• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Benevolent Scepticism

MrRING

MrRING

Android Futureman
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
6,053
How long has this been in the mission statement?
Besides being a journal of record, FT is also a forum for the discussion of observations and ideas, however absurd or unpopular, and maintains a position of benevolent scepticism towards both the orthodox and unorthodox.
Click to expand...

I don't think this was in the statement when I first joined the board, but it's on the site and magazine nowadays... maybe I just missed it originally, so I'm asking about just how long its been there.
 
Does anyone have a clear idea what the phrase 'benevolent scepticism' was intended to connote?
 
OK, thanks - that's what I was thinking / hoping it meant ...
 
I'll post this here, was intended for the Hatman thread. It's regarding the blind acceptance by some of our posters of beliefs and the ideas of people such as Simon Parkes.

I've watched a couple of Simon Parkes video on youtube. I felt he applied no critical thinking, was just rehashing other stuff that has been doing the rounds for years and bought nothing new to the debate.

At least Icke bought us the Reptilian royals and wore purple. I hate this blind assumption that these are interdemensional beings, the shadow people are seperate from our reality, but just appear in our reality for the hell of it. I mean I'm assuming that crossing into our space time continuium would require a fair amount of energy, no?

There is no evidence that this is the case, shadow people could be a product of the brain. A bacteria, intelligent dust, a ghost, or simulcra. As Bob Rickard himself once said re: UFO's "The longer I do this job the more I realise there are no simple answers, and there's certainly no one answer.'

Rickard also talks about as Forteans we are here to observe how people react to mysteries and I think there's a fair amount of us here who no longer subscribe to that impartiality.

I get pretty frustated that stuff gets blindly posted here labelled as fact just because a group of people are making a living saying any old stuff on the telly or the net.

At least in the old days with the likes of Velikovsky, Frazer, Elaine Morgen, even Von Daniken had theories. You know they actually presented evidence that support their theories.

Nowadays it's just 'I dream't about it, so it's got to be true as I've got special powers" Most of us even the most uncritical of forummers laugh at Derek Acorah and Icke but take this guy Parkes seriously. What's that all about?

I want to believe in ghosts, (I've seen a few), UFO's,(ditto), Interdimensional gas stations, glitches in the matrix, Shadow people, etc, but I need to keep looking for the evidence, not just accepting.

As Bob says,

"Like everybody we don't want to delude ourselves, we don't want to delude other people or our readers. I don't think there's anything to be gained by that. We do want to find out as near as possible as we can to tangible truths, facts, but we also know that you can fasten too quickly onto something then you resist better evidence when it comes along that might change your mind in some direction".

http://www.2atoms.com/weird/rickard/rickard2.htm
 
Last edited:
To take the hat man example, there is a tendency for some people to want to be in a special club where they've been visited by a supernatural entity, and if they saw a bloke in their dream wearing a hat that's enough evidence for them. Personally I have difficulty accepting anything in my dreams as evidence of much, but then again there's also a tendency to start getting irked that others are just not being sensible, which is a path that will lead to boundless frustration since there are legions of folks with irrational views (I'm one of them, I'm sure), and if they're not really doing any harm, let them please themselves I say.

It's when those hard to credit beliefs start having unpleasant real world repercussions that we should be worried, and there's a feeling there's a domino effect just around the corner, but maybe 'twas ever thus? Thinking is hard, after all, and most don't want to put in the work to investigate a weird experience, theirs or others', to find out there's a mundane explanation after all - it's a letdown. It's when there is no good explanation, after the reasonable possibilities have been looked at, that I get interested.
 
This is a nice guide to evaluating weird things for the gentle sceptic:

https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-think-about-what-is-and-what-isnt-weird-or-wacky

How to think about weird things​

From discs in the sky to faces in toast, learn to weigh evidence sceptically without becoming a closed-minded naysayer

by Stephen Law

Need to know​

Many people believe in extraordinary hidden beings, including demons, angels, spirits and gods. Plenty also believe in supernatural powers, including psychic abilities, faith healing and communication with the dead. Conspiracy theories are also popular, including that the Holocaust never happened and that the terrorist attacks on the United States of 11 September 2001 were an inside job. And, of course, many trust in alternative medicines such as homeopathy, the effectiveness of which seems to run contrary to our scientific understanding of how the world actually works.
Such beliefs are widely considered to be at the ‘weird’ end of the spectrum. But, of course, just because a belief involves something weird doesn’t mean it’s not true. As science keeps reminding us, reality often is weird. Quantum mechanics and black holes are very weird indeed. So, while ghosts might be weird, that’s no reason to dismiss belief in them out of hand.
Click to expand...
 
