“Phenomenology 105” is an annual conference on the paranormal that took place this year, March 22-24, in Gettysburg, PA. Hosted by North Eastern Paranormal Investigations (NEPI), about 500 people attended the zombie-themed event that featured speakers, paranormal celebrities, panel discussions, ghost hunts, and zombie prom.

What makes this type of event similar to skeptical, science, and secular-themed conferences is the sense of enjoyment in sharing a common interest, the free use of jargon particular to the specialty subject area, and interaction with people that everyone just knows. They also had a funny and personable emcee by way of Jeff Belanger. Participants were excited and enthusiastic.

The differences from science/skepticism conferences, however, are considerable. You've never been to one of these conferences? Well, let me show you around.

Demographics of a Para-Con

There are no professors. There are no suits. Instead, there are LOTS of black tee-shirts.

Black tee-shirts are the stereotypical uniform of paranormal investigators. They really do wear them, emblazoned with their group's name and acronym. Entire families wear the same tee-shirt design. Yes, families. The age range at this event was wide. The youngest child was around nine and the oldest person likely over seventy. The median age was, if I had to guess, about forty. Ethnicity was not as diverse.

At least half the attendees were women. However, this ratio did not hold for the speakers—I counted only four women among the forty or so presenters. There was no hint of or mention of sexism and no conduct policy. Everyone was courteous and friendly. But, I was not present later at the bar when alcohol entered the social mix.

Phenomenology vendor area. Jeff Belanger is horrified to see a skeptic enter. (Photo: Sharon Hill)

The vendor area featured merchandise ranging from ghost hunting implements to skull motif jewelry. This was also a meet-and-greet location to purchase autographs and pictures from authors and horror actors in attendance. The psychic reader didn't seem very busy. I asked about the parascope device that detects changes in static electricity by changing colors (pretty!). The seller demonstrated the response by placing his cell phone next to it. Also featured on this table were palm-sized geophones that lit up when nearby vibrations were detected. Great for lining them along a hallway to detect footsteps, he said. And, besides, they glowed in the dark. Cool. $90 a piece.

With the many gadgets on display, I noticed the non-gadgets even more. Vendors were selling every kind of Saintly medal, rosary, chakra, and lucky charm you could imagine. There is a trend AWAY from the sciencey-sounding activities in exchange for a greater reliance on the spiritual. Another speaker noted this exact transformation in herself which I describe a bit later.

I suspect the spiritual topics may have gained popularity beginning with the TV show Paranormal State which aired from 2006-2011 featuring college kids investigating hauntings often associated with evil forces or demons. The leader, Ryan Buell, was a devout Catholic, interpreted the anecdotes and observations as demonic in many instances, even believing he had his own demon in pursuit. He consulted with demonologists. Now, several groups consider the demonic in their investigation scenarios. The use of protective medallions, religious symbols, and holy water have become more common tools. This religious orientation is also fueled by the success of the TV show Haunted Collector featuring John Zaffis, nephew of the Ed and Lorraine Warren, America's most infamous demonologists.

An Array of Speakers

The Zaffis family was the main event on the first night of the conference. The premise of the show is the family investigates items that are supposedly giving people psychic trouble. The blooper reel they showed was a huge hit with the loud, obvious fans sitting next to me. This was my first indication that this is very much a fan con. The content is often light, mostly consisting of a Q&A session with the para-celebs. While sometimes entertaining, I admit I do not like these Q&A sessions because of the dull questions repeatedly asked by the audience: What was the scariest thing that happened to you? What was your favorite place to investigate? I don't watch the shows much so that doesn't interest me. Many of these people are entertainers and they make their fans happy.

Later, I got a chance to ask John Zaffis, an admitted “fan of all religions” how he reconciles all these different belief systems in terms of the clients' paranormal experience? What role does religion play? His answer was brilliant and enlightening: People must use the tools they have, including religion, to deal with their own situation. He can help them but they must do something on their own to feel protected. It did not matter what symbol they used—a rosary, a cross, a rabbit's foot—as long as it worked for them and they believed, that's what does it. He also noted in his talk that the sponsors, network and lawyers do not like when he does religious rituals. This is a touchy area. When I returned from the conference I checked in with some contacts who follow ghost hunting trends who assured me the shift from science to spiritual is a definite thing. Science has failed to give them the solutions (that they wanted) and so, they moved to a more “flexible” framework—whether New Age beliefs or traditional religion.

Thus ended the first evening. These people were genuinely nice and fun to listen to with one caveat…I had to suspend my skepticism and rational thought and just listen.

Friday was all day lectures. The first speaker, John Brightman, gave a presentation on the Bridgewater Triangle of Massachusetts, mainly the Freetown forest area. The area is perceived to be a hotbed of satanic rituals, hauntings, and UFO/Bigfoot sightings. Brightman correlated the events to the three mental hospitals in the area and an “Indian curse” based on a historic massacre. There were so many stories told (no references, no other evidence given) that it was very difficult to tell what was reliable. During the talk, he told of reported Thunderbird sightings in the Triangle while showing slides of pterosaur-like creatures portrayed during Civil War times. I immediately recognized the pictures as hoax photos related to a past TV show. But Brightman didn't mention that. He talked about the photos in the context that they were genuine! Perhaps he slipped on the descriptions but if he DIDN'T know these photos were faked, it would be impossible for me to take him seriously as an investigator. Later, in the vendor room, I decided not to bring up the mistakes he made but asked him about the “parascope” device he was displaying. He said the flashing colored lights are mainly for “entertainment value.” I think his stories are, too.

Jason Gowin, formerly of the roundly criticized TV show Extreme Paranormal gave a humorous and honest presentation about his experiences as a ghost hunter and reality TV participant. Jason, who is an acquaintance of mine, is a funny, sweet person who sits in the middle of the paranormal belief sphere. He knows things are often faked and that he can be fooled but still wonders about terrifying personal episodes he can't brush off. He freely admits that you will come across many people who want to believe in the paranormal so badly, they will force evidence; many of the people who claim to have experienced activity are not mentally stable. Yet, he understands that people feel isolated when they have such experiences and just want someone to help them. “Comforting people is really where it's at,” he says.

No longer under a non-disclosure agreement, Jason speaks out about his time on Extreme Paranormal. “Paranormal TV is entertainment,” he states. “They don't care about what's real or not or whether it's legitimate. Their job is to make a show people will watch.” Extreme Paranormal went down the toilet when they were directed to perform a blood ritual where one of the hosts cut themselves. Jason insisted this set a horrible example. He was ignored. To this day, he claims, he is vilified for his participation in a ruse he was not allowed to expose. The contract stated they would be fined for impeding production of the show. The show was cancelled.

Getting your own TV show is a running gag at the event as the emcee, Jeff Belanger, freely joked about it. One successful show is Destination Truth with Josh Gates. He also has the show Stranded where normal people are put into abnormal situations. Gates also admits that many things are reenacted, condensed, edited, etc. The audience clearly loves Josh: he is charming, entertaining, and witty along with being quite brave to travel all the insane places he ends up (like Antarctica and Chernobyl).

By the end of Friday, I had talked to a few people but was feeling more and more uncomfortable. The growing sense of unease was because my worldview was very far removed from all the people around me. And there were still two days to go.

What's A Skeptic To Do?

Beginning with the Zaffis discussion from the first night, I noticed the word “skeptic” was used frequently. The Haunted Collector TV crew was skeptical, investigation teams would have a skeptic included. The “skeptics” had been converted eventually, as spooky things happened and they perceived “THIS S**T IS REAL.” Interesting. At no time did anyone ask probing questions such as, “If these items are SO powerful and have demonstrable paranormal effects, why can't this be documented by scientists?”

Dave Schrader from Darkness Radio gave a well-done presentation on nightmare creatures. Who doesn't love that topic? Especially when delivered with Dave's booming radio voice. I learned some new creatures from his talk—bloody bones man, the origin of the tooth fairy, and more on the completely concocted “Slender Man.” Dave considers himself a “skeptic” in a sense. He mentioned that those people experiencing night hauntings (for example the “old hag” syndrome or alien abduction scenarios) would be advised to consult a professional regarding sleep disorders. He explained that “shadow people” are possibly related to our problems with light perception in the dark or the weird conditions of a place that make you feel uneasy. Telling the story of the Queen Mary ghosts, he was clear that the story of the little ghost girl, Jackie, arose from what looked like a footprint. It grew from there despite no evidence. But for all the admission of alternative normal explanations, he then promoted the paranormal by factually stating that ghosts like attention, bad hauntings (demons) start slowly, in the tales of black-eyed children people ended up dead, and that you need to protect yourself from the “bad stuff.” Disappointingly, his explanation for the proliferation of Slender Man reports (the character that supposedly heralds death to those who see him) took a leap from what might be characterized as meme propagation (the spreading of an idea through culture) to the hundredth monkey phenomena of group consciousness. Also, he entertains the ideas of tulpas—where creations of our mind become real. Example, Queen Mary's Jackie. Oh dear. I thought we were on the right track for a while. I asked Dave “What do you mean by 'skeptic'?” He said, “A person who questions.” Not quite…

The day went downhill from there, as many of the speakers made mistakes that I could easily pick up. Factual errors, and not little ones either, continued to be common. The scholarship at these events is sorely lacking. References are second or third hand. Or nonexistent. Credentials are created.

Dave Juliano of South Jersey Ghost Research sees his crew as “like doctors” to diagnose a situation. He teaches classes on this. One of Dave's points was about frame of mind—ghosts are drawn to anger, positivity gives you protection.

This point was similar to one Michelle Griffin made later in the day when she described how “tools” and equipment of “scientific” investigation hindered her growth and experience. I took that to mean that she (and others) are over-reliant on perception, which is subjective and unreliable. There is that shift from physical to emotional evidence. They are opening themselves up wide to creating their own story as opposed to an objective description. The audience appeared to hear this as “getting in touch with your spiritual side,” that intuition and feelings were more powerful than anything. The person is the tool.

She described how the paranormal was a stepping stone to a new spiritual outlook for her, what she calls a “Holy Shift” which is the name of an upcoming event she is producing. She admitted that the paranormal was “a gateway drug” that “opens you up to the next thing.” It suggested to me being enveloped in belief. It made no sense to me. [(4/26/2013) Edited to remove parts by request of Michelle Griffin]

Once again, some speakers just did Q&A, which was dull and to me showed a lack of preparation. Perhaps I missed an opportunity to ask some zingers but I didn't wish to reveal my secret skeptic identity. I just listened. Interesting bits were to be found as people chit-chatted waiting for the next person to set up.

During one of these setup times, the speaker asked the audience if anyone had gone on a ghost hunt the previous night and how it went. There was some stirring in the audience. One woman, sitting with a male partner and a teen girl spoke up and said, “We had a problem.” She proceeded to tell how they had visited General Lee's headquarters when the teen girl experienced a choking sensation. Soon after, the man did too, and then the woman, as they all sought to get out of the place. They claimed to have heard a growl and interpreted their experience as encountering a malevolent force. Perhaps the General's spirit didn't want them there (they were Yankees). Or maybe, I thought, it was a growling stomach, anxiety, fear, and mass psychogenic illness. No alternative explanations were proposed. The story was too good. Everyone was aghast. I was too, for a different reason.

At no time did anyone ask probing questions such as, “If these claims are real and these spirits are SO powerful and these items have demonstrable paranormal effects, why can't this be documented by scientists?” It was not about that. It was about belief. One black tee-shirt caught my eye...the “Spirit research” group tee said “Learn, understand, respect, believe.”

By this time, I was tired. I had heard a lot that surprised me. A nice change that I thoroughly enjoyed was the zombie panel discussion led by ParanormalPopCulture.com's Aaron Sagers. The panelists included radio personalities, paranormal investigators, and two zombie actors from The Walking Dead. Everyone knew their pop culture zombies and it was like being back at a monster discussion at Dragon*Con, the huge sci-fi/fantasy convention. The questions were great and the viewpoints insightful until someone in the audience suggested that vaccination is a possible way to turn us into a mindless horde because there are “toxins” in them. What a way to derail the discussion, lady. Sadly, she's the one who has been brainwashed. Belief in demons, astrology, chakras, etc., is more understandable than the idea that vaccinations are an evil government plot.

