The skeptic's "uphill struggle"

Michael Marshall writes in The Guardian - 21st May 2014 that "Skeptics will always face an uphill struggle against pseudoscience".

Reading on, what he is calling "pseudoscience" here is actually in reference to mediums and their role in grief and bereavement.

He says:

We have all lost someone close to us, and we have all felt the pain of bereavement. As skeptics, we have no magical answer to that pain.

At their lowest ebb, at their most vulnerable, that’s when people are most at risk of taking a logical misstep that, once made, is very hard to reverse.

What the author fails to recognise here, is that very often when people are at their most vulnerable, e.g. following a bereavement, it is not unusual (indeed, more common than Mr Marshall's limited research will allow him to accept) to find that the passing of a loved one can often be the very time that they will experience an unexpected 'paranormal' occurrence, or that loss in death can be the event that triggers the need to question further and to ponder on the question of some form of continuance of existence after the expiration of a body.  For this reason, they will voluntarily seek out a medium.  

It is simply wrong to suggest that all those mediums are waiting their chance to pounce on the vulnerability of the bereaved.  In most cases, (though unfortuntely not all), it is quite the reverse.

It is also the time when folk are more receptive to their spiritual nature, and therefore more open to facilitating some form of contact from the recently passed, who, aware of the grief and despair of those left behind, may be desperately trying to convey a message through to their loved ones here that they do still have an awareness of what they have left behind, that they still exist to an extent - and this is where the medium comes in.

I would suggest that Mr Marshall's 'uphill struggle' could be considerably lessened, if only he were willing to drop the boulder, look around to either side, rather than simply straight in front of him - and realise that there are other paths leading to the top of that 'hill'.  Put some wheels under yer boulder, Mr Marshall, and pull it with ease at your leisure along the windy, picturesque scenic route.  Take time to rest a while at intervals along the way and enjoy those surroundings.  

Better still - Just ditch the boulder!

Kitkat wrote:Reading on, what he is calling "pseudoscience" here is actually in reference to mediums and their role in grief and bereavement.

Well spotted. This is another bugbear of mine regarding so-called "skeptics": referring to anything they don't agree with as 'pseudoscience'. Of course, it's a telltale sign of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about - which is a good indicator of how seriously you should take the author. If they can't distinguish between science, bad science, pseudoscience and non-science then they're not off to a very promising start!

Kitkat wrote:What the author fails to recognise here, is that very often when people are at their most vulnerable, e.g. following a bereavement, it is not unusual (indeed, more common than Mr Marshall's limited research will allow him to accept) to find that the passing of a loved one can often be the very time that they will experience an unexpected 'paranormal' occurrence

[...]

It is also the time when folk are more receptive to their spiritual nature, and therefore more open to facilitating some form of contact from the recently passed

It's also a time that leaves us more vulnerable to irrational thought and superstition. It isn't a coincidence that 'anomalous experiences' occur in times of grief (and other emotional states, times of uncertainty, etc.) - it doesn't mean those experiences are veridical though.

I have said it before that skeptics only seem to look at issues through a true/false dichotomy. Mediums aren't really communicating with the dead therefore anyone who thinks they are is engaging in pseudoscience (he he!). They never look at the issue from the perspective of how useful it might be to utilise a belief system or how much good such beliefs can do - even if they're ultimately false.

Kitkat wrote:I would suggest that Mr Marshall's 'uphill struggle' could be considerably lessened, if only he were willing to drop the boulder, look around to either side, rather than simply straight in front of him

One of his self-appointed fancy titles is "project director for the Good Thinking Society". What these "skeptics" need to do is to actually engage in some proper "good thinking" and start looking at issues from a much broader perspective. I wonder whether this Vice President (of a 2-man 'society' ) is starting to realise that?

I might have a surf around now and see what's happening in the 'skeptical community'. I haven't looked for quite a while so I never hear anything these days.

Umberto Cocopop wrote:I might have a surf around now and see what's happening in the 'skeptical community'.

Well that was well worth it!  

It's pretty dismal. A few blogs, podcasts and SitP groups. All 'opt in' content. The very sort of unengaging 'insular skepticism' I warned about several years ago.

I'm interested to know exactly what separates you from the skeptics. Is it that you recognise that belief is sometimes a good thing eg when we are grieving and looking for comfort, whereas skeptics say belief is always a sign of stupidity or gullability?

Feather wrote:I'm interested to know exactly what separates you from the skeptics.

I aim to be someone who uses critical thinking properly when looking at issues. Skeptics think they're already there.

I found what passes as "skepticism" to be as much of a delusion as some of the topics skeptics deride.

Most "skeptics" are merely followers. As with most people, they begin with a conclusion that fits their world view and then seek to justify it. In the case of "skeptics" it's often a case of knowing that something is false (psychic ability, etc.) and appealing to authority figures, such as Randi, to back it up. This isn't rational thinking though. Even if their conclusion is correct, it doesn't mean they've used a valid process to get there. This is evident whenever skeptics are are pressed on why they've concluded what they have - they can rarely give coherent reasons.

