Why do people believe weird things?
Posted
Updated
Is there extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim? (Roger Patterson/Robert Gimlin)
I am not a psychic, but as a professional sceptic I occasionally play one to reveal the tricks used by peddlers of the paranormal.
The most common ruse is known as cold reading, where you reveal facts about someone you have never met. It is not difficult. Armed with the knowledge that certain facts are likely to apply to anyone (e.g. a scar on your knee, a white car in your past, the number two in your address), a friendly and confident patter punctuated with inquisitive looks and knowing nods - and no moral scruples - you too can be a psychic, astrologer, palm reader or tarot card diviner. No matter how you market yourself, the process is the same.
And it's easy to find customers, because a great number of people are ready to believe. According to a 2005 Gallup poll, three-quarters of those surveyed believe in at least one paranormal phenomenon, including 41 per cent who are convinced of ESP, 32 per cent of ghosts, 31 per cent of mind reading, 26 per cent of clairvoyance and 25 per cent of astrology.
Spend 10 minutes online and you can catalog many other highly questionable beliefs that aren't related to the paranormal, such as that space aliens landed at Roswell, New Mexico, that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, that the Holocaust never occurred, and that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government to galvanise America for war.
Why do so many people believe such weird things?
First, all humans seek patterns. That's our nature. We are also storytellers because it helps us find meaning in a chaotic world. In order to survive, we have evolved to find cause-and-effect relationships in nature, and then weave a plausible story to explain them. Our ancestors who identified the pattern linking the seasons to animal migrations ate better and left behind more offspring. But because believing that the rain gods can be appeased through rituals isn't fatal, we also have inherited magical thinking. Add to this the fact that many of these beliefs make us feel better, meet some emotional need, promise miracle cures or instant wealth, and in general appeal to our emotional brains and bypass our rational brains.
What can we do about this? Think sceptically. How? Here are a few questions to ask when considering extraordinary claims:
- Is the person making this claim a qualified expert in the field, or a quack? People who are not trained in a subject can make contributions, but it is rare.
- Does the source often make similar claims? Paranormalists and members of fringe groups have a habit of going well beyond the facts.
- Have the claims been verified by another source? Typically pseudoscientists will make statements that are unverified, or verified by a source within their own circle. Who is checking the claim, and who is checking the checkers?
- How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works? When considered in this manner, get-rich quick schemes and stock-market secrets never sound so good.
- Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or have they only sound evidence to confirm it? This is known as confirmation bias, or the tendency to ignore negative evidence. This is why we need the methods of science, which include the attempt to prove yourself wrong.
- Does the preponderance of evidence converge to the claimant's conclusion? The theory of evolution, for example, is proven through a convergence of evidence from a number of independent lines of inquiry. No one fossil proves anything.
- Is the claimant employing accepted rules of reason and tools of research? UFOlogists suffer this fallacy in their continued focus on a handful of unexplained atmospheric anomalies and visual misperceptions while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of sightings are easily explained.
- Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena, or is it strictly a process of denying the existing explanation? This is a classic debate strategy - criticise your opponent and never affirm what you believe in order to avoid criticism. Creationists do this to great effect. But to be legitimate, positive evidence in favor of your idea must also be presented.
- If the claimant has offered a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation? For example, sceptics who argue that lifestyle, not HIV, causes AIDS do not explain nearly as much of the data as the HIV theory does, such as the rise in AIDS among haemophiliacs shortly after HIV was inadvertently introduced into the blood supply.
- Is there extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim? Evidence is key. Normal claims need normal evidence, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and the author of Why Darwin Matters, How We Believe, and Why People Believe Weird Things. He is touring Australia as part of National Science Week 2008.
Search for news
Comments (115)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
Terry:
22 Aug 2008 2:06:25pm
"Science is a highly elaborated set of conventions brought forth by one particular culture (our own) in the circumstances of one particular historical period; thus it is not, as the standard view would have it, a body of knowledge and testable conjecture concerning the real world. It is a discourse, devised by and for one specialised interpretive community, under terms created by the complex net of social circumstance, political opinion, economic incentive and ideological climate that constitutes the ineluctable human environment of the scientist. Thus, orthodox science is but one discursive community among the many that now exist and that have existed historically. Consequently its truth claims are irreducibly self-referential, in that they can be upheld only by appeal to the standards that define the scientific community and distinguish it from other social formations."
Paul R. Gross, and Norman Levitt, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, The Johns Hopkins University Press.Agree (3) Alert moderator
-
Clownfish:
22 Aug 2008 2:33:49pm
All very Post-Modern and touchy-feely - and a load of tosh.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance."Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
Jeremy:
22 Aug 2008 3:27:38pm
It's not post modern at all.
Post-modernism would state that science is just another "story," that there is no such thing as "truth" and that if you believe that snake oil cures cancer, then from your perspective it can be seen as true.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Terry:
22 Aug 2008 3:42:31pm
Science uses instruments to ask questions that produce answers only meaningful in terms of the instrument, and that there was no such thing as a completely objective vantage point from which to view the results of science.