Finally, the featured speaker on Saturday evening was Travis Walton, author, alleged alien abductee. I knew the general story about Walton's claims but not details of the critique. So, I just listened without prejudging—my goal for the weekend. Walton is a talented storyteller who has made relating the tale of his bizarre experience his life's work. I expect he's done okay through book sales, appearances and film royalties. He tells us he is redoing the book, Fire in the Sky, with additional information discovered and is attempting to get the movie (of the same name) remade more accurately. His story is dramatic, it draws people in. But, when he got to the part describing the technology on board the ship (this was in 1975), the obvious problem was the 1970's idea of technology that was depicted. It resembled the Star Trek or Star Wars flight decks. It was laughable. But, I didn't laugh. My conclusion at the end of his talk was that he likely had a frightening and confusing experience and was dramatically misinterpreting it. Upon later discussions with those who have more closely looked into the case, they told me they believe Walton's story to be a deliberate fabrication. Did the people in this audience buy the story? Maybe. They seem very open to believing anything that sounds interesting.

I'd had all I could take. I was full up on the fantastic and simply could not muster the enthusiasm to attend the fourth and final day. I drove home, turning over all I had heard and seen from the weekend.

There was no orthodoxy there. Everyone can do their own thing, then write their own book or get their own show. I felt this was worthwhile to see this from the inside. It is a worthwhile experience for skeptics to do this in order to understand how important FEELING is in these experiences, rather than THINKING. People are very affected; it's become part of who they are. We are the foolish ones who try to rationalize them out of a belief they did not rationalize themselves into.

Should skeptics leave some topics alone? No.

When I researched amateur paranormal investigation groups, I saw participants strive to incorporate science on their own terms. They did not want critique and closed the door on any hint of “skeptical” inquiry. In order to even talk to them, I had to conceal my skeptical persona. I still see that evident to some degree today. Skeptical discussion of these topics gets far less attention than those persons or media that promote the outrageous and mysterious aspects.

It is obvious that many proponents of ideas on the fringe are annoyed by skeptical probing. We ask for specifics. We question assumptions. We aren't bowled over by the evidence. We are pains in the butt messing up their beloved theories.

This post is a continuation of what I wrote in my last entry for Sounds Sciencey: Burning the Mean and Disparaging Skeptic Straw Man. In that post, I explained how I had appeared on a “pro-paranormal” (for lack of a more accurate term) podcast with mostly positive, but overall mixed results. Following that appearance, irritation erupted from a few of the online paranormal writers that skeptics should just stick to certain topics and leave the ghost hunters and Bigfoot enthusiasts alone. For example, this blurb appeared on The Anomalist website (emphasis is mine):

How can one bridge the gap between paranormal researchers of all stripes with skeptics? By hearing out the other side. Tim Binnall has a long interview with skeptic Sharon Hill. The common ground covered here is going after homeopaths and antivaxxers who ultimately hurt people. We question the invective directed towards ghost hunters and company, comparing them to juggalos for instance, whose greatest crime is trespassing in a place regular people don’t care about. The application and advancement of science would be better spent pursuing curing cancer, developing renewable energy, and cleaning the environment than taunting sexagenarians with MUFON as their homepage. Whether you agree or not, this episode is provocative to say the least.

The Anomalist writer seemed to regret phrasing it this way but did not take back the sentiment. I took this as defensiveness. There are several things troubling about this attitude. First, skepticism is not the same as application of science though we use the tools of science. I can't cure cancer. Second, in no way did I intend to give the impression that paranormal investigators are a terrible thing. I happen to like the concept of an overarching body like MUFON, so this characterization does not apply to me as a skeptic. The straw man reappears.

Go Do Something More Important

When I comment on these topics on popular websites, I’ve been regularly told to go back to my cubicle, my high horse, my “lonely room,” wherever they imagine that skeptics go to feel self-satisfied. My opinion is rarely appreciated but I'm not surprised. Hey, skepticism is not the fun club. But the world is not all games and good times. In contrast to those who accuse me of being closed-minded and a “martyr” to the skeptical cause (whatever that means), I gladly put out the question on my personal blog for people to chime in about this topic: Should skeptics limit themselves to certain topics?

Oddly, an oft-repeated theme of discussion in the skeptical community is exactly this—paranormal topics are silly and unimportant, so serious subjects like health claims, religion, and even social justice issues should be in the forefront. One argument against that states that a scope that was too wide would cause “skeptical activism” to lose focus, uniqueness, and purpose.

Here, I'm going to concentrate on the premise that the paranormalists stated: There is little/no harm in paranormal pursuits. Skeptics should go do something “more important.”

Is there specific harm in ghost hunting, paranormal pursuits, and believing in Bigfoot? Harm is hard to pin down. We can't presume what is harm for one person is for another. The real conversation may be instead about risk versus benefit. Is it worth the investment of time, money, and emotion? Does it lead to positive or negative consequences?

A paranormal conference of about 500 attendees happened in Gettysburg, PA in March 2013. I spent three days surrounded by paranormal investigators and enthusiasts. What I found, among many other useful observations, was that these people are serious. For many of the speakers, this is their life.

Any hobby can become an obsession, wreck your finances, and ruin your relationships. That can be said about weekend trips to find Bigfoot or a collection of Beanie Babies that overtakes your home. But paranormal pursuits have special features. Some paranormal investigators or Bigfoot enthusiasts have defined themselves in terms of this pursuit. It becomes an integral part of who they are. They become committed to “proving” something to the world. For some that began paranormal interests as a hobby, it is now the way they interpret everything that happens to them in their lives. The spirits come home with them, they fear their lives will be drastically disrupted, some fear they may be made ill from the evil energy. It's that extreme. In a conference of 500 people, it's not a minority view.

I saw people cry with emotion. I heard people tell stories about being pushed or choked by entities. One woman described how on a ghost hunt the previous night, her daughter and then the two other family members felt a malevolent presence try to suffocate them. Listeners were either fearful or jealous they only heard knocking on their respective ghost hunt. Many seemed to completely accept that this happened exactly in the dramatic way it was related.

Of course, not everyone is this serious. Some do it just for fun. Their pursuit or belief in weird things enhances their joy of life. The trouble is that I can't see a line of demarcation between having fun and being more seriously involved. The problem is with the claims made about cryptids, UFOs, and the paranormal. They claim they are real and are a valid explanation for a phenomenon.

Paranormal people tell me they are skeptical of real snake oil salesmen and support stronger consumer protection. They also dislike the celebrity quacks and fake medical treatments. Why don't us skeptical buttinskis stick to that life-threatening stuff instead? This argument to exclude targets for skepticism does not wash. First, there will always be the argument that X is more harmful than Y. There will always be another X. Is homeopathy more of a problem than acupuncture? Are fake cancer cures worse than homeopathy? What about campaigns against fraudulent psychics? Everyone has their own pet subject that gets on their nerves and makes them passionately angry. As with interests, expertise is specific. We all have our knowledge specialties. There is plenty of room for various topics. For all the positive play on any subject, there ought to be a fair critique to balance it out. If it's out there, it's open for comment.

“Go pick on someone else, we don’t want you here,” they say. Of course you don’t. But, I’m not picking on you personally; I’d attempt to apply this protocol to ANY claim out there. Skeptics don't harass the neighborhood ghost hunters. We argue about the claims ghost hunters make—that they have evidence for paranormal activity, that there is spirit energy in the house, that anomalies in environmental variables are the effects of psychic energy. Scientists work long and hard to obtain their expertise and are subject to community criticism. If you start making claims, especially ones that go against well-established natural laws, you are GOING to get called on it. The portrayal of ghost hunters as “scientific” or having credible knowledge feeds public scientific ignorance. We can’t afford that.

There are paranormal clubs that cater to kids and students. At the paranormal convention, which was quite a family event for all ages, there were dozens of kids that attending the Junior ghost hunt. It can be argued that teaching kids to seek out paranormal activity is encouraging belief-based thinking, contributing to the willful ignorance of the students by teaching them how NOT to be skeptical.

To be clear, I’m not about taking away freedom to believe, to spend your money on whatever you wish (even unproven cancer treatments). Obviously, the paranormal field brings excitement and a feeling of purpose to many who participate. I admit I have some confusion over the goals of paranormal investigators these days.

Fun or Do You Want to Know?

Either you want to understand the phenomena for real or you don't and just play around instead. When does it cross the line from being just fun to serious stuff? Even if you say this is for “entertainment purposes only” some people will confuse it with reality. Psychics and astrologers are advertised for entertainment but people make life decisions based on their advice. Another example is the TV show Finding Bigfoot. Is it entertainment? It is for some. Many people, however, absolutely think it's scientific and real. Even though they know they are watching a TV show, they imitate what is done, and by the exposure alone, it increases the familiarity of the concept that Bigfoot is real. I gleefully poke holes in the Finding Bigfoot nonsense because they are making claims that the creature is out there. If they were portraying this as less than serious, I'd have no issue. Instead, they are making factual claims. I am going to call it out as ridiculous for anyone who wants to listen.

If you want actual answers, then you need a skeptical approach, not the half-baked idea of skepticism that most paranormalists have. (A “skeptic” is anyone who asks questions.) Systematically eliminating the options takes work and objectivity. If you really want to best explain the experience, you need to be open-minded enough to consider that your current interpretation is wrong.

To immerse yourself in the paranormal culture means you run the risk, however small, of becoming detached from reality, obsessed with communicating with the dead or discovering the monster in the woods. Listening to one conference speaker talk about “holy shifts,” she described how the paranormal was her gateway drug to new spirituality. She started out with the scientific outlook and now is more religious. Perhaps this makes her happy and fulfills a need or perhaps this is the wrong path. It's not for me to say. But when she claims that she spoke to a ghost, this is certainly fair game for rational critique.

Acknowledgements: Tim Binnall, Cherry Teresa, Barbara Drescher, Mike McRae, Ben Radford, Samuel Rich, Blake Smith, Ken Summers, George Stadalski, David Bloomberg, Jeff Wagg, Sciencism Admin, Cuttlefish Poet

Does “skeptic” equal nasty, obnoxious and shouty? No? Then why do we get automatically tagged with those characteristics even when we are not? The word carries some connotations. But that ought not bar an exchange between skeptics and believers. We have some bridges to build.

Disclaimer: This whole piece revolves around mistaken assumptions that observers make. One problem with much of the discussion between skeptics and believers has to do with semantics. Just using the terms “skeptics” and “believers” is limiting and mistaken in many ways. But, I feel I have no choice to use these terms to make this piece reasonably understandable. I am completely aware that this is problematic and I ask that you see this as a panorama, not as sticking people in labeled boxes.

“I meet more skeptics (online) who think ‘being a skeptic’ is just a license to be an arsehole with impunity.” -@finalcontext on Twitter

This is part one of a soul-searching activity. I’d bet many people who have been around for a while will see this as well-worn territory. But in order to really learn a lesson and make a personal change, sometimes, you just have to go down that road yourself. So here I go.

I’ve found myself in the unwelcome position of the Skeptic in paranormal and fringe discussions. Just as the Internet has been a boon to all kinds of fringe topics, it has also allowed those practicing scientific skepticism to get under the claimant’s skin and ask for explanations and evidence. Gee, that makes them mad. Some of us aren’t even trying to be mean; we're just digging for truth.

For a time, on a major cryptozoology blog, my comments were edited or deleted whenever I was deemed to be critiquing the post. When I wrote for a Bigfoot blog about the importance of being critical and digging into claims, I was told by other Bigfoot researchers to go away (http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/12/the-skeptical-eye-on-bigfootery.html) and that I was not wanted there. Thus, I gave up trying to participate in cryptozoology forums. It was pointless.

Still wanting to share my ideas, I continued to engage where I could. There is little sense in spending time in skeptical circles if you wish to be involved with those who are really into the subject. As a seasoned skeptical advocate, my goal was to invite the general audience into a different way of thinking about things. I could point out where mistakes were made, when they were being sciencey, not scientific, where assumptions were taken as fact and that BIG questions remained. That is, assuming they wanted those things. Often, they don’t. They just want to be reassured in their own ideas. And, no matter how objective I thought I was, it was all uphill.

Hi, Let’s Chat

Circumstances came to pass whereby I made a connection with a podcast host who is an avid observer of the paranormal world. Tim Binnall of Binnall of America Audio invited me on his show. This was the first time a capital-S Skeptic was a guest. We talked for over two hours. You can listen to it here (http://binnallofamerica.com/boaa020513.html) and judge for yourself how you think I presented the skeptical viewpoint on the world of the paranormal (and questionable claims across the board). Tim was open to what I had to say even though there were some preconceived notions. We discovered we had a lot in common. We had a very normal, interesting, and cordial discussion. It was also fun and we learned from each other.