An argument = conclusion + supporting reasons

It's not the truth value of the conclusion that's indicative of a good argument, it's the quality of the supporting reasons and reasoning. It's actually quite rare to find someone who identifies themselves as a skeptic who can genuinely reason their way to their conclusion.

Of course, that isn't different from anyone else, it's just that skeptics think that they are different - more reasoned and rational etc.

Feather wrote:Is it that you recognise that belief is sometimes a good thing eg when we are grieving and looking for comfort, whereas skeptics say belief is always a sign of stupidity or gullability?

Well, this is the "scope" issue. In order to assess an issue properly, it needs to be looked at in its entirity. I remember back on UKS asking about evidence for the harm that mediumship does - there's actually very little to nothing in the way of hard evidence. This should be acknowledged when calls for bans etc. are made as the level of harm is nothing more than an assumption.

Homeopathy's another example.

Does it work?
Does it cause harm?
Does it provide benefits?
Should it be sold over the counter?
Should it be used on the NHS?
Do, and how often, do homeopaths give bad or harmful advice?
Do, and how often, do homeopaths give good or helpful advice?
Should practitioners be more strictly regulated?
If it was banned what would we gain overall?
If it was banned, would people turn to more dangerous forms of alternative medicine?

There's just a few questions to ponder. It should be obvious that simply looking at its validity (does it work or not?) is far too simplistic a way to consider banning it. There's all sorts of contextual factors involved as well as cost/benefits to be taken into account.

This is what critical thinking is about. Looking at issues from a fuller perspective. It's actually possible to come to several conclusions based on context. e.g. perhaps it could be argued that over the counter sales of homeopathy are OK as it's not harmful but it should be banned for use by the NHS as it's wasting taxpayers' money that could be used more effectively elsewhere.

Look at any skeptic's blog on homeopathy and you won't see this level of consideration.

That's true. They don't want to go into the complexities of an issue . They live in a black and white world and fail to see all the grey tones.
I've learned such a lot since joining SL. I still have much to learn but the whole topic interests me more than any other. That may be morbid but it's truly me.

Umberto Cocopop wrote:An argument = conclusion + supporting reasons

I don't understand how you can define 'An argument' as a conclusion with supporting reasons.   

Would it not make more sense to describe it as a statement or an assertion + supporting reasons?

The conclusion must surely follow and perhaps seal the argument - not define it (?)

The "+" symbol doesn't imply that the conclusion comes before the supporting reasons.

An argument is defined as requiring a conclusion (something that's put forward as true or factual) which results from or is supported by premises (the reasons that entail the conclusion).

Yes, the conclusion can be thought of as a statement or an assertion in its own right but it forms a part of an argument when it's supported by reasons.

Statements, assertions, opinions, and such like are not arguments.

Someone needs to write an "introduction to critical thinking" series to explain the basics of all this. Unfortunately, I can't be bothered with it at the moment.

Umberto Cocopop wrote:Someone needs to write an "introduction to critical thinking" series to explain the basics of all this. Unfortunately, I can't be bothered with it at the moment.

    Well, that's a rather "unfortunate" stance to be holding.   

Hopefully, there will come a "moment" in the not-too-distant future when that "someone" might just find a little bit of "bother" and put it to good use.

Seconded.  

It requires a lot of work but produces little to nothing in return. For this reason, doing this sort of thing has to be done on a spare time/hobby basis - and even then, it requires motivation.

At the moment I have more important things to do. I did intend writing things up this year but I can't see me doing it any time soon.

Umberto Cocopop wrote:It requires a lot of work but produces little to nothing in return. For this reason, doing this sort of thing has to be done on a spare time/hobby basis - and even then, it requires motivation.

At the moment I have more important things to do. I did intend writing things up this year but I can't see me doing it any time soon.

If something is important enough to you, the motivation will come to you - when the time is right and the opportunity presents itself. When that happens, you will *know* that the time is right.   

CT is important to me - spending time and working to present it to others isn't.

The problem is: how to you capture a target audience that isn't in your own sphere?

The problem with so-called skepticism is that they only ever attract, and cater to, other skeptics. It's not an easy problem to solve.

However, when it comes to Critical Thinking, I did come up with an idea that could be used to:

1. Target people outside one's own sphere;
   
2. Target a relevant audience;
   
3. Do so without them realising it (education by stealth);
   
4. Motivate them to apply it (via their self interest); and
   
5. Would be easy to deliver (i.e. online).
   

It would require a dedicated team of people committed to the idea, and ideally, some form of funding (as it would be free at the point of delivery).

This is where the idea falls down though. I don't know where to find people who are genuinely committed to promoting something for its own sake (other than their career prospects, for example) or where to get funding.

I'd love to do this on a professional basis but I'd never do something on an ad-hoc, amateur basis ever again.

Where there's a will-------  

Feather wrote:Where there's a will-------  

------- a death is inevitable.