I am trying to cultivate benevolent scepticism. Having spent an increasing amount of time on Reddit lately (where the paranormal subject tends to be remarkably free of scepticism in any form) I have to check my tendency to swing towards absolute and total rejection of anything suggested to be vaguely paranormal, which is why I like it here. Less of the 'screamy scream, it MUST be a demon!' but enough of the 'have you had your eyes tested recently and checked for carbon monoxide' to make me feel better, but with a generous sprinkling of 'well, THAT was weird' to stop me feeling that it's all a load of bollocks.

I like it here.
 
Scepticism ought to be neutral. It ought to be an approach of checking each piece of evidence and each link of the chain of reasoning, rather than simply accepting or rejecting every report or point of view on the basis of preconceptions.

However, scepticism is often demonstrated in an aggressive and hostile manner. It becomes almost the opposite of gullible: the gullible person accepts everything at face value; the aggressive sceptic rejects everything "on principle".

Fortean Times strives to encourage open mindedness and a sense of wonder, but without encouraging the reader to accept "any old nonsense" unquestioningly.

In theory, the word "scepticism" on its own should suffice, but because scepticism is widely associated with an aggressive and hostile rejection of evidence and ideas, they need the qualifier "benevolent" to redress the balance.
 
Mikefule said:
In theory, the word "scepticism" on its own should suffice, but because scepticism is widely associated with an aggressive and hostile rejection of evidence and ideas, they need the qualifier "benevolent" to redress the balance.
Click to expand...
...scepticism doesn't reject evidence, it asks for evidence (other than anecdotal).

If some scepticism is aggressive, it's no more so that the shrill accusation of 'sceptic' that often follows even the gentlest of suggestions, that some notional actual evidence would be more pursuasive than (say) a belief. :hoff:
 
For me the phrase 'benevolent scepticism' means that the benevolence is not necessarily IN the scepticism, but directed towards the person telling the story (of which one is sceptical). One can kindly listen to someone tell the story of 'that time they woke up and there was something evil in their bedroom' and be sympathatic about the fear engendered by the experience, and gentle about telling the experiencer that maybe they should look up 'sleep paralysis' - rather than snapping 'oh yes, that's sleep paralysis, LOADS of people get that!'. Thus ensuring that the experiencer of the sleep paralysis will never tell you anything weird that happens to them ever again, and therefore you may possibly miss out on stories that don't have an easy explanation.
 
Skepticism is one of Merton's scientific norms. It's required in the scientific process. Most people would rather not have their beliefs open to a scientific process.

I cut ties with the skeptical community (in which I was heavily involved) because of their aggressive rejection of evidence for Fortean topics that I feel deserve to be explored. I always attempted to provide information about why people believed weird things because it's important to society. Once I gave a talk about my book to a skeptics group where I described what paranormal investigators do and how their "sciencey" approach worked to influence non-scientifically trained people. After the talk, one of my skeptical acquaintances said, "I don't know why you bother with this stuff, it's so goofy." He totally missed the point of the talk and that was the end for me. I was done. Their goals were not my goals.
 
This is worth a read;

https://www.the-scientist.com/critic-at-large/opinion-how-to-confront-anti-science-sentiment-69691

Opinion: How to Confront Anti-Science Sentiment​

Reaching a science skeptic is not a matter of credentials; it’s a matter of heart.​


The solution lies in recognizing that people do not develop suspicions about scientists and medical experts in a vacuum. Some may have had horrible experiences with the healthcare system. Perhaps their health concerns were rudely scoffed at by contemptuous doctors. Some people reject what today’s experts say because yesterday’s experts said the opposite—a normal occurrence in the process of science but one that nonetheless can come across as inconsistent to people unfamiliar with such dynamics.
Click to expand...
The article goes on to outline a strategy for getting people to re-examine their beliefs and while there are times when this is not a good use of one’s time, there are issues that really do need turning round, for example if the end point is rejecting medicine in favour of homeopathy for a child with cancer.