I believe an important reason for why the discussion between Tim and I was not a DEBATE, but rather a discussion that generated light, was that we had mutual respect for the views of the other.

Both Tim and I were curious how the show would play with his regular listeners. The feedback was 75% positive, better than Tim expected. Of course, there were those who simply did not like it. It was a response I had seen before. They could not stand listening to me for some reason, usually in reference to tone or attitude. Since I'm now used to the idea that I will be dismissed as the “Skeptic” before people will even listen to what I say, I accept that they will be on defense perceiving that I'm starting off on the wrong side of the issue.

“Skeptic” is used quite frequently as a slur or pejorative in the believers’ circles. Rarely am I called out on what I say about science. Rather, when people don't agree with the skeptical position, they frequently offer nebulous and dismissive excuses for why I should shut up or go away. This is revealing. I’ve offended them in some way. I read all comments on my work but mostly I find the outwardly negative ones are weak, personal, or not arguments about the facts but about feelings. Skeptics clearly make believers feel uncomfortable. Sorry about that. But, for reasons I'll explain in a future Sounds Sciencey, that's the way it is. Get used to it. Criticism against paranormal claims isn’t going away.

I'm very active on social media, where, because of researching stories for Doubtful News (http://doubtfulnews.com), I follow and interact with pro-paranormal outlets. The outward bias towards skeptics is painfully obvious. I cringe when I see examples like this (taken from public accounts on Twitter):

Any skeptic saying their attacks are just out of need for critical thinking has to explain why not 90% of the rest of things.

Time would be better spent using science to actually better our lives, than, say, tell the guy in the tin foil hat he's SO WRONG.

Dammit, candle in the dark civilization collapsing ZOMG the believers are bringing us all back to the level of the apes!

Burn the heretics! Or at least bore them to death by replacing their fairy tales with science journals.

If these folks want to make a difference to the world, spend same amount of time doing charity work for cancer kids etc.

To clarify, I took the Twitter quotes out of their context of two individuals having a bit of fun bashing skeptic straw men. The commentators themselves, of whom I am on (hopefully) friendly terms, are smart and have little problem applying critical thought when they choose to. But this topic has hit a sensitive spot and unleashed some barbed commentary.

Notice the language. Words like “attacks” and “burn” suggest that the skeptic tactics are perceived as mean and nasty.

What's going on here? Well, the sentiment is clear—we skeptics should stop spoiling the ghost hunters fun or impinging on freedom to hunt Bigfoot without ridicule. We should take our books and go home; leave the paranormal alone, it’s harmless. Nope. Not going to happen.

There are good reasons why Skeptics like to poke at the paranormal. However, opinion and critique is hugely complex because people and situations are complex. We come from different backgrounds. We have different education, interests, values and mindsets. One Twitter conversation-follower helpfully tried to tell me not to be the Daffy Duck that barges in to tell Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny that it IS indeed RABBIT season, not DUCK season. This was also a straw man of a Skeptic. I do not barge into conversations and yell to the point of flustering myself beyond clear-headedness. I only venture in where I feel I can contribute a meaningful point.

Skeptics as Obnoxious Know-It-Alls

This is the Skeptic straw man at its most basic: Skeptics are shrill and obsessive.

If I was dismissive and rude in exchanges, dialogue would usually end there or go round and round. Most people don't actually find me to be that way in direct discussion, but, in what seems like a heuristic used by paranormal advocates, I am, by default, painted as the stereotype Skeptic. It’s an EASY, one-word way to poison the well. It happens very often. I don't like it and it prevents meaningful exchange. I will call people out on it and they often back off the generalization.

I asked my pro-paranormal friends (mostly those who entertain fringe stuff but are not sold on it; I will cheekily call them the “paramiddlers”) what was wrong with Skeptics. I also peeked into comment threads and at opinion pieces that were less than kind to inquiring minds. What follows is what non-skeptics think about Skeptics. I also include a bit of commentary about the validity or invalidity of these assumptions. (Devil’s advocate-type speech is in italics, just to be clear I really do not mean that to be taken literally.)

1. We practice scientism.
If you can't use science on it, it doesn't matter. There is truth to that when it comes to finding out reliable information. But does science solve everything? No. It's a flaw to think that science is the be all and end all for all situations. There are other considerations to take into account. Don't worship the science god.

2. We act overly serious and have an inflated sense of self importance.
Skeptics suggest they are superior in intelligence to those who believe in the supernatural or other non-scientific ideas. I'm pretty sure non-skeptics think we stay up late looking for things wrong on the Internet in order to “do our job.” Our goals may include stamping out nonsense with the premise that “if you buy into this stuff, you are a lesser human being.” Some don't believe Skeptics are promoting critical thinking on the basis of virtuous goals. They don't believe that we care about strangers’ lost money or trauma but that we just want to be right. Yep, there are such people out that DO only want to be right.

3. Skeptics enjoy telling people how to think.
We're going to tell you to follow the scientific method because it gives you the right answer. If you don't, you're just wrong. Time to give up your fairy tales and learn how to think critically. Is the acceptance of non-scientific ideas a symptom of not being able to think clearly in other things?! Ah, those self-righteous people are in almost every forum, aren’t they? Those people ARE annoying. No one wants to talk to them.

4. Our goal is to change minds.
Online forums are a good place to observe construction and execution of arguments good and bad. It's amazing how some who are really devoted to the debate will return to pick every piece of the last reply apart. For many of us, our goal is not to change minds since that outcome is highly unlikely, especially in the online setting. We aim to just put another approach or view out there. I'm okay with whatever you believe as long as it doesn't directly affect me. I'm also fine with remaining friendly with those who don't share the same conclusion as me. We lose friends and acquaintances FAST if we close the door just because we disagree with them on one thing.

5. Skeptical activists are shouty, obnoxious, and will shut discussion down.
Pop culture skeptics are scoffing and nasty. This is not a useful approach in communication. I've witnessed many occasions of so-called skeptics attacking Bigfoot believers, UFO witnesses, and ghost hunters. They do, indeed, act like they get their jollies out of bursting bubbles and ruining a fun time. I've been told to be less forceful in jumping into a conversation and yelling (which I don't do because then I’d be typing in ALL CAPS). If I make a point that derails or shuts the discussion down, that’s not necessarily being obnoxious even though it made you mad.

6. We invoke the slippery slope argument.
A very common banner the Skeptics wave contains this warning for humanity: If left unchecked, people who participate in these unscientific pursuits will end up with an overall anti-science mentality. They will reject reality! Belief in nonsense will lead humanity backwards into the dark ages! That a well-meaning exaggeration but it's untrue. People have this slick ability to pick and choose discordant things to believe in. It does not follow that ghost hunting is a gateway to witchcraft or to rejecting germ theory. That's ridiculous. Don't underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance.

Make no mistake; there ARE certainly many Skeptics who do some or all of the above some or all of the time. They even commented that a Skeptic SHOULD do the above items when I asked for input on this topic. But to say “ALL Skeptics are X” is not true. While many “skeptics” do deride and berate, there is a growing contingent that abhors that behavior.

I would also point out that proponents and debaters of non-skeptical ilk often have an inflated sense of self importance, pseudoscientists especially. If skeptics can be accused of practicing scientism, non-skeptics can be equally accused of disregarding the importance of the scientific process to humanity. Plenty of paranormal advocates have told me to think in terms of quantum theory and to not be so closed-minded. As I mentioned, I've had many rude Bigfoot believers tell me to go pound sand outside their playground. So, the invectives thrown at skeptics can often be turned around quite easily. Throwing stones...glass houses...just saying...

In summary, I’m not Daffy Duck but I and other Skeptics have in the past and probably still do come off as obnoxious know-it-alls. Viva la diversité! It makes the world a more productive and interesting place. There are ways to deal with that but it pays off to look beyond the behavior to see if there is any substance there.

Who is Winning?

Let’s go back to my discussion with Tim Binnall on his show. There was a surreal moment when Tim stated, in a “let’s face it” tone, that “skeptics are winning” in the battle of the paranormal. Really? I was shocked. How can skeptics be winning when the major outlets for weird news are non-credulous? When paranormal TV shows vastly outnumber shows with any semblance of skepticism? When paranormal conferences and book sales sweep skeptical-themed cons and books?

Skeptics are but a small voice!

“Pardon?” the paranormalist may say. “Skepticism is given a place of authority in the media.”

Hang on. I think I see the confusion.

SCIENCE is given a place of authority (http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/scientific_its_just_a_catchphrase/). It still has that respect regardless of the minority that distrusts it. Science is one important tool within skepticism. Not everyone may feel comfortable dealing with science topics but EVERYONE can practice good skepticism by asking questions and recognizing quality information in consideration of a claim.

That rolls me back to the theme of this web column: Many paranormalists and pseudoscientists aim to look and sound sciencey because it’s convincing and because of that sense of authority it engenders. Once you know what to look for, it is not that hard to recognize what is real and what is a put on.

In the discussion between Tim and me, it was not about winning. It was about understanding the various approaches to paranormal and fringe topics. Over the past few years, I’ve heard from many paramiddlers that want to understand. Just like me. There remains, unfortunately, such a tension between the camps that a new approach must be initiated from both ends. There certainly IS common ground, we just need to lighten up and be less judgmental. I was recently reminded of the cooperation between Ray Hyman and Charles Honorton on the Ganzfeld experiments (Source: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4348). They jointly published a “Communique” on their efforts to investigate this subject. Wouldn’t it be great to see something like that again? We can surely say that a through and fair inquiry was made into that data from both sides regardless of the differing conclusions reached. I think that’s a common goal—fair inquiry. That is, assuming you really want to know the answer (topic of part two of this Sounds Sciencey discussion).

I would hope that my attempts to be civil, non-dismissive, and understanding would do something towards busting this mean and nasty skeptic straw (wo)man but I doubt it. I think there may forever be the thought of skeptics as shrill obsessives. I don't plan on giving ANY paranormal claim a pass but I do plan on remaining fair-minded and polite as best I can. It would be nice if the claimants took a charitable view of why Skeptics are so interested. We love the subjects too!

I'm perfectly willing to have more “bridge building” conversations and facilitate better exchanges between skeptics and non-skeptics. I anticipate it will NOT go too smoothly. But I hope it goes. My goal is to participate. If you find value in my contributions, great. If not, that's all I can do. I can't make you accept or discard anything. I’m not the bad guy. I’m just curious.

I acknowledge those who contributed their brain droppings to this piece: Tim Binnall, David Bloomberg, Jeb Card, Barbara Drescher, Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com, Cullan Hudson, Tyler Kokjohn, Daniel Loxton, Greg Newkirk, Ben Radford, Red Pill Junkie, George Stadalski, Ken Summers, Greg Taylor, Jeff Wagg, @AnomalistNews, unnamed shouty Skeptics.

Comments on this piece can be sent to shill@centerforinquiry.net. Feel free to send some, I’m open-minded.

Pseudoscience is a pejorative term that is bestowed upon a set of ideas, not used by choice by the holder of those ideas. It’s “false” science, fake science, an imitation missing a vital part, the knockoff, the wannabe, the cheap imitation… OK, you get what I mean.

Contrary to what we think we can say constitutes pseudoscience, there are no set criteria to identify it. It's not a simple thing but a sticky wicket. It's whatever scientists say doesn't belong to legitimate science – a problematic definition. We often must use examples to explain what we mean. Wikipedia has a list of topics that have been characterized as pseudoscience by someone, sometime. Common examples include: astrology, cryptozoology, paranormal investigation, ufology, parapsychology, psychoanalysis, alternative medicine, homeopathy, and creationism.

Because science has authority in our society, it is worthy of imitation. Pseudoscience is science's shadow, which makes it hard to separate from the real thing. It can't exist without science. This science imitation was evident to me upon researching paranormal investigation and cryptozoology. I concluded it was useful to have a set of reasonable guidelines one could use to determine if the methodology and the resulting body of knowledge was scientific or lacking in a critical way. The more of these characteristics one can attribute to the field in question, the more likely it is fairly categorized as “pseudoscience.” But since those are fuzzy, subjective criteria, some theories we now regard as legitimate might have qualified as “pseudoscience” at one time, such as Einstein's special theory of relativity, Mendel's heredity, meteorites, and Wegener's continental drift.