People merely presume that presently accepted scientific classification scheme represents an objective reality, there really are numerous alternative classification schemes.
Science on my list of "weird things" to believe, along with UFO's , 9/11 conspiracy theorists, religion......
I don't do belief, so I can dismiss science too.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Colin:
22 Aug 2008 4:36:05pm
Science does NOT use instruments to ask questions, the scientist asks the questions to simply try to understand why things are the way they are. Instruments are merely extensions of our five (and only five) senses to enable us to sense more of the universe around us. The objective vantage point we have is the reality of what we perceive.
You say you don't do belief. Tell me, when you look at yourself in the mirror do you believe it is you standing there or aren't you there at all?Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
peebles:
24 Aug 2008 8:12:26am
Terry could also tell us, perhaps, why he trusts aeroplanes not to fall down, and why he believes his messages typed in one location will appear at many other locations.
He might not believe science as part of the "explanation" of such things (it might all be down to the Flying Spaghetti Monster), but surely they came about, nevertheless, because of the scientific method.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
G:
23 Aug 2008 8:15:54pm
Why do so many people have problems in understanding what science is?
Science is only a formula. In fact, belief has nothing to do with it, only logic and reasoning.
Here is the scientific method, that we all learn at school:
1. Observe X
2. Develop a hypothesis that explains X.
3. use the hypothesis to predict Y.
4. determine if Y is true.
5. if Y is not true, modify hypothesis in 2 that explains X AND (not Y), return to 3 with new hypothesis and make a new prediction
6. If y is true, then return go 3 and make a new prediction.
Science is not a tool, it is a method.
Science does not ask questions, its a process we use to learn. If, by applying the process we discover more things we don't understand, we apply the method again to help us understand them.
Science does not "explain" things.
Science is certainly not a "belief".
Science is not good, or evil. (although the application of what is learned may be).
Science is inevitable. We've evolved to ask questions, and seek to answer them.
You don't "believe" in science any more or less than you "believe " in the existance of your computer (for example). It just is.
However, what you may quibble about is the conclusions that arise from applying the scientific method. That's fine, just apply the method and learn more, so that you can stop quibbling.
Please, stop brutalising us with this misconception of what science is. To recap - It's not a thing you believe, it's only a tool that you use to understand.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Terry:
24 Aug 2008 1:06:50pm
G,
There is a huge list of great thinkers point out the shortcomings of science and the scientific method.
Try reading, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences by Michel Foucault.
Just to recap, I don't believe in science. Moreover, rational knowledge does not produce objective accounts of reality.
Also, there are 2 Terry's on this thread.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
K:
24 Aug 2008 10:00:25pm
Terry,
You need to re-read G's contribution. It makes no sense to say "I don't believe in science". It makes about as much sense as saying "I don't believe in Gravity". Gravity (and science) exist despite your belief or unbelief. As G pointed out, some things just "are" - whether you agree or not.
K.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mark:
24 Aug 2008 7:26:05pm
Science is MOST definitely a belief, it is what we believe to be true at a given point in time based on the knowledge and tolls we have available
Look at the progression of science and what passed for fact over the centuries if you don't believe me
In another two hundred years that will no doubt laugh at what we believed was fact given our primitve scientific methodsAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
MTR:
22 Aug 2008 2:35:04pm
However, science does not make any claims to the 'truth'. It is purely a process, and not a body of knowledge, that looks for evidence to support or disregard a theory. If its claims are referential, they are not to itself; science references the objective world, and any claim it makes is placed under massive scrutiny, such as tests of validity.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter:
22 Aug 2008 2:41:14pm
The major strength of science is that the information we derive from it is independent of our beliefs and preconceptions.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John R:
22 Aug 2008 4:16:43pm
except, of course, the belief in science itself - and also the assumptions used in that particular science.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Neil:
22 Aug 2008 4:59:43pm
Ummm... assumptions are always subject to change - the colossal revisions of assumptions that took place in physics early last century that are the reason that your computer works.
The key is that they aren't changed until enough people have provided strong enough reason to change them.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
mikej:
22 Aug 2008 6:57:09pm
soory, john. it is useless "believing in science" do the experiment. do it again. is the result reproducable? yes? it works!! no belief necassary. no? then no beleif required in the hypothesis. it either works or it doesnt.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Michelle:
23 Aug 2008 12:25:07pm
Check out the Mismeasure of Man by S J Gould. He describes how beliefs and preconceived notions can affect "scientific" results. A very interesting read.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Matt:
24 Aug 2008 8:46:41pm
Peter said:
"The major strength of science is that the information we derive from it is independent of our beliefs and preconceptions."
Sorry, but that is a bunch of junk. The questions we ask are derived from our beliefs and preconceptions.
Furthermore, it must be stated that science actually proves the truth about absolutely NOTHING! It only has the power to prove an UNTRUTH. That is called the null hypothesis.
