed minded argument can go either way. I can just as easily point to someone who is thoroughly convinced that Sylvia Browne talks to dead people and call them the same. It's pretty much the same as my calling you lazy for not wanting to do your own research - it just doesn't matter, you'll do or not do what you want.

I'm interested to know what sort of replies you imagined you'd get when you started this thread.



I was wanting other peoples opinions on what i wrote in the OP. Which is what i understand to be the purpose (or one of) of discussion forums.
I have clearly hit a raw nerve with you, i apologise.

[JoeTheJuggler]

i have been reading a lot of the interviews on Badpsychics and other sites, and noticed a theme of "i dont want to say its not possible, but i have not seen any evidence",
You don't think it's cynical of you not to take them at their word?

I think admitting that anything is possible (even things beyond my imagination), but pointing out that there is no compelling evidence to date for ANY paranormal claim is perfectly consistent with skeptical thinking. There's absolutely no need to decide in your mind what is ultimately true rather than accepting the unknown and simply unknown.

It's funny, the very woos who think that science is arrogant are the ones who claim to know what they can't possibly know. The ones who value "the mystical" claim to know what's behind the veil of all the mysteries of the universe. How sad for them. A world where they believe that they know all the answers.

[schlitt]

You don't think it's cynical of you not to take them at their word?

I think admitting that anything is possible (even things beyond my imagination), but pointing out that there is no compelling evidence to date for ANY paranormal claim is perfectly consistent with skeptical thinking. There's absolutely no need to decide in your mind what is ultimately true rather than accepting the unknown and simply unknown.

It's funny, the very woos who think that science is arrogant are the ones who claim to know what they can't possibly know. The ones who value "the mystical" claim to know what's behind the veil of all the mysteries of the universe. How sad for them. A world where they believe that they know all the answers.

I wouldnt say cynical, so much as curious.

I do not see the difference logically between "i dont beleive it is possible, but given evidence i would have to admit i was wrong" and "it could very well be possible, but i have seen no evidence"

However the perception of the person stating either of those would vary greatly depending on which way the person chose to express it.

When i read an interview which states the skeptic does beleive it is possible, i have to take their word for it that it is in fact what they beleive. But i cant help but have a sneaking suspicion that some may think it more impossible than they are letting on.
Evidently, most here do not agree with me, and that is fine.

[Rasmus]

I do not see the difference logically between "i dont beleive it is possible, but given evidence i would have to admit i was wrong" and "it could very well be possible, but i have seen no evidence"

Let me make two claims:

"I have a fire breathing pet dragon at home".
"I have a dog at home. It's a labrador."

I would say that your two statements can be used to describe the likely validity of my claims. But I doubt you could simply swap them ...

[schlitt]

Let me make two claims:

"I have a fire breathing pet dragon at home".
"I have a dog at home. It's a labrador."

I would say that your two statements can be used to describe the likely validity of my claims. But I doubt you could simply swap them ...

I agree. Hence why i implied it may be a little dishonest to express your opinion the second way, while really maintaining the first.

But then the real question is, does anyone really do this, which is not really verifiable, so i guess it is a bit of a pointless post :)

[pounce]

in my weaker moments i tend towards being the cranky disbelieving type. certainly arriving at the idea that after all that much searching for ghosts and such that the reason we aren't finding them is more likely that they just aren't there to be found.

that said, joe nickell correctly pointed out (many times over) that he specifically was an investigator and not a debunker. debunker too specifically denotes the negative, seemingly disallowing the possibility that something currently unknown is out there. it is better to allow for such things while still demanding proper evidence. i think the original posters quotes accurately portray the healthiest attitude we could take with respect to woo claims. as improbable as those woo claims tend to be, we have to allow for the possibility that some truly weird stuff is out there that we don't know about yet. so logic and evidence will still do us up right in proving any of that stuff, but i think the "keeping an open mind" argument simply requires that we say that some unknown things are out there while we welcome the opportunity to study such things and eventually gain the evidence to best explain those kinds of phenomena in our universe.

[eir_de_scania]

[QUOTE=plumjam;2869571]Professional Skeptics are the equivalent of Priests, they just happen to be preaching from the other end of the see-aw. /QUOTE]
I know what a priest is, but what on earth is a Professional Skeptic? Are there Amateur Skeptics as well? :confused:

[timhau]

I know what a priest is, but what on earth is a Professional Skeptic?