There is no continuum between science and pseudoscience. Nor is there a clear boundary or litmus test for what qualifies as science and what lies outside the lines. This is called the “demarcation problem”—a term that Austrian philosopher Karl Popper coined in the late 1920s to describe the issues of marking a solid line between what is scientific and what is nonscientific. It turns out Popper's solution to the problem was not so hot. He thought it lay in the criterion of testability/falsifiability. But that fails since several theories are not practically falsifiable.

Any series of characteristics commonly attributable to pseudoscience, such as my pet list of criteria, also fails for various reasons. After all this searching for a demarcation criterion without success, philosopher Larry Laudan remarked that we might fairly conclude that “the object of the quest is nonexistent.”

Pseudoscience is just what pseudoscientists do, say the scientists. That is not very helpful for someone who wants to make heads or tails out of a controversial area of research.

This is the thread that winds through Michael Gordin's book The Pseudoscience Wars. Gordin describes the origin of our modern characterization of pseudoscience as starting with “a book and a man”—Immanuel Velikovsky and his book Worlds in Collision.

As a skeptical newbie long ago, I'd seen the name Velikovsky in the literature, in older journal issues, and sprinkled here and there as an “example” of pseudoscience. But I had never read Worlds in Collision and I couldn't have articulated the difference between Velikovsky and Von Däniken, who wrote another popular piece of “fiction science,” Chariots of the Gods. All I could tell you is they were both very popular “cranks” at one time and they had some strange, fringe views about ancient history. I didn’t much care to know more because their ideas were called “pseudoscience”; I assumed they were not worth paying attention to.

In his book, Gordin not only provides an enlightening perspective on the cultural concept of “pseudoscience”—illustrating this through the story of Velikovsky's conflict with the scientific community—but he opines that the word pseudoscience can only be defined in terms of those who use it against others. It's a label skeptics find practically useful. He demonstrates that the fringe imitators (“pseudoscientists” we might call them) are a signal that science is healthy and powerful, not that it’s diseased. And as long as there is science, its shadow will darken the door as well.

Velikovsky's Universal Ideas

Who was Velikovsky? He was a medical doctor and trained psychoanalyst. Worlds in Collision and the collective body of writings by Velikovsky were about a series of global catastrophes, caused by extraterrestrial agents (not aliens but Venus and Jupiter, for example), that befell Earth in historic times. These events explained stories of the Bible, such as the Exodus from Egypt. The work avoided Biblical language but, as described, was only understandable as part of a religious concept. The reason science did not interpret history in this way, Velikovsky believed, was because of collective amnesia. He explained the reason for our missing understanding of a Velikovskian version of history in terms in psychoanalysis.

Many red flags are obvious around Velikovsky's idea—catastrophes, religious context, a reliance on a psychoanalytical excuse to explain why the idea is not accepted. Gordin's book does not completely bridge the gap of understanding as to why so many members of the public accepted it. The important take away is that they did accept it. In the millions. Velikovsky's views resonated with the public. He sounded sciencey; the ideas were plausible if you did not have a foundation in physical sciences.

The name Velikovsky will still pop up here and there. The author of a piece on recent weather catastrophes invoked the legacy of Velikovsky. The Velikovsky affair is a story worth knowing for several reasons. As well as illustrating “pseudoscience” and its issues, it provides insight into the scientific community and the public's relationship to science at that time. Woven into Velikovsky's lifetime of attempting to gain scientific credibility are encounters with the likes of Einstein, Asimov and Sagan. This was no small deal. Gordin makes the story worth telling by using the store of letters and documentation Velikovsky saved, pro and con, from his life's work.

The grumbling over Worlds in Collision by members of the scientific community began before it was even published as a book. Macmillan was a major science textbook publisher. But they marketed Worlds in Collision for the general public, not as a scientific work. Regardless, it was peer-reviewed beforehand and panned for its scientific content. The reviewers were clear that the science was bogus; accepting his ideas would require a total revamp of astrophysics, chemistry, and geology. Yet, as a popular book, the value was not in the scientific accuracy but in the ability to appeal to the general public who would buy it.

The boycott of the book and of Macmillan by scientists was a scandal in Post WWII academic circles. Gordin points out that Worlds in Collision wasn't even a science book! Velikovsky's motivation was to rewrite Middle Eastern history to reconcile it with his view of Jewish history. Yet, historians didn't bother making much of a fuss. Said Carl Kraeling, then director of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, “There is nothing we as historians can do about Dr. Velikovsky's work other than smile and go about our business.” This turned out to be a successful strategy for this situation.

Velikovsky was ostracized in a particular way by scientists. But not by everyone. He asked for a fair hearing from esteemed professionals. When he received a cordial, if negative, reply from an academic, he thanked him. But most of his inquiries were dismissed. Albert Einstein, with whom Velikovsky was an acquaintance because they both lived in Princeton, New Jersey, was sympathetic to him and read his drafts. Einstein's own ideas were considered by some to be “fringe” at one time, and they were also targeted by the Nazis. Einstein thought Velikovsky was unorthodox and his theory was no good, but he did not like the way it had been rejected out of hand by the scientific community. It looked less like a case of rejection due to bad scholarship and more like suppression of knowledge.

The overt dismissal of Velikovsky by the scientific community, members of which usually never even read the book, resulted in an oversight of an important aspect of his work. Catastrophism was essentially true. As we learned more about catastrophes on Earth (asteroids that cause extinction, rapid formation of impressive features like volcanoes or canyons, sudden breakup of ice sheets), Velikovsky was invoked as being correct. He certainly took advantage of these findings even though they did not specifically relate to his details. He may have had kernels of good ideas in his work, but the person and the overall tale were so absurd that he was rejected entirely. Credentialed academics either wanted nothing to do with him or treated him as a charlatan.

Velikovsky's Pseudoscience

Velikovskianism exhibits many of those typical criteria that would be characterized as “pseudoscience.” He believed he had a scientific breakthrough, a paradigm shift. He also would not budge with his ideas; he was in love with his theory. The knowledge must be accepted “as is” because he was correct. Even though he desperately wanted to be accepted by the scientific community, he alienated them with his ego and behavior. Other signs of pseudoscience that we would recognize in the Velikovsky affair were the lack of integration with established knowledge (it was a “maverick” theory), his supporters were generally not scientists, and a community sprang up around him where the person, rather than the idea, was central. Velikovsky spent more time arguing against critics than refining and improving his theories. He capitalized on the perception that he was ostracized, which galvanized his supporters. Velikovskianism became a cult of personality in which one man was in control of the message and he did not allow questioning of his own orthodoxy.

As we see sometimes today with the teaching of Creationism and petitions to protect Bigfoot, the lay public may view science as a sort of Democracy—what is real and important can be established by popularity and effective rhetoric. They do not have the tools to judge good science from poor, or in the case of the Velikovsky affair, science from revisionist history made to sound sciencey. Protesting astronomers and geologists made a huge issue about the science, but there was essentially no science there to criticize. Velikovsky's approach was unscientific. This is one reason use of the term pseudoscience comes in handy even though it's problematic. By labeling the field “pseudoscience,” the entire subject in question can be swept aside as unimportant in one efficient motion. Labeling it in this way also serves to show other scientists they should not waste their time on such a thing. Calling a cadre of fringe fields “pseudoscience” provides a sense of what isn't science, thereby unifying and strengthening quality control over what is. So, regardless of how problematic and unscientific the word pseudoscience is, it serves practical utility and won't be going away any time soon.

To wrap up, we can learn from the Velikovsky affair and its characterization as pseudoscience. The primary blunder made by scientists was their attempt to demonize a person or idea. This backfired and made that person/idea more popular. Every negative review of his books enhanced the controversy and made people curious to read them to see what the fuss was all about. In their haste to prevent some outsider from destabilizing their establishment, they disregarded the importance of being civil and collegial. They didn't read his book. They couldn't be bothered to waste their time. The distance between the public and the scientific community grew from this event. Had Velikovsky's ideas been approached in a more balanced way, some academics may have noticed the interesting alternative explanation of catastrophes. They may have understood his appeal to the everyday person. Instead, scientist critics inadvertently reoriented the conversation to be more about something it was not about at all: control and power.

Here are the lessons I found noteworthy: We are not always correct; there is something to learn even in mistakes; and we should not be so quick to label and discard. It can have unintended consequences.

References

Frazier, Kendrick (editor). 1981. Paranormal Borderlands of Science. Prometheus Books.

Gordin, Michael. 2012. The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe. University of Chicago Press.

Hines, Terrence. 2002. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (2nd edition). Prometheus Books.

Nobel, Philip. 2013. “What Catastrophe?” Metropolis magazine (January 9). Online at http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20130109/what-catastrophe.

Comments on this piece can be sent to shill@centerforinquiry.net.

Generally, your average person is lacking in knowledge of scientific concepts and does not fully appreciate the value the scientific endeavor has on his or her own life. How can we overcome this? Science is the most reliable way of knowing about nature, and its thoughtful use is key to fixing societal problems that threaten all of us. How can we get science to be taken more seriously in the public sphere so that we see in-depth debates and discussions on science issues in the mainstream media and we no longer have to beat back the anti-science voices rampant in politics, in schools, or at the doctor’s office.

Even having many physics classes to my credit, I don’t know the laws of thermodynamics off the top of my head. Even though I can easily rattle off the order of the planets in the solar system, I still have to look up the geologic time scale for era names and dates (even though I am a geologist). At our fingertips, through the Web, we have access to the biggest trove of information ever. I don’t ever need to memorize another factoid that isn’t pertinent to my daily activities. I can just look it up.

High school science classes—biology, chemistry, Earth science, physics (if you get that far)—are still exercises in memorization. It’s not very fun for many kids to go through these classes. Many will not become scientists. The rest of the student body who avoids these classes will also never become scientists. Yet, science is everywhere. It affects us daily—individually and collectively, as a family, as a society and as citizens of Earth. We need to pay attention to it to make the best decisions at several crossroads of our lives.

Scientific knowledge and especially how science works is considered out of the range of understanding for most people by those same people. They don’t see science’s relevance; they think it’s a bad word, that it ruins things, that it’s for someone else to do. They don’t know any scientists. They perceive no connection to the practice of science at all.

Therein lies a fundamental problem and perhaps the crux of the scientific literacy problem we have: You can’t get people engaged and enthusiastic or even respectful about a subject if they don’t see any value or connection to themselves.

What If We Were Taught to Appreciate Science?

I’m drawn to the idea that maybe teaching science isn’t about the nuts and bolts facts and figures but about appreciation. People take appreciation classes in art, literature, music, and more. They can take a stroll through the ideas of the field, which things are important, why we should pay attention. Why not science appreciation class? For the nonscientist.

Such a thing actually exists. It’s about time.

Dr. Andrew Read is in his third go-round of a general education course at Pennsylvania State University (PSU) called “Science in Our World: Certainty and Controversy”. The class for freshman assumes no background knowledge of science and fulfills the credits that might otherwise be filled with “Biology for Beginners” or “Rocks for Jocks” (those aren’t the actual names but you get why they are called that). It is particularly suited, he says, for students who loathed science in high school.

This year’s class contains 170 students. The first year filled a maximum of seventy, the next was up to one hundred. Dr. Read and the Sciences Department at PSU have recognized its popularity. They are onto something.

I was able to connect with Dr. Read in the midst of this busy semester and ask him about the course.

How did the class come about?

“The Dean of Science has an alumni group who advises for the school,” he explains. “They were concerned about the state of public discourse on science in America. Are we, the college of science, doing enough to train the students who weren’t scientists?”

As with many American universities, all students at PSU are required to take a certain number of natural science credits to fulfill general education (“gen ed”) requirements for a degree. Dr. Read, who works in the area of evolutionary biology, notes that the majority of students have not had a good time with science in the K-12 grades and find these “gen ed” courses for science challenging and not much fun. Forced to do these “survey” courses in geology, biology, or meteorology, which are not particularly interesting to non-science students, they are not enjoying them. Therefore, they are unlikely to get much out of them, including how science works or how it relates to their daily lives.

These English, business, and other non-science career majors will go on to be leaders in their community and future decision makers. They ought to know how science works and its value.