Science is arguably a cultural phenomenon. The way we use it is unquestionably a cultural phenomenon.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Marcel:
22 Aug 2008 2:48:20pm
To contextualise this quotation, it is worth pointing out that Gross and Levitt are, in this paragraph, outlining a position which they seek to identify as intellectually flawed, and that the argument they mount in the book as a whole is not incompatible with the substance of this article. The 'weird things' mentioned in the article are themselves highly specialised discourses, designed to create, maintain and extend interpretive communities. However, unlike these communities, it is not necessary to belong to the interpretive community of science in order to benefit (or suffer) directly from the products of its discourse: so to say that the truth claims of the discourse are self-referential because it is a discourse does not follow. (These are my feeble arguments, by the way, not Gross and Levitts'.)
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
PaulB:
22 Aug 2008 2:50:08pm
Michael is a regular on the Point of Inquiry podcast. For those soldiering thru this life, with the promise of eternal bliss in the next, you may find it useful to tune in. With any luck, the religious lies you have been fed since childhood, can be discarded and a recognition of the preciousness & fragility of your short existence, will spur you to do what it is, you "really" want to be doing. You are only here once for a few decades, make the most of it.
A couple of my favourite quotes, particularly Ingersoll a bruiser and a giant of an intellect -
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. - Robert G. Ingersoll
Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense. - Chapman CohenAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Another Michael:
23 Aug 2008 5:34:13am
Far be it from me to take on an intellectual giant like Ingersoll but he was wrong on this one. Material things that would remain include a whole lot of amazing architecture, some nice art (but with a fairly repetitive theme) and a whole stack of cash. I think some of the etherial things that might remain include a more free thinking society, less conflict and fewer childhoods affected by abuse. Before I am castigated for condeming society to a vacumme of morality I would like to highlight a couple of quotes from another favourite of Michael Shermer.
"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature but by our institutions, great is our sin."
"How paramount the future is to the present when one is surrounded by children."
Thanks go to Charles Darwin here for highlighting morality does not belong to the church. Staying with Charles for a minute but coming back to the topic about what to believe, there was a nice quote on the back of my high school biology text.
"I have steadily endeavoured to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved and I cannot resist forming one on every subject, as soon as the facts are shown to oppose it."Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
mac:
23 Aug 2008 7:15:21am
Spot-on! And yet about 80% of US Americans believe in God. I wish they would live like it!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
is it true:
23 Aug 2008 9:01:45am
You say Gods are fragile things. I would say Gods (God-individuated) are not fragile at all, but the body inhabited is. The day of leaving for the God-individuated from a body is the day the fragile lifeless body drops to the earth.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Alex:
23 Aug 2008 2:35:09pm
And any whiff of consciousness and identity as well. Wake up, is it true. It all just disappears. Nothing. Zilch. An absence of what was. Inconceivable.
Frightened?
Of course.
That's what should be spurring you on to live it all and get it right now.
There will not be a next time. No pats on the back in the after life. No recognition by a big sky daddy of all the things you got right, and why you got some wrong. No 'hello's' to the dead you miss or wronged. No justifications or second chances or absorption by some divine being. No omniscience or omnipresence. Nothing.
So do it now. Now. NOW!
And if, by chance, I am wrong- well then, I'd have lived my life to such fullness and so virtuously, that even a God could not reprimand me for how I acted. In fact, I would be applauded (I'm scoffing as I write, of course) because I managed to live so well without a god as a psychological crutch or carrot or taskmaster.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
is it true:
24 Aug 2008 10:49:35am
You sound angry, sorry. Just a question, If you are going to live now, would it be smarter to be happy?
Here is a spiritual quote from Vernon Howard for your enjoyment and upliftment:
Inner liberty can be judged by how often a person feels offended, for you can no more insult a mature man than you can paint the air.
Good, isn't it?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Mike:
22 Aug 2008 3:05:06pm
What a load of cobblers! The properties that are of value in science are it's predictative ability, its repeatability and the economy of explanation.
Ideological climate and the community of discourse may aid or hinder the process of science but have nothing to with its outcomesAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
karl303:
22 Aug 2008 4:10:15pm
To Terrys' quote on from Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science,
"Consequently its truth claims are irreducibly self-referential, in that they can be upheld only by appeal to the standards that define the scientific community and distinguish it from other social formations."
...
So to a layman like myself, that means any truths attributed to a said group in culture are only relevant to that said group of culture, and therefore not as relevant to any other cultural group? SO there is no real such thing as truth then is there? as truth relies on a series of consensual realities shared by by the stated truth and the believer of that truth.
I do think that science relies on something else, and that is critical observation of any theory that stands up to its own communities discourse and orthodoxy. Earth has always had gravity but man has not always had the theory of gravity. I think science goes beyond cultural bounds as it has an ability to quantify with said orthodox methodology the experiences had by mankind. therefore i can go back in time and demonstrate the theory of gravity.
I think forms of science have been around as long as critical thinking has. The human mind is able to observe and attribute any knowledge had, to observations made beyond their own experience or understanding. Thus be able to adapt, recognise patterns or cause and effect and such. Anything after the critical observation usually is a belief reinforced by such observation and consensus of the cultural framework you are in. Therefore when i go back in time to demonstrate the theory of gravity they would share the same experience of gravity and we would all agree of its effect. But they would not understand the theory as I would as they have formed a belief instead of a critical theory tested by observation by many.