Sharon Hill said:
I always attempted to provide information about why people believed weird things because it's important to society. Once I gave a talk about my book to a skeptics group where I described what paranormal investigators do and how their "sciencey" approach worked to influence non-scientifically trained people. After the talk, one of my skeptical acquaintances said, "I don't know why you bother with this stuff, it's so goofy." He totally missed the point of the talk and that was the end for me. I was done. Their goals were not my goals.
Click to expand...
Yep, even if you do not believe in 'a phenomenon', it is still worth figuring out why the beliefs are there and what is going on to form and drive those beliefs. Part of the difficulty is that while some people believe genuinely in 'some phenomenon' there are those in the field who simply see exploitation of beliefs as a way to make a living.
 
Sharon Hill said:
Skepticism is one of Merton's scientific norms. It's required in the scientific process. Most people would rather not have their beliefs open to a scientific process.

I cut ties with the skeptical community (in which I was heavily involved) because of their aggressive rejection of evidence for Fortean topics that I feel deserve to be explored. I always attempted to provide information about why people believed weird things because it's important to society. Once I gave a talk about my book to a skeptics group where I described what paranormal investigators do and how their "sciencey" approach worked to influence non-scientifically trained people. After the talk, one of my skeptical acquaintances said, "I don't know why you bother with this stuff, it's so goofy." He totally missed the point of the talk and that was the end for me. I was done. Their goals were not my goals.
Click to expand...

I think some people believe genuinely "weird" things but other people believe, let's say, physically improbable, or even impossible, things precisely because they make good sense from a human or sociological perspective, despite being improbable. Are these things weird? I think this is one of the areas the sceptical community tends to ignore in general - or perhaps simply cannot process within its own systems of meaning.

I'm not sure about 'benevolent scepticism' - seems a bit like a phrase that sounded good but perhaps wasn't intended to be analysed in that amount of detail.
 
BS3 said:
I think some people believe genuinely "weird" things but other people believe, let's say, physically improbable, or even impossible, things precisely because they make good sense from a human or sociological perspective, despite being improbable. Are these things weird? I think this is one of the areas the sceptical community tends to ignore in general - or perhaps simply cannot process within its own systems of meaning.

I'm not sure about 'benevolent scepticism' - seems a bit like a phrase that sounded good but perhaps wasn't intended to be analysed in that amount of detail.
Click to expand...
And others experience "physically improbable, or even impossible, things", which forces them to reevaluate the nature of reality.
 
SimonBurchell said:
And others experience "physically improbable, or even impossible, things", which forces them to reevaluate the nature of reality.
Click to expand...

That's right - many UFO witnesses for example are witness to 'high strangeness' stuff that makes no sense from an ETH or any 'physical' perspective. Some even acknowledge this, even as they maintain the reality of their experiences.
 
Coal said:
...scepticism doesn't reject evidence, it asks for evidence (other than anecdotal).

If some scepticism is aggressive, it's no more so that the shrill accusation of 'sceptic' that often follows even the gentlest of suggestions, that some notional actual evidence would be more pursuasive than (say) a belief. :hoff:
Click to expand...

Based on my personal, highly idiosyncratic, and limited experience, I disagree. Any one taking any side in a discussion can act like a jerk, and this does not imply anything about the basic soundness of the perspective - believer or skeptic. In my decades of interacting with Ph.D.s in universities and very large organizations, the sceptics were the ones most aggressive and shrill. I suspect that this is related to how many scientists are trained: to find weaknesses in arguments and criticize those weaknesses. Small minds who forgot that a greater goal in thinking is synthesis: the selection and combination of facts and ideas to form a new whole. My personal data set is about 150-200 scientists.

When I would find someone who was thoughtful, smart, and willing to discuss, it was an opportunity for some part in me to wake up, breathe in the oxygen in the discussion and enjoy. Even when or especially when they disagreed with me.