What do these non-science students know about science?

“They don’t know much about how science works,” says Read. “They think that science is somehow conjured up, as if you look it up in a big book. They are stunned to discover science is the ultimate in anti-authoritarian existence. There is no Supreme Court, no Pope, no Minister of Science, no one telling them what to do or think in science. It’s a free market of ideas: if you can persuade someone that your ideas are better, you win! It doesn’t matter if you are twelve years old or seventy. That’s quite a shock to them because they’ve been taught there is a right answer and you look it up in some big textbook.”

Today, when you can look up anything on the Internet, is there a need to teach kids “facts” of science? One can argue it would be very good to know basic information like the age of the Earth, the planets in the solar system, how cells work, etc. But that’s not useful to most people in their daily lives. Facts do change (Goodbye, planet Pluto). Issues of importance certainly change. For example, global warming and stem cells were not topics we discussed in high school, yet now they are hot-button policy issues that involve understanding and appreciating the science behind them.

What kinds of topics are of interest to kids these days?

Dr. Read observed when you get a hook into a topic or question that you are deeply interested in, all of a sudden, it becomes important to know what’s going on.

The students in his class are required to research and write blog posts. They typically blog about things to do with to their daily lives, “which is what I want them to do,” Read says, “to see science as relevant to their daily lives.”

“They are obsessed with their bodies and each other, so topics tend to be things around health, sex, mate choice, alcohol, and drugs.”

Getting them engaged in topics of their choice serves to illustrate the points the class is designed to emphasize—how to think critically and to get used to using a scientific approach to thinking.

Is religion a barrier to science appreciation?

I was interested to know if the students came in saddled with religious baggage that inhibited them from appreciating science.

Dr. Read noted that his class does not explicitly talk about religion but gets very close. “It feels to me as if religion is kind of the gorilla in the room,” he admits. “Some of the students push back a bit and they feel uncomfortable.” He reports they have mentioned they feel the tension in the room.

“I’m showing them ways in which we discovered things that you couldn’t imagine by not taking a faith-based approach. Some of them find that quite threatening, but it never gets too overt.” He did recall that a few times people have walked out of class.

But this is college, and being exposed to uncomfortable ideas is sort of what you are there for.

What does the Internet look like when the students look for resources?

“That worries me a lot,” Read says. “I don’t see the internet the way they do. This is one of the things I have to try to teach better this year.

“Their tendency is to pick the first things that come up on Google or Yahoo as the truth. The sources on a lot of their blog posts have me thinking ‘what on earth are you doing reading off a place like that?’ They trust a site that you or I would not. Trying to get them to look at different sites to see a range of opinions is quite hard.” And, he marks their work hard if they just cite one source.

These young adults also seem to fall all-too-easily for pseudoscience. He is alarmed that they happily accept anecdotes about paranormal experiences. “I’m a bit disappointed by how many of them are into conspiracy theories. A bunch of them are persuaded that one of the dorm rooms is haunted. I’m amazed they can say it in my class after I’ve been banging on about having a proper rigorous look at things.”

Dr. Read is trying to undo some ingrained ideas about science. He’s trying to point out that it’s okay to disagree in science; we don’t know everything. He talks to them a lot about how hard and inefficient the process is but that it’s still the preferred way to knowledge, the best we have.

A large concern for Read is the difficulty in assessing if he is doing a good job. The typical metrics used to evaluate a class don’t apply as much here. “It’s hard to assess, and frustrating, if you’re doing a good job,” he acknowledges. “What I’d actually like is some way of knowing three to five years down the line, when they see something in the media or in discussing a scientific issue, are they doing better than their colleagues that didn’t do this course? That’s extremely difficult to assess.”

The college of science at PSU has embarked on stressing the importance of “gen ed” courses as influential to molding the whole student, not just instructing them in their major. A goal of university is to create informed citizens and to prepare them to lead better lives. So, as Dr. Read notes, the emphasis has been moving to delivering these courses with rigor and style.

“It’s a privilege to have this captive audience to deliver science,” he says. “The responsibility is great. This is an incredibly important audience. As a teaching challenge this is as good as it gets.

“Scientists, most of the time, never know if they are going to have an impact [with their teaching]. If you do this right you can have a massive impact.”

And society may be a better, more rational place.

Comments on this piece can be sent to shill@centerforinquiry.net.

Every day, I scour the Internet for news. Not just any news. Weird news. What bizarre thing was seen, heard, or found today?

This interest in the unexplained, mysterious, and Fortean is a perpetual thing for me. The first books I ever recall picking out as favorites were about ghosts, monsters, and UFOs. But the qualification for my interest was that I cared about them only because I thought they might be real.

Nature is pretty weird. People can imagine the darnedest things as well when they experience an odd situation. I am drawn to these anomalies. As Jack Palance used to say on Ripley’s Believe it or Not TV show, I am curious about “The strange. The bizarre. The unexpected.”

The Internet has been a boon to weird news. The tabloid tales of the late, great Weekly World News made way for online tabloids with their ghost photos and citizen-based news sites with their local UFO reports. “Weird News” or “Oddities” sections are now common on popular media sites like the Huffington Post and Yahoo.

I began a website to highlight these paranormal and anomalous news stories. While there are a lot of strange news feeds and news aggregators that do this, mine is different. I didn’t just want to share these stories so you can pass them along your virtual circles. I wanted to discuss these stories. What about them was true? What was missing? Why did people latch onto certain ones and enthusiastically share them with everyone they knew, even if they were almost certainly hoaxes or exaggerations? One of my goals was for my website to show up in online searches for these topics so perhaps interested readers would stumble upon a more thoughtful analysis than what was found in comment sections after the news stories or on Internet forums.

Sharing stories is a community bonding experience and good for our social well-being. There is, however, a down side. With the Internet, any story can be passed around the world in a day. If the story turns out not to be true, the correction is slow out of the gate and may never complete that same trip around the world.

Kids are really good at passing around urban legends and off-beat stories they hear from each other. They also glean bits and pieces from a passing glance at the news. Television shows are prime vehicles for perpetuating myths and rumors. Documentaries shown on what appear to be legitimate science-based channels give credence to ideas about ancient aliens, monsters unknown to science, folklore creatures, and UFOs out there spying on us. Kids eat that stuff up. I sure did! I was never taught how to think about weird things. No one showed me how to question, to consider the source or the way the “evidence” was laid out. Because we are barraged with questionable claims, teaching kids how to think about weird things is important. I set out to give it a try this past summer.

First, let me lay the groundwork. I have two kids of my own. They want to believe in paranormal things. It’s fun and they find it exciting to have mystery and the supernatural in the world. When we watch ghost hunter or monster chaser shows they like the dramatic (and inaccurate) recreations, whereas I’m quick to point out the edits, errors, and omissions of important information. While they may find the slip of paper in their fortune cookie compelling, I brush it off. “That’s pretty vague, isn’t it? Could apply to anyone.”

Yep, I’m the party pooper, the downer, the balloon buster. However, I don’t really see it that way at all. I say it’s best to know the truth instead of going through life being fooled by television and continuing the FW:FW:fw:FW!!! subject line emails. As a parent, I consider it my job to teach my children how to maneuver through life. As an advocate for science and reason, it’s my mission to show others as well.

I jumped on an opportunity to talk to local teens about the 2012 apocalypse. Eleven- to fourteen-year-olds are interested in this. They think about it. It worries some of them. They don’t know what information is valid because it comes from archaeology, astronomy, and mystical ideas based on prophecy and special knowledge—stuff they have difficulty judging as being science-based or not. The Mayan topic is especially confusing because it is an amalgam of streams from various sources, some of which sound very credible to a layperson. Even a cursory look into the claims about the 2012 apocalypse shows that it is bogus. Scientists aren’t hiding anything from us, but it wasn’t reputable scholars who came up with these fringe ideas. I explained to the kids that if giant Planet X was on its way toward Earth to wreck your Christmas, we would have seen it coming long ago. All the astronomers around the world are not in cahoots keeping quiet about forthcoming destruction. Those people who perpetuate this myth make imaginative interpretations about clues that are not backed up by other lines of evidence. Some of it was outright made up (to sell books and make films). I got the feeling no one had put it to these kids that way before. I think it worked. No one fell asleep and they were talking to me!

In early August I visited Camp Inquiry run by folks from the Center for Inquiry. My own daughter attended multiple years before. Once, when I picked her up, I sat in on a group discussion with Dr. Lawrence Krauss, astrophysicist. Those kids asked questions about the universe that were so sharp, so involved. I was amazed. They got it. But these were kids that came from families that already subscribe to the value of critical thinking and freethought. They probably already knew a lot about how to think about weird stuff.

My session was on weird news. First, I asked the kids to guess the true story (that had a twist) and then we picked apart media presentations of news events. A place to start when looking at stories about odd things is to ask yourself several questions: Did these things really happen as was said/written? What information is missing? What seems wrong or mistaken? What is the source? What doesn’t fit with what we already know about the world?

One doubtful story we discussed was a mystery photo of a giant white owl. The story appeared on a local Texas news site. It showed uniformed men holding what seemed like an inordinately large bird between them. The reporter had interviewed a pet store owner who said she never saw an owl that large. The original picture had come from an Internet site that often spawns viral videos or pictures that get spread widely. The kids were quick with their skepticism of the story. There was lots of missing information. So much so that we couldn’t say when or where this creature was captured or the circumstance surrounding the picture. The journalist for the original story never mentioned contacting wildlife officials (which seemed a very obvious thing, since the people holding the bird were in uniform). Finally, the size of the bird, as well as the way the two men were holding it (by a few feathers), didn’t fit with the reality of gravity. Everything was questionable. There were very good reasons to suspect that this was a hoaxed photograph and that the news reporter was quite out of bounds to perpetuate the ideas that it could be real and the basis for some local legend of an owl-woman.

We discussed many stories in the news and possible alternate explanations for them. At the core, we talked about why believing everything you see on the news without question is not a good thing. Some of it is fun; no harm done. But believing without questioning and passing it on to others can be dangerous. This is how misinformation is spread about health claims, business scams, and social scares. It’s hard to tell what’s true when the media only gives you part of the story and frames it in a way that sounds sciencey and credible.

My mission was over. I had introduced about fifty kids to critical thinking in a way that was interesting and engaging to them. Hopefully, it was done in a way that made them feel comfortable, empowered, and at least a little more prepared to tackle the world of information overload. I don’t know how much will stay with them, but I tried to plant the seed. Make sure to question doubtful news.

I came across a news story in Business Insider about an astrologer who was doing mighty well for herself. In times of uncertainty, society tends to turn to anything that will give them a sense of control. Astrologic and psychic advisors seem to fill that role for some people, even professional businesspeople. This astrologer, who thinks quite highly of her craft, had these things to say:

“What I do is scientific. Astrology involves careful methods learned over years and years of training and experience.”

“There are so many things we don’t understand in the world. What if 200 years ago someone had said that these metal barrels in the sky would get us around the world in a few hours? Or that we’d inject ourselves with mold to treat illnesses? People are so skeptical.”

And then I laughed.

Few examples of pseudoscience are more perfect than astrology, which has been studied A LOT, and whose practitioners still cannot demonstrate a root in reality.

Before Science, All You Had Was Astrology

Astrology has an ancient history: its origins are recognizable in 3000 year-old remnants of the Babylonian civilization and it was subsequently advanced by the Greeks. Originally derived from astronomical observations, astrology spun off the path of science and empirical observation during Isaac Newton's time.

But, going back to pre-scientific times, astrology was as real as it got. A precursor to astronomy, astrologers worked with facts that seemed apparent at the time. We have to give it some credit when considering the context.

Astrology sought to explain the nature of people in a time when humans were only vaguely aware of how hereditary and environmental influences affected their lives. The first concepts of astrology were based in the "facts" of the time—the universe was small, earth was at its center, the stars were part of a fixed sphere, the planets were imbued with deistic qualities, and an unknown force from these bodies certainly influenced humans at the exact moment of birth. In the sky, ancient man saw formations of animals and human figures and assigned them qualities. He split the sky into zones of the zodiac. He made attempts to define himself in terms of these assigned qualities. He zoned the sky into "houses." The rules of astrology were (and still are) completely arbitrary, based on symbolism instead of experimentation or statistics.