Maybe belief is a human condition evolved to compensate for the lack of definitive knowledge needed in matters affecting our existence. A way to explain the unexplainable. But science has for the first time explained things in a way that can be critically observed and verified by anyone with the means, unlike beliefs which often can be contradicted critical thought and observation.
So if i believe in science where does that leave me,lol... i view most religions and beliefs as superstition until i see some thing i believe :).
I really do not go for any thing like horoscopes or good luck charms either, but i am not stupid enough not to realise that religion has not contributed a lot to human endeavors and there are many social and cultural 'truths' that are evidently held within these belief systems but are not necessarily appropriate to everyone outside that belief system.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Observer:
23 Aug 2008 11:18:08pm
You mighty men and women of science, you refuse me and yourselves the honest experiment. God requires that you believe, and then he requires that you be committed in your heart to act on the answer he gives. Then he requires that you be familiar with his word, and be obedient to it's teachings. Then he requires that you enquire of him if he is real, and be committed to waiting until He sees fit to answer. Fasting and prayer are not without their place in such an honest enquiry. The maintenance of personal purity and the commitments above, for the remainder of your life. As the master said, 'If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether I speak of myself, or Him that sent me'. There are things that can only be known from senses other than the basic 5. If you will not experiment in good faith, you will not ever know, and until you know, you are unqualified to testify that there is or is not a God. I testify that I have tried this experiment, and found that there is a God. I know it, I do know there is a God. Nothing you can do can destroy that knowledge, because a power greater than you has given it to me.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
dragon:
22 Aug 2008 2:11:33pm
If you applied the 10 questions to any polly, you'd find that they were bogus too.
Both make unsubstantiated hit and miss predictions resulting in mainly misses when they get found out after the elections :)Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Smirky:
22 Aug 2008 2:17:36pm
Why do so many people believe such weird things?
Innate human behaviour. The ability to imagine and ponder the non-concrete are fundamental human traits that have allowed our minds to flourish. And in some cases, i'm looking at you religion, this trait has been extremely detrimental to logical thought.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
DeepFritz:
22 Aug 2008 2:35:16pm
But the reality of things are not only stanger than we thought, but are stranger than we possibly could have ever thought possible...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Justin:
22 Aug 2008 2:48:58pm
"And in some cases, Im looking at you religion, this trait has been extremely detrimental to logical thought."
I could not agree more with that comment, well said Smirky.
And how many of the top people and decision makers of the world are stunted due to there believes, would it not be a better world if we had logical people making the decisions.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John O:
22 Aug 2008 3:00:30pm
Nail on the head.
Funny though you'll find people who poopoo ghosts, UFOs etc yet will turn up at church to worship an unsubstantiated myth.
As for why people believe such weird things? Because its fun and real life isn't? Because some people are nut cases?
Or because some of those weird things will some day turn out to not be weird...:}Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Id:
22 Aug 2008 3:39:57pm
I think the answer is that many people believe what they want to believe.Many examples occur during times of stress such as war, where the most absurd stories gain considerable currency.
How many believed that night-figher pilots' vision was improved by eating carrots?
The Old Testament Bible tales could well have emanated from demented old men being given a ham sandwich and a goatskin of water and told to disappear into the desert.The less demented realised what a superstitious lot his fellow tribesmen were, so they came back with tales of burning bushes and the like.
How many can't tell the difference between television ads and reality?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Joe:
22 Aug 2008 4:11:43pm
I think you need to balance this with the knowledge that science is evolving and belief is what helps us to explain the unexplained, or seeming unexplainable. To simply ignore observations because no one has yet explained them is no more rational than to put absolute belief in them.
Sometimes too, belief is what makes things happen. All new science starts with a creative thought or unique observation that leads to a logical method, but without the creative thought or unique observation there would be nothing new discovered.
Some things happen that no one can explain. That is why people believe that they do, even if not all beliefs are correct.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
jak:
22 Aug 2008 2:30:24pm
32% of people believing in ghosts and 25% of people believing in astrology.. this is hilarious.
One of my friends the other day was trying to tell me that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the owner of a building next to the world trade center - which was destroyed in the attack - so he could sell all the steal in the building for scrap metal and also claim it on insurance ?!?
I tried to explain to him that there are perhaps easier ways to make money of scrap metal.. but it was no good !!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Clownfish:
22 Aug 2008 2:31:43pm
"People like blood sausage too - people are morons" ~ Phil Connors (Bill Murray), "Groundhog Day"
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
DeepFritz:
22 Aug 2008 2:33:04pm
Of course the most despicable of all ludricous beliefs are those that are called religion...
