A Quick Interlude

While researching some of the items on this list, I came across this page, it’s on a near death Web site and claims to be about debunking what they call “pseudo-skeptics”. They take the tired old point of view that a “real” skeptic can’t possibly take a position on any issue for which there is no absolute evidence. They even hint at the laughable notion that the first thing a skeptic should question is their own skepticism.

It’s an old saw, an attempt to cause critics of their ideas to self destruct. First of all, I don’t give a rat’s ass what the Greeks thought a skeptic should be. A “real” skeptic respects the current evidence and bases their conclusions on the current consensus. A true skeptic does keep an open mind, but open to evidence, not to baseless supposition and anecdotes. As for being skeptical of being skeptical, anyone who’s a skeptic has already gone through that exercise. That’s what being a skeptic means, that you’ve decided to live your life searching for truth and seeing past the bullshit, you’ve already decided that being skeptical is the right thing to do. Of course, if you’re ignorant enough to think that you can never come to a solid conclusion if you’re a skeptic, it’s easy to see how you could miss that.

Moving on to the meat of that site, it’s not that skeptics completely reject the notion of an afterlife, it’s that none of the evidence so far presented has held up to scrutiny. In fact, a real skeptic won’t have a position on the afterlife itself, merely on the evidence and phenomena so far advanced as “proof”. Ghosts, for example, are logically suspect for a number of reasons, as are out of body experiences. There has never been any conclusive evidence of either, and so both phenomena are unproven. That’s not a blanket rejection of the idea of an afterlife, merely e refutation of the evidence presented thus far. What they’ve done on this page is construct a straw man argument. It’s easy to knock down a so-called skeptic who has already made up their mind and won’t budge, but that’s not what is happening in reality. The list of poor arguments they give is a good list, but it doesn’t apply to people like James Randi, whom they love to pick on.

As for the specific examples they give (numbered 1-4 on the bottom half of that page):

1. The page they link to pretty clearly shows that the effect was due to researcher bias, so I’m not sure why they think it bolsters their view. In any case, it shows that trying to prove something with so many potential variables (which system of astrology to ascribe to, what qualifies someone as an athlete, or general, or artist, how to account for cultural effects, etc.) is difficult and open to interpretation.
2. This item, which by the way is simply homeopathy (which has been thoroughly debunked), links to an eBook, not a published study. End of story (though the phrase “The researcher complained” is a give away too, painting themselves as victims is a classic pseudo-science trick).
3. The Million Dollar Challenge is a legitimate challenge, complete with legal frameworks in place that compel the JREF to hand over the money if their conditions are met. All that’s required is that a supernatural power be demonstrated in a controlled environment. No one has pulled it off yet. As for Randi’s alleged comment, site your source or keep it to yourself.
4. I’m not sure about this one. If it all checks out then it is, indeed, compelling. Though I wonder if this is like that guy who tested John Edward, and claimed that he’d kept Edward isolated from the subject. The problem is that a video of the tests clearly shows Edward peeking through the curtain separating them, among other problems. Or like that researcher who was convinced he’d found kids with psychic abilities, only to have it revealed that those kids had been trained (by none other than James Randi) to fake it. The thing is, not once did he even ask them if they were using slight of hand, he just assumed that he knew better, which he did not. In fact, they bring up John Edward as part of their proof. Edward, as I’ve already mentioned, is an outright fraud.
   
   Looking into this a bit deeper, apparently the experiments in question are the same ones I mentioned above involving John Edward. Here’s an analysis of the experiments, along with a response to that analysis by the experimenter, and a response to the response. At this point, I think it’s pretty clear that those experiments are not to be trusted (just look at the guys idea of a “double-blind” study, here’s a hint: double-blind means that the researcher doesn’t know the answer either, and he fails in this regard). Ooh, and here’s yet another analysis, it’s quite readable and cuts right to the heart of the problems. It also includes this revealing screen cap:

To add insult to injury, they close the page with a supposed quote from Carl Sagan:

“Probably a dozen times since their death I’ve heard my mother or father, in an ordinary conversational tone of voice, call my name. They had called my name often during my life with them … It doesn’t seem strange to me.” - Carl Sagan

This was taken from an essay by Sagan titled “Wonder and Skepticism”, originally published in Skeptical Enquirer Magazine. Unfortunately, they edited it to make it sound like Sagan believed he was hearing his parents from beyond the grave. For shame. They didn’t even get the parts that they left in right. The correct quote means the exact opposite of what this version implies.

Here’s the actual quote, without the creative editing (my emphasis):

I have, maybe a dozen times since my parents died, heard one of them say my name: just the single word, “Carl.” I miss them, they called me by my first name so much during the time they were alive; I was in the practice of responding instantly when I was called; it has deep psychic roots. So my brain plays it back every now and then. This doesn’t surprise me at all; I sort of like it. But it’s a hallucination. If I were a little less skeptical, though, I could see how easy it would be to say, “They’re around somewhere. I can hear them.”

Nice try, assholes.