The foundation of horoscopes and astrological charts is a set of rules about how to decipher the locations of planets, the sun, and the moon in the sky at the time of important events. The astrologer will undertake hours of complex mathematics to derive a detailed horoscope. This framework, however, is flawed. There is no discernible influence of celestial bodies on humans. Therefore, all the complicated number crunching in the world makes no difference because the conclusion is nonsense. Garbage in: Garbage out.

Proponents have no plausible explanation for how astrology might work. Various natural mechanisms have been proposed, but physically measurable forces fail because astronomers can demonstrate that they are too small to be significant. Therefore, astrologers must resort to some unknown entity. Whenever you have to resort to “insert supernatural here,” your concept is no longer a scientifically testable hypothesis.

Here’s an admission of that:

I need no theory of the birth chart in order to interpret it, merely an awareness that people with Mars in X and Venus in Y tend to present in similar ways. This observation is not a theory, any more than is the observation that people tend to cry out in pain when bricks are dropped on their feet. Neither does every problem need a theory before it can be solved […]. I am hungry. I eat. What theory has taken place here? (M. Harding, http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/harding.htm).

No theory there, just mumbo jumbo. Astrologers resort to anecdotes as evidence to boost claims their system works. Scientists may use anecdotes as a guide for what to pursue through a more systematic process, but on their own, anecdotes are too prone to the distortion of human perception and memory.

So, we are left with their assurances that it works. They can’t explain how, but they know it works.

I don’t know why astrology works, any more than Sir Isaac did. But I can assure you that it does work. The pattern that the planets made at the moment of your birth—that is, your birth chart or horoscope – describes your tendencies, abilities, challenges and potential. It doesn’t predict your fate, though it does make some fates more easily achievable than others. The exact shape of your destiny, I believe, is up to you (R. Orion, Astrology for Dummies, p. 10).

Well, at least we get a bit of control over our destiny. That works great as an “out” if the astrologers’ predictions fail to pan out.

Religion? A Strong Resemblance

Astrology has various religious aspects. After two millennia, basically the same rules apply to astrology/religion, unchanged by newer knowledge. In spite of evidence that shows the original explanations regarding the universe and man's place in it are now radically different, proponents refuse to discard the old rules. To attract and keep followers, astrology appeals to a mystique where explanations are based on faith in spiritual or magical powers and various mystical concepts. Since natural explanations fail, famous astrologers will declare: "Astrology is truth!" and thus do not need proof or a coherent theory.

The twinklings of the fixed stars from without our solar system are the pulsations of spiritual impulses sent forth by the guardians of the Greater Mysteries; and the Mercurians, the Gods of Wisdom, send out similar impulses pertaining to the lesser mysteries, hence Mercury twinkles like a fixed star (M. Heindel, Simplified Scientific Astrology, http://www.rosicrucian.com/ssa/ssaeng01.htm).

Oh really? I must have missed that part in Cosmos.

There is a distinct tone of "sciencey-ness" to astrology. Practitioners will call it "scientific" based on the methodological, careful and systematic use of calculations and real astronomical position data. (Never mind the various natural laws these calculations utterly disregard.) They consider "research" to mean consulting tables and the rules.

Astrology is an unworkable, failed theory. Its predictions are so imprecise that they are difficult to test. Astrologers have not provided an acceptable, natural basis of why humans should be so influenced by celestial conditions at a particular time. The astrological paradigm has failed to contribute any knowledge to the social sciences. Imagine how USEFUL such a theory could be, and yet…it isn’t at all. Except to those who benefit from the feeling of a semblance of control over their affairs.

At no time would a scientist say that a cause simply did not matter so long as he believed it to be true. This is what astrologers have done—exhibiting a clear indication that astrology stands today as a belief system; it is not scientific, it is a pseudoscience.

The next time some sciencey astrologer tries to commandeer the credibility of science for their nonsense charts and predictions, just laugh. It’s all you can do. And NEVER EVER say “astrology” when you mean “astronomy” because that ticks off the genuine scientists.

References and further reading

Abell, G. 1981. Astrology, In Science and the Paranormal (Abell & Singer, eds.), Scribners, p. 70-94.

Carroll, R. T. 2003. Astrology, In The Skeptic's Dictionary, John Wiley & Sons, p. 34-36.

Hines, T. 2003. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, 2nd ed., Prometheus Books.

Kurtz, P. and A. Fraknoi (1996) Scientific tests of astrology do not support its claims, In The Outer Edge (Nickell, Karr and Genoni, eds.) CSICOP, p. 36-38.

Orion, R. 2007. Astrology for Dummies, Wiley.

Plait, P. 2002. Bad Astronomy, John Wiley & Sons.

What typical ploy is used on a Bigfoot news site, in a documentary on ancient aliens, and when soliciting a vote for a political candidate? It’s the “you decide” gambit. But it’s not as straightforward as it seems to just state your case and leave the audience with their decision to pick the “best” option. As with everything that requires evaluation, how you decide is based on a complicated process of what you are given, how you are given it, and how it fits into your framework of the world.

My memory may be biased, but doesn’t it seem like every unsolved mystery television program has ended with the proposition “you decide?” At the close of various documentaries about Bigfoot, UFOs, or psychic powers, the narrator dramatically summarizes the evidence and asks, “Is this fact or fiction? You decide.” As I learned more about the tactics used in these kinds of presentations, I became annoyed by that closing bit. This piece might best be labeled “Sounds Reasonable-ish.” It applies to many sciencey sounding claims made by the media and information sources.

The premise of “you decide” is that we, the source, will give you information about a choice you can make (e.g., believe or not, use this or not, pick this one or not). Then, you, intelligent person, can judge for yourself what the best decision is. It sounds democratic. It appeals to your vanity as a smart, responsible person. But in this case, it's a sly marketing trick.

People like to think they are being rational and that they do a decent job of fairly weighing both sides of an issue before forming a conclusion. But many factors come into play. How often do we fully assess and understand what we are given and how we might have been influenced? Not very often. And that's the core of what's wrong with proposing, “you decide.”

As I noted, paranormal purveyors pull this maneuver. It's a particularly handy gambit for those organizations or individuals promoting a view that lacks scientific backing–Creationism and intelligent design proponents, vaccination choice or anti-vax advocates, fear mongering groups warning about health risks from certain consumer items or promoting all-natural, chemical-free products. They will feed you their story and put you, the concerned parent and/or conscientious consumer, in the position to choose what appears to be the logical and ethical choice. This works as an effective manipulation to get you to accept their position.

False Balance and False Choice

When presenting information to the public in order to persuade acceptance of a position, two false setups may be used: false balance and false choice. Once you recognize them, you can spot them all over the place.

The journalistic idea of balance is that a story should portray both sides. A pro-topic spokesperson (or advocate) and a token skeptic are featured in newspaper articles or TV news clips. We get the pro and con. Sort of. That’s only two sides. I have a hard time coming up with a real-life scenario that isn’t multi-faceted and complicated. Some have no right choice or multiple right choices. Granted, TV news and newspaper formats are limited in time and space so the complexity of a situation has to be greatly simplified. The real world reaction to an issue is far more complicated than unambiguously choosing option A over B.

Often, the choices we make are based on our current situation, or we try to pick the “least of all evils” option because there is no ideal option—I’m thinking of elections, of course. Negative ads for candidates are the most egregious examples of false balance. All they present is the bad, and that’s the sort of gunk that sticks in your head and is recalled when the candidate’s name is mentioned. Yet those ads frequently end with, “Do you want to see candidate X do that to your town/state? Come this Election Day, you decide!” Oh great, thanks for poisoning the well.

Certain media sources will tout their fair presentation of news. But their attempt at balancing viewpoints may be completely out of line with the accuracy and weight of the evidence that supports those points. If you take away nothing else regarding the “you decide” gambit, remember and use this:

Not all positions are equally worthy of serious consideration. ¹

There are endless examples of situations in which alternatives are not equal but are presented side-by-side as if they should be treated as such. Some views have the backing of substantial evidence and scientific knowledge, while others are just someone speculating or making it up whole cloth. The trouble is, without some prior knowledge, you may not know whether the information you are being presented is an accurate assessment or problematic.

Your local reporters or the producers of a pseudo-documentary show may also not have prior knowledge of the topic and thus may present a view that is falsely balanced to the audience: one poorly supported side is artificially propped up to look legitimate and equal to the other. That’s not my idea of fair at all. This is a particular problem with science reporting because science is a specialized topic that requires significant research to understand it.

In 2011, I interviewed Lauri Lebo, a local reporter who covered the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, which reaffirmed that intelligent design has no place in science class. She said that journalists were nervous about reporting on science news: “Everyone is afraid to speak the truth about everything because they’ll be told they are biased. That’s a terrible way to approach science coverage!” Very few journalists have a scientific background. Due to time constraints, they can only briefly research the subject and frequently rely on eyewitnesses (as if one person’s experience can trump decades of accumulated knowledge) or one expert. So, the public receives pseudoscientific ideas presented alongside a well-tested, well-established scientific theory. In these days of information overload, do reporters have a responsibility to go beyond just putting all views out there? Or should they strive to provide context for the choices? There is a justifiable excuse to be biased; the stronger case should be presented with greater vigor in the name of accuracy.

Were we to go by literal weight of evidence alone—say, the weight of peer reviewed, established documentation—the anti-evolutionist would be crushed under mounds of paper. To counter that reality, creationists use emotional and seemingly logical or rational arguments—ploys like “teach the controversy” or “academic freedom”—to underpin their case. They also dish out false information, unconfirmed “facts,” and only their half of the story. But to those who have a philosophical leaning toward the creationism story (or any paranormal or pseudoscientific idea), the non-scientific or science-like arguments are compelling enough for them to choose that view. It takes practice to spot the flimsy foundation of some of these sensational ideas and not just eat up whatever you are given because it tastes good and digests easily.

The use of false choice is another byproduct of space and time constraints in today’s media outlets. Or, it could be just shallow thinking. False choice (a.k.a. false dichotomy, false dilemma) is when the options are only A or B. Is the Loch Ness monster real or a hoax? Did this person see a UFO or are they lying? The real world presents us with far more explanatory options than just two. To suggest the options are limited to two is dishonest since it excludes the vast middle ground. It can also be used to sort you into a camp: skeptic vs. believer, for example, where skeptic means “cynical and closed-minded.” Quite sneaky—and wrong. When I spot false dilemmas, I note the lack of critical thinking and flag that information source as potentially untrustworthy.

Informed Decision or Opinion

It's a busy world out there. We don’t always have the time to carefully consider a question. The process of deciding is often based on heuristics (thinking short-cuts, rules of thumb, generalizations, and common sense) and ideology (body of doctrine, myths of belief). Deciding upon the believability of paranormal or fringe claims is likely not a matter of fairly weighing the evidence but rather reliance on what feels right to you. When a person evaluates a casual issue that has little influence on daily life and well-being (such as ghosts, UFOs, or Bigfoot), rarely has that person scoured the literature for evidence and various viewpoints. Instead, the influence comes from stories heard or perhaps even personal experiences for which a definitive explanation is lacking. It’s easy to say “There may be something to it…” and “It’s possible….” It’s also fun to entertain those thoughts when there is usually no great societal impact (though some might argue that there is). With the ubiquity of paranormal- and supernatural-friendly communities and activities out there, it makes it easy to buy into those beliefs.

Public opinion polls are everywhere in the media. They provide the illusion of participation and serve as an outlet for passing judgment. Websites overflow with these question boxes because they are interactive and make the participant feel as if they are contributing to deciding on an issue. Websites’ poll results are unscientific and practically worthless as data because of the selection methods, poorly worded questions, and incomplete choices. “Do you think UFOs exist?” is an example of a bad question format. It raises questions before you can answer it. What do you mean by “UFOs”? “Exist” truly as unidentified objects or as people perceive them? I particularly notice poll questions that are worded as if science is a democracy, such as: “Should creationism be part of the science curriculum?” or “Do you think vaccines are safe?” Next time you see an online quick-click poll, evaluate the question carefully to see if the options they give are actually all the options available for an answer. Their purpose is not to be definitive about the issue (as participants may assume) but instead to appeal to the “you decide” gambit.

If You Choose Not to Decide, You Still Have Made a Choice

How many times have we skeptically minded people been told that we are closed-minded because we don’t outwardly accept the reality of an alternative treatment, psychic powers, or a spiritual encounter? In keeping an open mind, you don’t decide: I don’t know if psi exists. It’s possible, but the data so far are not at all convincing to me. Or, I may change my mind: Psi doesn’t exist as far as we know right now but there is the possibility that someday it may be measurable via a new method.