People will believe a stone age myth over that which science explains more efficiently and elegantly just because it is what they have been taught. Let go of the crutches and learn to walk properly in the universe people :)Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
SirSam:
22 Aug 2008 2:34:49pm
I believe that there is a bear in there, and a chair as well. But the rest is all communist propaganda.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Grahame:
22 Aug 2008 2:36:10pm
Please define 'weird'.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
henalf:
22 Aug 2008 2:38:25pm
People believe in anything if it suits them. The fact that they are only energy,will survive for so long by using other energy,and finally die,and are recycled as energy,to start all over again. Those facts do not appeal to them,so they place their faith in religion or Lotto etc. These people are sitting ducks,waiting to be exploited by all manner of crooks and sooth sayers take advantage of these gullible folk.It has always been so,and will undoubtably always be so.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
garybenno:
22 Aug 2008 2:39:45pm
because it is easier than facing up to reality
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sillyfilly:
22 Aug 2008 2:39:51pm
"In order to survive, we have evolved to find cause-and-effect relationships in nature, and then weave a plausible story to explain them" ..."Creationists do this to great effect. But to be legitimate, positive evidence in favor of your idea must also be presented"
How apt and true:
The biblical "In the beginning" and associated genesis of the creation myth must be the greatest ever hoax perpetrated on western civilisation, but so many people believe it to be true: neither rhyme nor reason just adulterated faith.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Patrick Bateman:
22 Aug 2008 4:57:23pm
Surely the implication isn't that there aren't cause and effect relationships in nature?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Santa:
22 Aug 2008 2:41:27pm
firstly, the world is flat, always has been always will be, secondly the toothfairy is actually my wife mrs claus, thirdly i invented the wheel, and last but not least, i killed the easter bunny last week, he was delicious!
if you believe any of that then your one of these people they are talking aboutAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
SmirkyGoo:
22 Aug 2008 3:06:24pm
google - "Flat Earth Society" if you want a really good laugh.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
SFA:
22 Aug 2008 3:18:09pm
And if you believe all the propoganda then the Americans really did land a man on the moon
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
R G Hay:
22 Aug 2008 6:04:37pm
I gathered from a fairly lengthy discussion on The Science Forum that the current belief is that the universe is flat.
So I presume that, in some respects, the earth is flat also. But if I ever, going out the door, meet my slightly younger self apparently coming in the door, I'll revise this opinion.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
vm:
22 Aug 2008 2:41:43pm
The author (deliberately or not) presents views within positivists paradigm only.
He conveniently forgets to mention that beliefs in 'weird' are supported within completely different outlooks on the world. Therefore, his argument is pile of s***- well, nonsense.
Much more honest would've been argument along the following lines - God does not exist - therefore everything metaphysical is 'weird'. A bit Marxist, but at least consistent.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
RuAlright:
22 Aug 2008 2:42:13pm
Michael Shermer forgot to add Cult Religions and Climate Change to the list.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Devo:
22 Aug 2008 2:58:26pm
Agreed. Climate change denial definitely has a lot in common with some of the strange beliefs mentioned.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
R G Hay:
23 Aug 2008 9:39:33am
Changes in climates are measurable facts.
What some of us are sceptical about are the following propositions:
(a) If humans undertake to change their activities so as to reduce drastically their emissions of CO2 by various proportions by various dates then the climates will stop changing;
(b) Humans are on the point of agreeing to make these reductions;
(c) These reductions can, and will, be made with minimal other changes to our lifestyles and population distribution;
(d) There are no other GHG's, nor human activities which affect the climate system;
(e) Adopting an ETS in Australia will reduce world CO2 emissions to something or other by some date or other;
(f) There are other ways to generate the energy we use that are as reliable, as cheap, and as able to provide it on demand as the CO2 emitting devices we currently use.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
R:
22 Aug 2008 3:18:08pm
you climate change deniers can't help yourselves can you
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Odge:
22 Aug 2008 3:28:48pm
You ever think that biblical Armageddon and climate change might be the same thing?
The climate change theory is based on evidence gathered through rigorous scientific process. It might not be 100% correct in detail, but it is already having consequences in reality. Its not a case of belief or faith. It doesn't matter if you believe, its happening now.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John O:
22 Aug 2008 4:42:30pm
When thousands of scientist will put their names to a document stating that climate change science is incorrect does this argument still hold?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Zibethicus:
22 Aug 2008 2:50:11pm
I respect the efforts of the self-appointed 'sceptics' to save those whom they seem to deem as 'gullible' 'dupes' from what Mr Shermer here calls 'magical thinking'. However, as Richard Feynman is reported to have said, "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely sure." If we are to accept this zetetic (ahem!) persepective of 'science', perhaps we should not be in a rush to throw the baby of genuine mystery out with the bathwater of bunk.
Mr Shermer's ten points for 'considering extraordinary claims' - with an air of inherent dismissal to my mind - seem to me to be open to reinterpretation, as follows:
1. Is the person making this claim a qualified expert in the field, or a quack?
This question revolves around the definition of 'qualified expert', obviously. In the case at hand - what appears to be another obvious and crude Bigfoot hoax - who is to be regarded as an 'expert' in this matter? An anthropologist who disbelieves all the accounts without undertaking a study of their own? Why are we so keen to dismiss the accounts of all witnesses, including those who live and work in the area of the sighting? This is a form of 'expertise' in itself.
2. Does the source often make similar claims? Paranormalists and members of fringe groups have a habit of going well beyond the facts.
