In a previous post, I mentioned one experiment that I did to test the hypothesis that "Human beings tend to be pseudoskeptics regarding conclusions or ideas they disagree with"
I used as an example the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection (which in my opinion, and for my complete astonishment, is reasonably good).
Here are some of the conclusions of my experiment:
1-Pseudoskepticism is a property of the human mind. It has to do with the functioning of the human mind when it is confronted with data, evidence, facts or arguments which are incompatible with previous strong beliefs.
In the case of my experiment, most of the readers who commented to me were people strongly hostile towards Christianity, and hence Jesus'resurrection is not even a possible alternative worthy of consideration, whatever the evidence for it is. This is why they used commonly known pseudoskeptical tactics (red herrings, falsehoods, sheer speculations, ill-informed criticisms, double standards, straw men and unproven assumptions) in order to explain (or explain away) the evidence for Jesus' resurrection.
I was astonished to find intelligent people appealing, for example, to the evils caused by Christianity as a serious or relevant objection to Jesus' resurrection (an argument that is obviusly ridiculous and that they wouldn't take seriously if it were used to attack their own positions sympathetic to spiritualism or parapsychology).
This red herring shows that their hostilite to Christianity is largely emotional, not rational. You don't determine the truth or falsehood of a given worldview or position on the grounds of the behaviour of some of its radical followers. You determine it on the grounds of the evidence alone.
2-Pseudoskepticism is essentially a psychological method to protect a given set of basic beliefs from falsification or refutation, not a method to find the truth.
This is a motive of serious motive of concern for me, because I consider pseudoskepticism a major obstacle to find the truth and to being rational.
3-Pseudoskepticism includes a self-protecting method: The person behaving as a pseudoskeptic DOESN'T and CANNOT realize that his attitude is irrational. On the contrary, he considers his position perfectly rational and valid, even "obvious". Moreover, he'll consider that people who disagree with him are irrational, stupid and ignorant, because they're not able to see the same that the pseudoskeptic can see as obvious.
Again, this is a motive of concern because it implies that the possibility of self-correction (essential to any truth seeker) regarding strong basic beliefs is excluded in advanced or undermined.
For example, you'll remember materialist philosopher J.J.Smart arguing that "Someone who has naturalistic preconceptions will always in fact find some naturalistic explanation more plausible than a supernatural one... Suppose that I woke up in the night and saw the stars arranged in shapes that spelt out the Apostle's Creed. I would know that astronomically it is impossible that stars should have changed their position. I don't know what I would think. Perhaps I would think that I was dreaming or that I had gone mad. What if everyone else seemed to me to be telling me that the same had happened? Then I might not only think that I had gone mad-- I would probably go mad" (J.J.C. Smart in his contribution to the book Atheism and Theism, pp.50-51. Emphasis in blue added)"
Note that for Smart, God's existence won't be accepted regardless of the evidence. Not even publicly confirmed objective evidence will produce a change of opinion in him regarding the falsehood of naturalism. Confronted with irrefutable evidence for supernaturalism which he cannot deny, he'll choose to believe that he has gone mad.
For my astonishment, some of the anti-Christian people who wrote to me has a similar position: They confessed that they won't accept Jesus' Resurrection, or its relevance as evidence for Christianity, regardless of the evidence. For people like them, Christianity is false a priori.
Note that in both cases it is not the evidence, but the pseudoskeptic's strong beliefs, which determine the conclusions that he'll have. In fact, these strong beliefs even will determine what kind of data will count as evidence (and what data won't count as evidence). Again, it is not the evidence, but the pseudoskeptic's own belief system, which determines his reading of the evidence.
Actually, his negative emotions and past experiences (probably negative ones) will determine largely his wordlview.
In my case, when I examine whatever topic, I don't know in advance where the evidence is going to lead me (precisely by this reason is that I'm researching the topic in question). And I'm emotionally and intellectually prepared, if the evidence leads me to it, to accept a conclusion, belief, idea or theory that I find strongly repugnant or impalatable.
For example, I find repugnant the idea of reincarnation, but if the evidence for it is good (as I think it is, even thought not conclusive), then let it be. If the evidence leads to Jesus' resurrection (as I think it does), let it be. If the evidence leads to Islam, led it be, if the evidence leads to atheism, let it be and so on.
You have to detach your emotions, dislikes and tastes from the sober, always cold, rational evaluation of the evidence.
I think this is the proper mindset of a truth seeker.
4-Just for the record: I've also experienced pseudoskepticism in myself and have used the same peudoskeptical strategies to refute a matter which I disagree with. So I'm familiar to it in first-person. I've also used the same unproven speculations and purely imaginative scenarios ("it could be that...", "perhaps it is..." and so forth) in order to avoid a conclusion that I don't like.
Precisely for this reason, I'm almost obssesed with the psychology behind pseudoskepticism and what method could be used to counter it, because pseudoskepticism is a major obstacle to the truth.
Currently, I can see when I'm begining to use these pseudoskeptical methods and inmediatly try to stop them. I say to myself that I'm trying to find the truth, not to protect my beliefs and compare the structure of my objections with the ones used by pseudoskeptics in order to see if I'm using the same tactics.
5-Paranormal pseudoskepticism (of people like Shermer, Hyman, etc.) is a natural corollary of the strong belief in metaphysical naturalism and atheistic materialism. This is a species of pseudoskepticism, not qualitatively different than any other form of pseudoskepticism (it is only different in its contents, not in its overall methods of debunking).
The methods of pseudoskepticism are pretty the same, regardless of the topic discussed.
This is why the best method to attack paranormal pseudoskepticism is to attack metaphysical naturalism and atheistic naturalism (an insight that most parapsychologists have not realized and this explains the parapsychologist's naive and largely non-efficacious attempt to reply to the skeptic using scientific evidence and arguments alone. The latter is necessary, but not sufficient, because what is at stake is not only the evidence, but how this will be read in the light of worldview considerations. This is why Chris Carter's book Parapsychjology and the skeptics is an original contribution to the field, because it is one of the few books which addresses these worldview considerations).
0 comments:
Post a Comment