Aww, haven't you ever been in a Skeptic monastery?

[politas]

I do not see the difference logically between "i dont beleive it is possible, but given evidence i would have to admit i was wrong" and "it could very well be possible, but i have seen no evidence"

The prevalence of quote mining is the reason for the choice in words. The former sentence can be edited to make the speaker sound dogmatic, while the second cannot.

[plumjam]

[QUOTE=plumjam;2869571]Professional Skeptics are the equivalent of Priests, they just happen to be preaching from the other end of the see-aw. /QUOTE]
I know what a priest is, but what on earth is a Professional Skeptic? Are there Amateur Skeptics as well? :confused:

Well, as one example, Mr Randi seems to make a living out of refusing to believe certain things, and dressing this up as a kind of independent even-mindedness.

[Miss Whiplash]

Well, as one example, Mr Randi seems to make a living out of refusing to believe certain things, and dressing this up as a kind of independent even-mindedness.

How so? He made his living as a stage magician.

[plumjam]

How so? He made his living as a stage magician.

I'm not his accountant, but I'd suggest that he earns a lot more from his professional Skeptic role, than his stage magic. I'd base this on the fact that whenever he appears on tv i've never see him do magic, rather he sits and 'Skepticises' on things. This also applies to any lectures/debates he takes part in.
I've never seen his magic show, nor it being advertised anywhere.

[Civilized Worm]

Well, as one example, Mr Randi seems to make a living out of refusing to believe certain things, and dressing this up as a kind of independent even-mindedness.


What does he refuse to believe?

[plumjam]

What does he refuse to believe?

oh, the usual stuff.. anything that stands outside the scientistic-materialistic-reductionistic-deterministic paradigm... such as God, the paranormal, teleology, purpose, free will etc etc..
no, i'm not going to provide citations, as you'll have to ask him about the particular details.

:eek:

[Locknar]

oh, the usual stuff.. anything that stands outside the scientistic-materialistic-reductionistic-deterministic paradigm... such as God, the paranormal, teleology, purpose, free will etc etc..
no, i'm not going to provide citations, as you'll have to ask him about the particular details.

:eek:

Your post just shows how little you understand, or otherwise know, about skeptics...including Randi.

The fact is to date, nobody has credible evidence as to the existence of "Bigfoot", nobody has been shown to have ESP/paranormal abilities, astrology has yet to demonstrated to work or otherwise produce credible, reliable, repeatable results, etc.

While I dare say the majority of skeptics, including myself, wish these things were real....wishing does not make it so. Credible, repeatable, evidence does....

[Miss Whiplash]

I'm not his accountant, but I'd suggest that he earns a lot more from his professional Skeptic role, than his stage magic. I'd base this on the fact that whenever he appears on tv i've never see him do magic, rather he sits and 'Skepticises' on things. This also applies to any lectures/debates he takes part in.
I've never seen his magic show, nor it being advertised anywhere.

Tell us about the 'Skepticises' thing...

I've never seen you do magic either or your magic show advertised anywhere.

[Civilized Worm]

oh, the usual stuff.. anything that stands outside the scientistic-materialistic-reductionistic-deterministic paradigm... such as God, the paranormal, teleology, purpose, free will etc etc..
no, i'm not going to provide citations, as you'll have to ask him about the particular details.

:eek:


So he refuses to believe things that have absolutely no evidence to support them? The dastard!


Edit: Actually I'll have to ask for a citation regarding his lack of belief in free will, atheism and scepticism do not exclude the possibility of free will.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually I'll have to ask for a citation regarding his lack of belief in free will, atheism and scepticism do not exclude the possibility of free will.

I think you can argue that atheism is more compatible with the concept of free will than is theism.

[Civilized Worm]

That's a good point!

[osmosis]

I'd go so far as to say the paranormal absolutely does not exist. There's no evidence, and almost all of science would have to be rewritten if it did.

I don't think that qualifies me as closed-minded any more than if I say "gravity exists" or "the sun rises in the east". If the sun rose in the west one day, I wouldn't dogmatically cling to my belief that the sun rises in the east, I'd reevaluate it.