The charter of SCI declares that it "encourages the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view". This point seems on one level to contradict that mission, in that the 'paranormal' predisposition of, say, a body like the Psychical Research Society could be used as a means of dismissing any 'evidence' of psi-phenomena it offered without examining the evidence.
3. Have the claims been verified by another source? Typically pseudoscientists will make statements that are unverified, or verified by a source within their own circle. Who is checking the claim, and who is checking the checkers?
One might make the same observations about the peer-review process if one was cynically inclined.
4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works? When considered in this manner, get-rich quick schemes and stock-market secrets never sound so good.
Observe the implication that the 'sceptical' viewpoint is the one which is able to tell us "how the work works".
5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or have they only sound evidence to confirm it? This is known as confirmation bias, or the tendency to ignore negative evidence. This is why we need the methods of science, which include the attempt to prove yourself wrong.
See Point 7, where Mr Shermer proclaims that UFOolgists are in error in examining what he suggests are "a handfulAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Zibethicus:
22 Aug 2008 2:57:59pm
...continued...
See Point 7, where Mr Shermer proclaims that UFOolgists are in error in examining what he suggests are "a handful of unexplained atmospheric anomalies and visual misperceptions" . Mr Shermer does not apparently "attempt to prove [himself] wrong" in considering the _possibility_ that _some_ of these sightings may have _some_ merit, and there are _some_ sightings which continue to defy any proffered attempt to explain them away.
6. Does the preponderance of evidence converge to the claimant's conclusion? The theory of evolution, for example, is proven through a convergence of evidence from a number of independent lines of inquiry. No one fossil proves anything.
Conceded.
7. Is the claimant employing accepted rules of reason and tools of research? UFOlogists suffer this fallacy in their continued focus on a handful of unexplained atmospheric anomalies and visual misperceptions while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of sightings are easily explained.
Apart from my comments above, I wonder just what "accepted rules of reason" are assumed to be? Who sets these "rules", and how and when and where are they set, I wonder? Would The Skeptical Inquirer undertake to publish, say, a data set which seemed to support certain conclusions of astrology when undertaken by a properly qualified team of researchers?
8. Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena, or is it strictly a process of denying the existing explanation? This is a classic debate strategy - criticise your opponent and never affirm what you believe in order to avoid criticism. Creationists do this to great effect. But to be legitimate, positive evidence in favor of your idea must also be presented.
Conceded.
9. If the claimant has offered a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation? For example, sceptics who argue that lifestyle, not HIV, causes AIDS do not explain nearly as much of the data as the HIV theory does, such as the rise in AIDS among haemophiliacs shortly after HIV was inadvertently introduced into the blood supply.
I don't see how this is necessarily correct. How is one to decide which of two competing theories is the valid one - if only one can be valid - if they both explain a phenomeon or phenomena with equal power and elegance? To cite Mr Shermer's UFO example, a theory which suggests that _some_ of the confessedly handful of unexplained sightings point to _some sort_ of hitherto unexplained aerial phenomena (perhaps a perfectly natural phenomeon) explains _more_ phenomena than the 'sceptical' point of view, which simply insists that there _are_ no such sightings.
10. Is there extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim? Evidence is key. Normal claims need normal evidence, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary eAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Zibethicus:
22 Aug 2008 3:53:07pm
...and finally...
10. Is there extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim? Evidence is key. Normal claims need normal evidence, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I don't think that this is correct at all; neither is it a useful standard for phenomenological judgement. Surely all that _any_ claim requires for 'evidence' is an _adequacy_ of evidence, whatever this adequacy is deemed to be? As William James observed, "To upset the conclusion that all crows are black, there is no need to seek demonstration that no crows are black; it is sufficient to produce one white crow; a single one is sufficient."Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Patrick Bateman:
22 Aug 2008 5:01:54pm
Some excellent points. On point 10 - we are only now in a position to obtain actual evidence of things which Einstein predicted 50 years ago. Yet presumably our self-appointed skeptic guardians do not reject quantum physics as quackery...
I must say the whole article smacks of an argument from authority, i.e., if people do things the 'conventional' way they should be trusted, if they are 'outsiders' or unconventional they should be rejected. Many great scientific (and philosophical) discoveries throughout the ages have been by outsiders of one sort or another - in a sense, any great leap forward in thinking requires a degree of conflict with the accepted status quo and taking on the role of the outsider.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Zibethicus:
22 Aug 2008 10:04:38pm
Precisely. None of this is to denigrate the value of the work of Mr Shermer and his fellows. Yet the claim of the self-proclaimed 'sceptics' to speak for 'science' /in toto/ is debatable, and while reflecting on this question I was forcefully reminded of the 'philosophers' of Padua who supposedly refused to look through Galileo's telescope to see the mountains of the moon.
Their reason? Their Aristolean theories demanded that the moon be a perfect body; consequently there were no mountains on the moon; consequently there was no point in looking through the telescope at the moon.
