In a previous comment about the recent controvery around Rupert Sheldrake's wikipedia entry, I suggested that one of the problems that "paranormalists" (=people in the paranormal community, including researchers, fans, believers in the paranormal, etc.) have is their passivity in dealing with "skeptics". (The term "paranormalist", as used in this post, is not pejorative: I use it only for referring to people sympathetic to the paranormal in contrast with "skeptics").
My contention that "paranormalists" are, as a rule (and with some exceptions), very passive could be misunderstood. In this post, I want to clarify what I mean and provide some evidence for my contentions.
This is not meant to be disrespecful or critical, but to be an accurate description: by "passivity", I mean that they tend to dismiss the importance or impact of the skeptical, debunking strategies (specially on the internet) and hence they tend to bypass any proper strategy against it. As consequence, they dedicate almost no efforts (at least in comparison with skeptics) to specifically address and refute the skeptics.
They're very passive in their handling of the online skeptical propaganda.
Let's see some evidence:
1-Consider naturalist Keith Augustine's already famous (or infamous), long and detailed online essay debunking near-death experiences.
Although I disagree with most of Keith's arguments and conclusions, his essay is well-written, meticulously referenced and very detailed. This is the standard skeptical reference for a naturalistic understanding of NDEs and against the survivalist interpretation of them. From a skeptical point of view, Keith's article is a "good job" (and "jab" against survivalists).
Uninformed people, neurologists, psychologists, neuroscientists and other scientists will tend to be sympathetic to Augustine's hallucinatory hypothesis in that essay as a plausible explanation of NDEs. This tendency could be counter-balanced if, in addition to Augustine's essay, a full, serious and scholarly reply of it were easily accessible online too, so both sides were represented fairly. Sadly, not such counter-balance exists.
Augustine's essay (which has been translated to a number of languages) was published a number of years ago, and (as far I know) there is not specific, point-by-point full reply or scholarly critique to that essay which is available online by defenders of the survival hypothesis.(At most, you get partial responses to some points raised by Augustine, in a bunch of different paranormal blogs, entries and comments in such blogs).
I've lost the count of how many people have written to me over the years saying that Augustine's article deserves a response and complaining that no adequate or complete reply to it is available online. I share with them such frustration.
If you want to get a response to Augustine's arguments, you'll have to buy Chris Carter's books, or to read a lot of the NDEs technical literature in order to reach the conclusion that Augustine is largely wrong about NDEs.
But not online essay, specifically and exhaustively replying to Augustine's, is available on the internet.
Note carefully that in this aspect "skeptics" have a key advantage: They publish a lot of their best material online, so making it available to everybody and causing a lasting and progressive impact in several generations of internet users.
Contrasting with this, the best material of the paranormalists is available in books and journal articles, not online. Therefore, they're less accesible.
In terms of informative wars and astute use of the internet, the skeptics have WON.
If it is not "passivity" by the defenders of NDE's, then I don't understand what "passivity" means.
2-Consider this recent commentary by a reader of Dean Radin's blog and Radin's response:
Do you have a refutation of Robert Todd Carrol's criticism of Ganzfeld studies? The problem of sensory leakage is addressed, but other problems are as well. I may have already seen such refutation, but if you can point me in the right direction in light of this article, it would be appreciated
The reader seems be incomfortable with Carroll's online criticism and is asking for a refutation of it.
Obviously, the reader's discomfort confirms the "passivity" that I'm discussing here, because it shows that a proper refutation of Carroll's criticisms is not available online (or at least, not very well known or accessible as Carroll's article). So, the reader's discomfort seems to be largely justified.
Dean Radin's reply to the reader is telling and tends to confirm my point:
I've addressed criticisms of the ganzfeld and other meta-analyses in great detail in my books, and you can read some of the original journal articles on the "evidence page" I mentioned at the top of this thread. I've also stated my opinion about Wikipedia in this blog.
When working at the edge of the known there is plenty of room for a wide range of opinions, some of which are worth more than others. I've learned to pay close attention to constructive comments offered by scientists who have expertise in actually conducting and analyzing experiments. I pay far less attention to armchair critics.
When working at the edge of the known there is plenty of room for a wide range of opinions, some of which are worth more than others. I've learned to pay close attention to constructive comments offered by scientists who have expertise in actually conducting and analyzing experiments. I pay far less attention to armchair critics.
Radin refers mainly to his books (which are not available online and therefore are less accessible than Carroll's skeptic dictionary) and to the recently created "evidence page" (which is online). (Note that while the "evidence page" is a recent creation, Carroll's debunking articles have been online for years and their impact has already been established in the mind of many people, scholars included, as a standard and accessible skeptical reference).
Finally, Radin explicitly says that he "pay far less attention to armchair critics", which is precisely the point that I'm discussing here: The armchair critics are extremely active on the internet and they reach a large bunch of people because they use wikipedia, technically well-created debunking websites, manipulate Google search machines, and use other easily accessible online resources.
Most people won't have the time or resources to searching the highly technical parapsychological literature, and will tend to arrive to their conclusions based on cursory readings on the internet.
I'm not suggesting nor recommending that Radin, who is a professional scientist, should dedicate his time and efforts to refute "skeptics" online. He's busy with his professional investigations, like most scientists and scholars are. (I guess that the creation of the "evidence page" is Radin's modest contribution to put the skeptics in their place).
I'm simply describing a fact which supports my main contention: "skeptics" have a better use of the online resources in order to defend their positions and debunk parapsychology. Parapsychologists and other "paranormalists" have been (for whatever reason, justified or not) passive in handling such online skeptical attacks.
There is a new generation of people (specially young people) whom we can call "internet researchers", who don't like to read books or scholarly articles, but simply to read everything online.
This people are a perfect target for the skeptical online strategies. And again, in terms of online information, the skeptics seem to have the upper hand here.
3-Compare Carroll's skepdic dictionary with Sheldrake's "Skepticalinvestigations.org" (an excellent website, by the way).
Technically speaking, in terms of content, variety of topics, number of entries, online impact, number of updates, Google positions, etc. clearly Carroll's website has the upper hand. In this technical sense, Carroll's webiste is sa far better than Sheldrake's.
Carroll, who is a professional atheist philosopher, has dedicated a large amount of time, resources and titanic efforts developing a whole online skeptical encyclopedia to refute parapsychology, afterlife research, alternative medicine, ufology and so forth.
Only an extremely motivated and persistent person would do something like that.
Not comparable anti-skeptical online resources exists in English. And probably, it never will exist, since the level of motivation and active efforts of skeptics is overwhelmingly superior than "paranormalists", who are extremely passive.
4-A final example is in order: Compare the literature of skeptics with the literature of paranormalists.
The literature of skeptics is dedicated specifically to REFUTE parapsychology and other fringe topics. (Think about Martin Gardner's books, James Randi's books, etc.). They have decades in this project.
On the contrary, with some recent exceptions (like Chris Carter's books and others in recent years), the overwhelming majority of the literature written by paranormalists is not intented to refute the skeptics. With some exceptions, you never find a book specifically addressing and refuting all and each of the skeptical objections about a specific topic.
In other words, in terms of controversies published in books, skeptics have not debating partners. Their case is almost never refuted in explicit debates.
All of this is what I mean by "passivity", and I'm sad to have to admit that skeptics, so far, have won the informative war regarding the use of internet and other resources.
0 comments:
Post a Comment