The same set of evidence can be interpreted differently depending upon what the interpreter considers reliable evidence, what their biases are, and their existing knowledge about the subject. Or, the analyst may decide that there isn’t enough evidence to come to a conclusion. Scientists nearly always wish for more data to, hopefully, make things clearer. That’s why scientific theories are continually tweaked and honed based on the incoming evidence over time that sharpens or changes them. We can’t always have all the information we wish we did in order to make a clean judgment. So, as a good critical thinker, the right choice is to withhold our decision.

To conclude this glimpse into the “you decide” gambit, I’ll express my hope that you look for and spot its use and misuse. Asking an audience to decide on a choice is only fair if you are an honest broker of all the information available: you weigh the presentation of evidence based on its quality and reliability and present all options, not just two. When asked to decide, remember that your choices may be unlimited.

Reference

1. Pigliucci, M. (2012) Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. University of Chicago Press.

In the early 2000s, a new kind of paranormal-themed show appeared on television. This “reality-based” genre of programs featured individuals or teams of nonscientists who undertook investigations of alleged paranormal phenomena. The Syfy network’s Ghost Hunters, the most popular of these shows in the United States, boasts over two million viewers per episode (Seidman 2009) and has launched two spinoff shows. The show’s group, The Atlantic Paranormal Society (TAPS), directly influenced the formation of other similar groups (Brown 2008). Within a few years, multiple cable television networks hosted shows that portrayed people directing and participating in self-styled investigations into UFOs, monster reports, and strange, spooky activity around the world.

Also in the first decade of the twenty-first century, amateur research and investigation groups (ARIGs) sprang up in communities across the United States. Many represented their activities as scientific. Interested in seeing how ARIG ideas about being scientific compared to those of the scientific community, I conducted a review of 1,000 websites representing ARIGs in the United States (Hill 2010). How many are there and in what manner do these groups use science to promote themselves and fulfill their mission?

Defining ARIGs

ARIGs are unique in that they examine areas on which no organized academic research or inquiry is focused—perceived paranormal events. They are led by and composed of people who have little or no scientific training. In these two ways, they significantly differ from other amateur science programs for which nonscientists gather specific material data for established science-based research programs.¹ ARIGs are typically hobbyist groups held together by their interest in the subject. Mem­bers are serious about their research activities, but jobs limit their participation. Involvement in these groups is an example of a “serious leisure” activity (Stebbins 1992): like-minded individuals diligently pursue an activity to fulfill certain social and personal aspects of their lives.

I limited my study to groups who use the Internet. The Internet provides an efficient way for ARIGs to recruit new members, exchange information, and solicit cases from the public to investigate. ARIG websites reveal their mission, goals, methods, philosophy, and typical results. While these groups are also marketed through local word of mouth or media appearances, a web presence often provides the first point of contact for those who may be seeking help to explain a suspected paranormal experience.

Considering the above observations, I define ARIGs by the following characteristics:

1. Not under the auspices of an academic institution or headed by working scientists
2. Focused on investigation of unexplained or paranormal events such as reports of hauntings, mystery animals, unidentified aerial ob­jects, natural anomalies, and parapsychological phenomena
3. Undertaking activities that do not provide a primary form of income for participants
4. Self-forming and independent (but may hold affiliation with a larger organization)
5. Promoted via the Internet

Characterizing ARIGs in the United States

Prior to my research, word of mouth in the paranormal and skeptical communities suggested that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of ghost hunter, UFO seeker, and monster tracker groups across the country, but no one had attempted to formally count them all. Counting these groups is difficult because they are ephemeral—as easy to let die as to set up.

Before social networking tools, it was difficult to connect with others who were interested in fringe topics. Such groups historically recruited via bulletin boards and advertisements; they were maintained through mailed newsletters, desktop journals, and physical gatherings. The Internet lowered the barriers to group formation.

I collected 1,600 ARIG web ad­dresses through various Internet search methods and index sites. At this point, I realized there were many more I had yet to count. I accepted that 1,600 would serve as representative of the population, and the list was randomized and numbered. Information was then collected on the first 1,000 active sites. Data collected included the group name, home state, subject category, and scientificity (whether or not they claimed to use science or scientific methods), as well as several features ob­served that were common (use of psychics) or unique (specialized in cases with children or animals, for example).

My results showed that almost all U.S. states had four or more groups active at the time of the survey. There was at least one group in every state, with the overall numbers roughly correlated to population density across the United States. Ohio and Pennsylvania had the highest tallies at eighty-one and eighty, respectively. Because many groups will travel to adjoining states, there are overlapping “coverage” areas among ARIGs.

ARIG subject areas resolved into four categories: ghosts, cryptozoology, UFOs, and general paranormal (including natural anomaly occurrences or cases of alleged psi phenomena). Values are shown in Figure 1. Many groups stated they would investigate all categories and were labeled “paranormal.” Out of 1,000 groups, 879 identified with the category of “ghosts.” An additional eighty-one included ghosts within the broad “paranormal” category. These counts affirm that ghost hunting is incredibly popular and trendy.

Figure 1

Only five specialized in UFOs or UFOs in combination with other anomalous phenomena (but not ghosts). One of the five is the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), which claims thousands of members with a director plus investigators in every state. (Several states are combined under “New England.”) Over the past few decades, UFO research consolidated under MUFON, which provided unified methods of investigation, training, state-to-state cooperation, and sharing of results.

In contrast to the UFO research centralization, the ghost groups are smaller, diffuse, and independent. There are a few preeminent groups with which individual groups can be affiliated, such as TAPS or Ghost Adven­tures Crew (GAC)²; however, they do not direct group functions but rather only provide a set of standards to which groups must adhere to maintain affiliation.

Thirty-five groups specialize in cryptozoology, mostly focusing on Bigfoot reports. Cryptozoology groups may be local or have members dispersed across the country. There is no overarching organization.

I used the Internet browser’s search feature on each site’s main page to locate the text string “scien” returning results for “science” and “scientific,” if it existed, on the page. Use and context of these terms determined the group’s “scientificity.” If the use of these words was not positive (i.e., was anti-science), then the scientificity was counted as “no.” If positive or neutral, the scientificity was “yes.” If the terms were not used at all, scientificity was labeled “not specified.”

A total of 526 ARIG websites (52.6 percent) displayed scientificity by explicitly using “science” or “scientific” in reference to their mission, methods, or goals. An additional twenty-seven sites used “scientific” to refer to their equipment only. Twenty designated their group as “semi-” or “quasi-” scientific or strongly suggested science by use of oblique references such as “not an exact science.” Only nineteen ARIGs were completely nonscientific or anti-science, advocating a completely psychical or subjective ap­proach. The remaining 40.8 percent of sites did not specify. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2

ARIGs’ ‘Scientific’ Methodology

Indicator surveys consistently show that “science” is held in high regard in our society (National Science Founda­tion 2009). Every party with a claim wants science to support its side. This, I suspect, is a main reason why the majority of ARIGs attempt to cultivate a serious, science-like image. Manner, language, and procedure of science are imitated in order to appear sophisticated and credible (Degele 2005; Haack 2007).

Two primary means ARIGs use to portray a scientific image are jargon and use of technology. Use of science jargon, or “scientese” (Haard et al. 2004), was common to ARIGs that exhibited scientificity. Several sites have specific sections pertaining to the “science” of their activities. Commonly used terms in­clude words such as frequency, resonance, energy, quantum, magnetic, environmental, and electricity. Yet the sites lack operational (or even common) definitions for these terms. Vague and confusing language is ubiquitous: ghosts “use energy,” are made up of “magnetic fields,” or are associated with a “quantum state.” Scholarly references to scientific works are nonexistent, but Einstein and Edi­son are frequently and explicitly connected to current ideas about communication with paranormal entities as if credibility can be bolstered by naming people popularly associated with science and technology.

The word scientific is also used liberally. Certain groups will proclaim their “scientific methods” citing a “scientific approach” and “scientific research” to obtain a “scientific solution” with “scientific proof.”

ARIGs that claimed to use “a scientific method” equated the process most often with a systematic protocol of observation and collection of empirical data. ARIG methodology, as outlined on their websites, includes the following: eyewitness interviews, site visit(s) with equipment setup, collection of data in usually one but possibly multiple days and/or nights, analysis of the data, presentation of the results to the client (if there is one), and a write-up or record of the investigation.

For ghost investigations, “scientific” collection of data consists of gathering temperature readings, electromagnetic field anomalies, photographs, sound recordings, and other “energy” readings. This process often includes highly subjective methods such as psychics, dowsing rods, and Ouija boards to help guide investigators in equipment setup. The most common evidence cited by ARIGs for hauntings was electronic voice phenomena (EVP), where indistinct sounds recorded during the investigation are presumed to be communication with entities. I was hard pressed to find any data tables, graphs, maps, or documentation of the results, which one would expect to find in a typical scientific report.

To establish a body of knowledge as “scientific” and to maintain science as a unique and respected endeavor, the scientific community subscribes to an ethos defined by ideals or norms (Ziman 2000). Merton (1942) established these norms as communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism.

The first of Merton’s norms, communalism, encompasses sharing knowledge and data, allowing others to reproduce the work. While ARIGs post their investigation reports online; these reports do not at all resemble scientific reports. Typically, they are not detailed enough for others to duplicate the process, are unreferenced, do not build on the work of others or any established scientific knowledge, and are not valuable beyond perhaps being a record of the investigators’ impressions on that occasion. Many investigation results are confidential on the request of the client, therefore no findings are released.

The use of psychics or sensitives violates Merton’s norm of universalism since only certain gifted individuals can “sense” the sprit present or communicate with the entity. The nongifted cannot confirm or deny such an observation. In haunting cases, the investigator is encouraged to be his or her own instrument, recording psychic or sensory impressions. This constitutes a full-on invitation to engage in biased, subjective, and unverifiable reporting.

The most egregious error made by ARIGs is their bias, which not only violates the norm of disinterestedness but also negates the entire investigation and its conclusions. While claiming open-mindedness, ARIGs are composed of those who hold a preconceived view of a phenomenon and set out to support it (Potts 2004). In stark contrast to scientific writing, ARIG websites will frequently state certainty in their goals or conclusions. Their mission is to “prove” a phenomenon they believe exists or to provide “irrefutable” evidence of same. Even more pretentious are those who wish to “adapt existing scientific laws to reports of the paranormal” or create a “bridge between the science and the paranormal.” That language is a signal of how far removed ARIG participants really are from the established scientific community.

Skepticism is often given token lip service. Several ARIGs say they welcome skeptics. However, what open-minded skepticism really means to them is that one is open to the paranormal conclusion as the correct conclusion. The ARIG explanation too frequently defaults to the paranormal after an incomplete examination of alternative natural causes (Baker and Nickell 1992, 101–105; Radford 2010, 11–32). They express resentment of the scientific community for not seeing what they, as paranormalists, view as obvious—that their evidence is convincing. While there are some explicitly nonparanormalist (skeptical) investigation groups, they are few.

ARIGs overwhelmingly display neither understanding of nor adherence to scientific norms. Another dramatic contrast to conventional scientific attitudes is the number of ghost investigation groups that are Christian-based, openly declaring their belief in angels, life after death, and demon infestations directly alongside their descriptions for collecting empirical data.

Equipment

Use of technology is pervasive for AR­IGs. It is de rigueur to include a page on the website dedicated to equipment used. High-end, expensive, or unique instruments seem to be considered status symbols, with some groups advertising the largest or newest array of devices.

Ghost hunter groups rely on their equipment to record spiritual evidence. Several groups express the notion that new technology is the key to a breakthrough in paranormal research. Yet at no site and in no ghost investigation reference book did I encounter a coherent, referenced explanation for the various equipment used and data gathered. ARIGs matter-of-factly state that the equipment records environmental disturbances related to paranormal activity without considering normal variance or calibration.

Reliance on equipment mimics the current television portrayal of paranormal investigation. Television shows give us a simplified and optimistic representation of science (Collins 1987). Science, viewed by laypersons, is about the symbols (such as paraphernalia and certain personal characteristics of scientists) and end products (Toumey 1996). Use of equipment suggests ob­jectivity—others can see the ob­tained numerical data from which the results are concluded.