No doubt anyone who was committed to their pet theories at the time who had the broadmindedness to actually look through the telescope would rapidly find a way to explain away their observations, most probably by claiming that the telescope was introducing the appearence of structure in some undefined manner.
With all due respect to the 'sceptics', I have to say that I find certain similarities in their sometimes truculent approach to these enigmas. I myself agree with the late eminent astronomer, physicist and mathematician Sir James Jeans, who said "the universe is not only stranger than we know, it is stranger than we CAN know."Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Tony of Melbourne:
23 Aug 2008 1:31:45pm
Taken literally UFO's do exist. They are Unidentified Flying Objects. The emphasis is on the unidentified.
As a skeptic, I would trust that Mr Shermer is not saying "there are no such things as xxx". This is very difficult to disprove when xxx is plausible. If he says there is no such thing as a chemical combination of neon and iron - this is provable because the two can't combine. If he says there is "no such thing as Bigfoot" - this is not provable. However as a skeptic what he is saying is that "it is unlikely that there is such a ting as Bigfoot - but if you claim there is, then show me the evidence - until then I'm skeptical".
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Jim:
22 Aug 2008 2:51:37pm
The other interesting thing is that the more people believe a certain piece of nonsense the more these people believe themselves to be right.
Of course, if the penalty for not believing that nonsense is to be the centrepiece at that evening's bonfire then you find a lot more people agreeing with them.
It is extraordinary that anyone could worship a god who condemns a man and his wife, their children and all their descendents to suffering in perpetuity for eating an apple. But these people exist! They even believe that this imaginary vindictive being is forgiving! Even though the evidence of their own holy book clearly states that he goes around killing anyone who disagrees with him.
Why are religions not treated in the same way as con artists? They do the same thing, use the propensity of the average human to believe almost anything to gain power and wealth. Perhaps it's because politicians do exactly the same thing...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Si:
22 Aug 2008 2:54:12pm
Of course aliens didn't land at Roswell. That's just plain nutty. They crashed.
I actually heard they crashed because their spaceship was haunted by the ghost of Bigfoot.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
SmirkyGoo:
22 Aug 2008 3:10:25pm
No, they were looking for weapons of mass destruction. That or leprechauns.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Geoff:
22 Aug 2008 2:56:55pm
I am so glad I don't believe that water has a memory.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Terry:
22 Aug 2008 4:06:56pm
I do.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
NWABP:
22 Aug 2008 3:09:20pm
Why do people believe in weird things?
Because it suits their version of reality and moral fibre.
Why do people believe a former ruler/general in Nigeria (or elsewhere) is prepared to give them millions of dollars just for the use of a bank account number?
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE that the Nigerian scammers can net $36m per annum from Australia alone?
Because it suits the believer's version of reality.
Nigerian Scammers, peddlers of false dreams, religious leaders, consiracy theorists - humph, all in the same bucket - one and all.
Now, where is my e-mail account with the next free offer? Ah, there it is, along with my free Doctorate and Viagra discount.
Enjoy your profitable weekend.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Anne:
22 Aug 2008 3:20:41pm
While some practices are clearly quacks, I believe that things needs to be put into perspective. Everyone can afford to be skeptical, eg. that there are no supernaturals or space aliens but where is the proof? Likewise, it is hard to prove the contrary on the basis of current scientific knowledge. It is the investigative nature of human beings that brings about discovery. In past history, qualified experts have been proved wrong by new scientific discoveries. For example, some experts thought that the world is flat until they discovered that it is roughly spherical. I would caution against skepticism because science is currently not a perfect tool.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
R G Hay:
23 Aug 2008 10:06:22am
As Wittgenstein pointed out to Russell by speaking of the hippopotamus (?) in the room, we cannot prove that something doesn't exist. We can find evidence that something does exist, and enough of that will be taken to prove its existence, but we can only say, as with the invisible intangible inaudible in-anything-you-try hippo, we have tried to find it in every way we can think of and, so far, have found no evidence of its existence. So we won't believe it exists until such evidence is found.
The sciences by the way are not a set of beliefs, but a set of working hypotheses, often ones whose limits are known, which are abandoned or modified when they don't work - that is, when predicted events do not ocur as predicted, within certain limits. We usually use Newtonian mechanics because the calculations are simpler, even though relativity mechanics are known to be more accurate. But in some areas of astronomy and quantum physics Newtonian Mechanics are not used - they are known to be inadequate. Billiard ball atoms are fine in elementary chemistry - but not beyond that. The exact properties of some solids, and even some liquids, are still being investigated, and much about plasmas is still unknown. For that matter, we don't know a lot about the oceanic abyss and what happens there thermodynamically, biologically, and even chemically. But we are finding out more. Unlike post-structuralists, scientists don't think they know it all, and their discourses are relevant to actions in and on the world: the non-human world, mostly. Which is rather harder to con than some people.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Brian PERTH:
22 Aug 2008 3:22:20pm
Curious that the author includes "Cult Religions" in his list of wierd things people belive in.
Why emphasise "Cult"? Why seperate cult relgions from common religions?
Why not acknowledge that ALL religions, even garden variety "Christian" religions, are just myth and superstition. There is no evidence of a God - any God.