Premise selection, premise selection, premise....
 
Last edited:
Sharon Hill said:
I always attempted to provide information about why people believed weird things because it's important to society.
Click to expand...

Coal said:
Yep, even if you do not believe in 'a phenomenon', it is still worth figuring out why the beliefs are there and what is going on to form and drive those beliefs.
Click to expand...
Coincidentally, I've been working on a mag piece for ages simply because it keeps morphing within these brackets. It vacillates between an examination of a wider phenomenon and a socio-cultural explanation of its prevelance and (for some cases) of the phenomenon itself. Finding it hard to keep to one of these threads I'm blending the two.

However, as always my main objection to hardline scepticism is the false syllogism of blanket explanations. X case is explained by Y therefore they all are. It's part of a picture and both context and a wider view are vital.
SimonBurchell said:
And others experience "physically improbable, or even impossible, things", which forces them to reevaluate the nature of reality.
Click to expand...
The good Reverend's "thin crust". Yes, things may be deemed impossible, but the inconvenient truth is that people see / hear / experience them - or seem to. Reality too is a still-emerging picture.
 
stu neville said:
Coincidentally, I've been working on a mag piece for ages simply because it keeps morphing within these brackets. It vacillates between an examination of a wider phenomenon and a socio-cultural explanation of its prevelance and (for some cases) of the phenomenon itself. Finding it hard to keep to one of these threads I'm blending the two.

However, as always my main objection to hardline scepticism is the false syllogism of blanket explanations. X case is explained by Y therefore they all are. It's part of a picture and both context and a wider view are vital.

The good Reverend's "thin crust". Yes, things may be deemed impossible, but the inconvenient truth is that people see / hear / experience them - or seem to. Reality too is a still-emerging picture.
Click to expand...
..."the false syllogism of blanket explanations. X case is explained by Y therefore they all are. "

Yes, this is a huge part of shortcut, faulty thinking. Both here on this forum, and in my former working world, I would try to stress the importance of the specifics of a case. Taking this type of shortcut is something I have seen by both true believers and sceptics, whenever it suited their goals.

I suspect that some psychological driver of behavior is the underlying motivation of some poor logic: wanted to appear correct, not admitting to mistakes, wanting to win an argument or debate, etc. People wanting the approval or at least not garnering the disapproval of their in-group associates is a huge, generally unacknowledged part of discourse. Getting beyond this is the exception, not the rule.

In the past few years, I and a few friends have taken a look at some very high functioning teams. Some are more successful than others, and it seems to be based in individual psychological drivers and the organization's orientation to the topic, rather than quality of the individuals' thinking. I will not get specific here.

Stu: please write both pieces.
 
stu neville said:
The good Reverend's "thin crust". Yes, things may be deemed impossible, but the inconvenient truth is that people see / hear / experience them - or seem to.
Click to expand...
This is key point. People are not data recorders, they are data interpreters, so the same event can be interpreted differently by two witnesses, both of whom will swear 'they know what they saw' when both 'saw' a different thing.

Interpretation is a function of the witness’s context, which in turn is altered by expectation, which in turn is modified by belief, knowledge, prior experience, the desire to fit in with the group and so on and so forth.

I suspect the unwillingness to accept a different interpretation to one's own is bound up with the potential uncertainty of then not being able to believe your own senses. That's nearly an existential issue.
 
ghughesarch said:
I've just stumbled across this piece by James Burke from his 1980s documentary "The Day The Universe Changed". He expresses, from 0.40 to 2.50, what I would see as benevolent skepticism, and I don't think I've heard it expressed so well before.
Click to expand...
That's really very good indeed, thank you for posting that.:hoff:
 
ghughesarch said:
I've just stumbled across this piece by James Burke from his 1980s documentary "The Day The Universe Changed". He expresses, from 0.40 to 2.50, what I would see as benevolent skepticism, and I don't think I've heard it expressed so well before.
Click to expand...
Before the internet "world community" can be the solution, we have to survive its onslaught first. It's not looking promising these days. We're deluged with misinformation and are unprepared to deal with the bombardment and the lies. So, humanity would definitely have to change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top