Public Acceptance of “Sciencey” Things

Science has considered but provisionally rejected claims of ghosts, cryptids, and alien spacecraft. Yet the public has a high interest in such ideas. To them, seemingly paranormal phenomena are unknown and deserve serious attention. When most respectable scientists eschew paranormal topics, self-styled experts outside of science step in to provide support and legitimacy for public interest (Westrum 1977). We can say with certainty that there are presently well over 1,000 of these groups active in the United States to serve these interests.

Specialized skills and high standards characterize scientific work. However, hardly any ARIG lists formal scientific training as a desired qualification of its members. ARIG members generally do what appear to be respectable, convincing, and “sciencey” things. The public mostly relies on heuristics, looking for cues that suggest a source of information is knowledgeable and sophisticated. Because much of the public has little understanding of the rigor and practices of science, it is easy for nonscientists to adopt a hollow likeness of science that misrepresents it. The average observer would not have the background knowledge to determine that ARIG portrayal of a “high-tech” paranormal investigation is ineffectual and without a sound foundation in scientific principals. ARIGs deliver sham inquiry—a process that gives the im­pression of scientific inquiry but lacks substance and rigor.

Those who are anxious about the current state of science education, especially informal science education, may have a justifiable concern about how “reality” popular television portrays the scientific endeavor and who gain public credibility as investigators or scientific researchers. ARIGs often promote their paranormalist viewpoint as scientifically based, especially in community presentations or lectures at educational facilities. While scientifically minded observers can readily spot the anemic and shoddy scholarship of popular paranormal investigation, the public, unaware of the fundamental errors ARIGs make, can be persuaded by jargon and “sciencey” symbols.

Notes

1. Such as Galaxy Zoo or the Audubon bird count surveys.

2. Ghost Adventures Crew claims over 600 members (www.webcitation.org/5y3t6VBdK). Neither TAPS nor GAC require any scientific training for affiliated members.

References

Baker, R.A., and J. Nickell. 1992. Missing Pieces: How to Investigate Ghosts, UFOs, Psychics, & Other Mysteries. Buffalo, New York: Prome­theus Books.

Brown, A. 2008. Ghost Hunters of New England. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England.

Collins, H.M. 1987. Certainty and the public understanding of science: Science on television. Social Studies of Science 17(4): 689–713.

Degele, N. 2005. On the margins of everything: Doing, performing, and staging science in homeopathy. Science, Technology, and Human Values 30(1): 111–36. doi:10.1177/0162 243904270711.

Haack, S. 2003. Defending Science—within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism. Am­herst, New York: Prometheus Books.

Haard, J., M.D. Slater, and M. Long. 2004. Scientese and ambiguous citations in the selling of unproven medical treatments. Health Communication 16(4): 411–26.

Hill, S.A. 2010. “Being Scientifical: Popularity, Purpose, and Promotion of Amateur Re­search and Investigation Groups in the U.S.” [Thesis] Master of Education—Science and the Public, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Merton, R.K. 1942. Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1: 115–126.

National Science Foundation. 2009. Science and Engineering Indicators 2010.

Arlington, Virginia: National Science Board (NSB 10-01). Available at www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/start.htm.

Potts, J. 2004. Ghost hunting in the twenty-first century. In J. Houran (ed.) From Shaman to Scientist: Essays on Humanities Search for Spirits. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press.

Radford, B. 2010. Scientific Paranormal Investi­gation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries. Corrales, New Mexico: Rhombus Publishing Co.

Seidman, R. 2009. Ghost Hunters continues ratings success. Available online at http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/09/04/ghost-hunters-continues-ratings-success/26220.

Stebbins, R.A. 1992. Amateurs, Professionals, and Serious Leisure. Montreal; Buffalo: McGill-Queen University Press.

Toumey, C.P. 1996. Conjuring Science: Scientific Symbols and Cultural Meanings in American Life. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Westrum, R. 1977. Social intelligence about anomalies: The case of UFOs. Social Studies of Science 7(3): 271–302.

Ziman, J.M. 2000. Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. New York: Cambridge Uni­versity Press.

I had a startling realization a few years ago: I discovered that not everyone thinks science is good for humanity. How can that be? Scientific discovery makes our lives better, richer, longer, and healthier.

The end of World War II not only showed us that science could deliver us from evil; it was also recognized as the deliverer of evil. In the mind of the public, the giant, faceless machine of science had created the atomic bomb. Science, particularly chemistry, gave us chemical weapons (Napalm, Agent Orange), pollution (dioxins, PCBs, chlorofluorocarbons), pesticides and herbicides that caused animal mortality, pharmaceuticals that caused birth defects, and well-intentioned products (breast implants, vaccines) that were claimed to cause diseases. Science wasn't necessarily the savior anymore. Its reputation was tarnished.

Most of what the public consumes regarding science comes from the media and cultural filters. Chemistry suffers badly from this filtration process.

“Chemical” Has Become a Very Bad Word

Once upon a time, the chemical-producing DuPont Company used the advertising slogan, "Better Things for Better Living…Through Chemistry." They ditched that in 1982. Another one of America's iconic companies, Dow, has dropped the word “Chemicals” from its name. Does that mean these companies don’t make chemicals? No. It means the idea about chemicals and chemistry has radically shifted and these companies have had to adjust their image to accommodate this shift.

Various events, well covered in the media, helped cement the association of chemicals with toxins and pollution. Through the 1970s, there were explosions and fatal spills at chemical plants. In Japan, the long-term release of unsafe levels of industrial pollutants into the water where the locals obtained food revealed the horrendous effects of mercury poisoning. The world’s worst chemical disaster was the 1984 chemical leak at a Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India where hundreds of thousands of villagers around the plant were exposed to the noxious gas while they slept. Approximately 3,000 died in the accident, plus thousands more who later died from gas-related diseases.

Love Canal

Love Canal gave the American public iconic imagery of leaking barrels of chemical waste, pools of chemicals where kids played, and high rates of birth defects.

Just imagine this in your neighborhood:

Corroding waste-disposal drums could be seen breaking up through the grounds of backyards. Trees and gardens were turning black and dying. One entire swimming pool had been had been popped up from its foundation, afloat now on a small sea of chemicals. Puddles of noxious substances were pointed out to me by the residents. Some of these puddles were in their yards, some were in their basements, others yet were on the school grounds. Everywhere the air had a faint, choking smell. Children returned from play with burns on their hands and faces. Eckardt C. Beck in EPA Journal (January 1979)

The Valley of the Drums in Kentucky also helped ensure that people were left with little respect for or trust in chemicals and the industry that produced them.

Can You Go Chemical-Free?

Mothers don't want chemicals in their kids' foods. It's environmentally unfriendly to use chemicals on your lawn or garden. You are encouraged to “go green” and use chemical-free products around the house and on yourself.

The truth is: you cannot go chemical-free.

Chemical is a hard word to define. I asked someone who had an associate’s degree in Chemistry, “What's the definition of a chemical?” He paused. He couldn't explain it. That difficulty in explaining (and the overall low quality of public science education and appreciation these days) may have something to do with how the word was hijacked to mean “harmful or toxic substance.”

The best description of chemical is matter resulting from a reaction of atoms and molecules. Anything made of matter is a chemical.

Water is a chemical. That fact makes the idea living of chemical-free ludicrous. Writer Deborah Blum found a reference to “chemical-free water” on the completely unscientific website Natural News. In “Chemical Free Nonsense” she notes all the various products marketed as “chemical-free”.

Marketers take advantage of the poisoned meaning of the word chemical to tout their products as being safe, healthy, and chemical-free. It’s another gimmick. In 2008 in the U.K., a Miracle Gro compost product was labeled “100% chemical free.” That's not truthful, according to the scientific definition of chemical. Yet the advertising authority decided that most people interpret chemical-free as synonymous with “organic” and okayed the use of the term “chemical-free.” Organic products are not only made with and contain chemicals but can be produced with natural pesticides (also chemicals). Natural or synthetic, you can't be free from chemicals. It's ridiculous to use the term “chemical-free”.

In fact, to illustrate the silliness of the term, Britain's Royal Society of Chemistry offered a Million Pound Challenge to anyone who can produce a 100% chemical-free material. So far, no one has claimed this prize.

Perhaps the folks at Dow know something we don't. In a May 10, 2012, interview on the radio show Marketplace, the CEO of Dow, Andrew Liveris stated that [only] “95% of all products out there have chemistry in them”,

“..[H]ave chemistry in them?” What does that even mean? He went on to say that modern humanity and “emerging humanity” need chemistry. Sadly, the atomic theory of matter has gone over even his head.

The website “Go Chemical Free” advocates for a chemical-free lifestyle, claiming that steering clear of toxic industrial chemicals can eliminate many disorders such as symptoms of Aspergers, ADHD, eczema, and more. They also claim chemical-free living results in an improvement of autism symptoms. Their evidence? Testimonials. That’s all.

The chemical-free marketing ploy is intertwined with the naturalistic fallacy, or appeal to nature, where natural is better. “All natural” sounds very positive (as opposed to synthetic or artificial). But that is a fallacy. There are plenty of synthetic products that are perfectly safe and effective and are better than their natural versions. Besides, it’s not hard to find several examples where natural does not mean good.

Chemical-free advocates tell us that the world is a toxic, hazardous place. History tells us the opposite. Environmental laws weren't always in place. Gone are the days when industries freely belched chemicals into the sky or discharged them in waste water. We get much less exposure to lead paint or pipes, mercury thermometers, or PCB-filled electrical transformers. Hazardous pesticides and insecticides were removed from production. I don't intend to downplay the very real scenarios of chemical waste dumps and leaking underground tanks that contaminate our water and soils today but it's a far cry from when farmers were allowed to apply lead arsenate to apple orchards.

Yeah, those were some good old days.

Photo from http://www.thejayfk.com/

Fear of Chemicals Is Multi-level Misunderstanding

In the 1950s, allergist Dr. Theron G. Randolph introduced the idea of chemical sensitivity. He thought that humans were not adapting to modern man-made chemicals and experiencing physical symptoms. The concept had a number of names. Today, this collection of non-specific symptoms is known as MCS, multiple chemical sensitivity. Spinoffs of MCS are Gulf War syndrome, sick building syndrome, toxic carpet syndrome, and people who say they are allergic to almost everything (including water). Diagnoses of such syndromes are problematic. So far no basis for MCS has been found except psychological.

A majority of the public may perceive chemicals—with names they can't pronounce, produced in big factories or delivered in barrels—as hazardous. However, rejection of products or treatments because of the misunderstanding about chemicals is a more serious problem. The more I thought about the fear of chemicals (“chemophobia”), I saw this disconnect from science fueling the controversies about issues like water fluoridation and fracking. Anti-vaccination groups who despise the preservatives or other chemicals in vaccines that help them work spread misinformation that results in the resurgence of communicable (and preventable) diseases. Cancer patients forgo chemotherapy as treatment, resorting to unproven, implausible alternatives. Chemophobia can kill.

Stretched to its limit, chemophobia is absurd. There is a famous hoax and Penn & Teller BULLSH*T segment regarding the banning of “dihydrogen monoxide” as a dangerous substance.

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death. From Snopes http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp

That's some toxic stuff!

It was supposed to be humor. Let's just say, not everyone got the joke. (Dihydrogen monoxide is H₂O or water.) Sensational presentations (and emotional ploys) can completely blind you to rationality.

It's not possible to stop the common cultural meaning of chemical from evolving based on events and perceptions. Education may help but countering misinformation is an uphill battle. The connection between chemicals and evil stuff is held fast by a lack of trust in the industries that produce chemicals and people's fears of disaster.

Purchasing a chemical-free product provides a sense of control for those who choose it over other products. They may feel that they are doing something good that does not contribute to unhealthy consequences or pollution. Choosing to live chemical-free is integrated into the person's/family's identity. Those are very difficult motivations to overcome.

The answer may be simple attention to absurdities. Chemicals are everywhere and in everything. If you have a chance to do this, try it. Let manufacturers know that a chemical-free label is inaccurate. Question businesses on their chemical-free claims. Ask that they be more specific about what these products and services are actually “free” of. Tell your organic, chemical-free pal to put down that coffee (Yikes! Coffee contains scads of chemicals like caffeine, organic acids, and water) as an example of why not to buy into the chemical-free absurdity.