Faith is just believing in something for which there is no evidence, despite the evidence to the contrary. In this sense, Christians are no more wierd than 9/11 conspiracy therorists or those who belive in Bigfoot.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jack:
22 Aug 2008 3:39:31pm
Yes, the whole religion thing is odd.
I know someone who believes in psychokinetic worms, cryptoanimals (you know those big cats prowling NSW mountains), UFO's, bigfoot and lake monsters but for some reason doesn't believe in ghosts.
However, he always dismisses religion as mere superstition rubbish etc.
The point is though, religion (whatever type) gives you a moral framework for life (don't kill, don't steal etc) whereas believing in UFO's and big cats doesn't.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
John R:
22 Aug 2008 4:57:32pm
But then you run up against the problem of there being no evidence of there not being a God. So you then need to include the religion of atheism. Then there's all the myth and superstition in that one - like formation of the world through evolution. So the writer was just being careful, knowing that there are so many people believing in the garden religions of science and atheism that it may not get a welcome reception.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Nigel:
22 Aug 2008 5:04:35pm
These type of comments that have pervaded this discussion seem quite ignorant.
To say that "religions are just myth and superstition" and that there is "no evidence of a God" on its own conveys nothing. Whilst you have a right to dismiss the evidence to the contrary, you have not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, yet you make the bold claim there is no evidence.
Now that is a weird belief, which you cannot support (Unless you can make the claim that you know all things, which I know you don't). Therefore, everytime you open your mouth to make such claims you contradict even the scientific approach to which you seem to advocate.
After all evidence to one is not necessarily evidence to others, even in Science. Science hopes to achieve some verifiable conclusion through consensus, which is never absolute and is always open to new ideas brought on by new evidence.
Faith to the contrary is actually bought about by evidence of things unseen. Whilst not conclusive it is never-the-less evidence, otherwise faith would have no place in our lives.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Glen:
22 Aug 2008 3:25:38pm
I believe that people are looking for something that they can ease thier mind with.
Be it the unrelenting rules of science, the certainty of faith in a deity or the interpretation of a set of symbols done by themselves or another.
The relevance and realism of any of these avenues is down to that persons perception.
"Truth" is a subjective creation of the mind. Meaning is created by our perception.
Given this i can state that no one can be right. Because we all percieve right differently.
The only thing we can have in the end is Our own truths, our own perception and out own belief.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
thelonenut:
22 Aug 2008 3:34:26pm
I consider myself a rational person and beleive in Science over anything else - however, having said that, I also place great store in what Bill Shakespeare said in Hamlet, I believe it was : the line about there being more things in Heaven and Earth than that are dreamt of in men's ( and women' s, he forgot to add) philosophies.
People do believe in weird things, and I'm no exception. But I am constantly stunned at what people DON't believe in, disregarding fairly credible evidence. Consider the atrocious treatment meted out to Lindy Chamberlain in the Azaria case - to this day, despite having been shown over and over again that the forensic evidence originally used to convict Lindy was so tainted and ludicrous, there are still people wandering around, especially in the NT ( where I currently live) muttering things like : We all know the bitch did it
And the Falconio case, where equally strange people are still convinced that it was Joanne Lees who orchestrated Peter Falconio's "disappearance", regardless of the extremely convincing and conclusive forensic and other evidence that resulted in the conviction of Bradley Murdoch for the murder.
And now to the coup de grace - the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. I am not demanding that everyone believe what I do, that he was killed as a result of a Conspiracy - but when so much credible evidence exists which points to there having being DEFINITELY more than one gunman, far too many people disregard this as " nutjob conspiracy theory".
Quite apart from anything else, just about every home movie taken on that day in Dallas shows spectators reacting immediately and violently to a "disturbance" coming from the front and right of the motorcade, from the area of the Grassy Knoll ( there, I said it)....people smelt and saw smoke, and even saw people behind the fence. And not to mention the fact that several Official investigations have concluded that there was more than one gunman shooting on that day. It was definitely not just the one lone nut firing from the Texas Book Depository, behind the motorcade.
Belief and non-belief are strange concepts, they seem so fluid and intangible - either you got faith or you got unbelief, is what I think, and no amount of scientific or other evidence , in my opinion, will prevent we Humans from being susceptible to belief in "weird things"Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dkril:
22 Aug 2008 5:54:26pm
Of course there was more than one gunman. Don't you ever watch Red Dwarf?
People from the future travelled back in time, disrupting Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of JFK. As a result of the disruption to the space time continuum, it was necessary for the JFK who survived the assassination to travel back in time, along with the Red Dwarfers, and shoot himself from atop the grassy knoll.
"It'll drive the conspiracy nuts crazy, but they'll never figure it out." -- 3rd Technician Dave Lister.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
whitelephant:
22 Aug 2008 3:45:40pm
The 'scientific method' is only one way in which we in our western world find our truth or truths.
And as a method it is only partially successfull and has enormous dangers if it is relied upon as we have.
It is science, in part that has brought the world to the brink of environmental ruin (at the same time as it tries to tell us that it and technology are the only things th