Scepticism vs. Credulity

[minordrag]

Okay, not a sexy thread title.

We often pause in many of these threads to discuss each other's perceived scepticism or credulity. Rightly so, I think. Let's do it here.

First, a stipulation. Hopefully most of you will agree with me on this. A Fortean must negotiate the middle ground between "debunker" and "fluffy woo-woo." This area seems to be about the size of China. Further, we must accept a lot of the experiences described in these threads on faith, since we weren't there.

What is your approach? How do the phenomena we discuss fit into your worldview, or threaten it? Without being snarky, how do you see yourself in relation to the others on this MB with respect to this thread topic? Which areas of discussion do you dismiss out of hand or accept wholeheartedly, and why?

 

[Anonymous]

Interesting question. I don't think there's anything I dismiss totally out of hand except where memories are influenced or develop from hypnosis or any kind of hypnotic relaxation technique. That's something which has probably influenced most of the subjects we discuss. So anything where hypnosis or relaxation are involved, I tend to have severe doubts about.

Mind you, I would never tell someone who told us about their experiences whilst under hypnosis that I thought they were talking complete tosh. It would remain an interesting story, even if only considered as a 'false memory'.

Things of an overtly religious nature I tend to question. For no reason I can adequately explain, I'm more prepared to believe in the existence of demons than angels (this is quite a simplistic statement of belief, if you see what I mean). I'm curious about 'vampiric spirits' if you like, and the possibility of demonic possession; yet I don't think I could bring myself to have such an interest in angelic possession. Not quite sure why.

Otherwise, I think I occupy the middle ground quite effectively. Quite mundanely, actually. When reading, or hearing, stories of the weird and wonderful, I'm always looking for the 'obvious' answer - although I draw the line at Venus being reflected off Canadian Geese and marsh gas! - but I'm quite prepared to accept that I won't know the answer definitely, one way or the other.

Erm...does that answer the question? Sort of?

edit Oh - as for anything I accept wholeheartedly - not sure about that. I have doubts over the 'fraudulent' theories regarding the Shroud, for example; but I doubt it's the Shroud of Christ as well. Cryptozoology - well, the world is a large place, and to me, to suggest that there's no creatures in this world that we haven't discovered yet is a trifle naive. So I would say it's simply logical that there are creatures that exist that we don't officially know about.

There's lots of history of science getting things wrong, so I don't see why science should be accepted as 100% accurate. There are too many schools of thought and experimentation. Science doesn't always agree with itself; so the notion of using it as the Ultimate Truth is a little shaky.

 

[MrSnowman]

Perception is the key, and how willing you are to accept new ideas.

Personally, I approach everything new with an open mind, and only start to draw a reasoned judgment on it once I have experienced/learned about it a little more. There's nothing more annoying that someone standing there elucidating when it's clear that their opinion is just echoing a populist sentiment or hackneyed 'safe' viewpoint, which cannot leave them open to any sort of criticism, in the main because they do not have the capacity to argue on a point on which they only have the barest of knowledge. For example..

Them :"I think that x person is great/UFOs don't exist"
One : "Really? Tell me why?"
Them :"Because there was a great story about him/her/it in the Sun"
One : "That's nice, but I disagree, I think he has flaws/they do exist"
Them : "Listen to this everyone! He doesn't like x/thinks that UFOs exist You weirdo etc"

.. and then the issue is never raised, because the populist sentiment allows the mass to shout down the individual because their belief puts them in a minority.

That's not to say that ALL populist theories instantly dismiss ideas which are less prevalent in society of course, but a model of what I have experienced, and what presses me to totally understand a subject before arguing about it in favour of one aspect of it or another.

 

[SniperK2]

Yes, I'd tend to go with Ravenstones viewpoint on this one, I won't absoloutly dismiss anything out of hand, although I find some things , like ' Dog-Headed Men ' push me against a WTF wall, in a manner of speaking. I've talkd to people who have allegedly seen angels, ghosts, moving furiture, faces in mirrors not their own, seen ' mist ' exuding from people on the point of death, etc, I always find myself looking for an obvious explanation, but I won't say ' Oh that's complete b*llocks, ' , I will say, ' Really, tell me more! ' and question hungrily. Some things, I have felt myself Genuis loci, phantom footsteps, malevonent atmospheres, ' night hag ' experiences. I find I do not mesh very well with people, e.g. my father, who dismiss anything out of hand, ' It dosn't exist, ' anything, any of it, except this table, it's real I can touch it, ' Is his attitude. I do find that a very boring mindset.

 

[minordrag]

Debunking and absolute credulity are two sides of the same coin. There is an impenetrable exclusivity to the former, and a mushy inclusivity to the latter. It is as specious to deny any possibility of fortean phenomena as it is to believe all of it without question.

For my own part, I tend to shun conspiracy stuff. Some scenarios are more compelling than others, but it seems to me that the general idea is that these theories flourish in an absence of evidence. They don't grow well when exposed to light. Like Lethe, I want to question hungrily, and consider every conceivable angle.

 

[giantrobot1]

What is your approach? How do the phenomena we discuss fit into your worldview, or threaten it?

If someone finds that their worldview is being threatened, then I think it's worth looking at WHY exactly they feel threatened. If something comes along and can show that their beliefs are wrong, then most people will be frightened and try and avoid or rubbish the threat.

I would like to think I'm mentally healty and versitile enough to follow where the evidence and experience leads me, and not get stuck in an egoistic reality tunnel. I think this is a very healthy Fortean attitude.

Even if, for example, Dog Headed Men don't exist (perish the thought!), people still see them. So what does this tell us about human experience?

 

[rynner2]

I think Vicky has the right attitude:

"Yeah, but, no, but yeah..."!

 

[marslight]

I think Ravenstone has pretty well expressed the feelings of most of us. I don't feel any need to find an explanation for everything, and am quite satisfied to have more questions than answers in life.

In a way I feel sorry for people with rigid outlooks on unexplained phenomena. When you spend the better part of your life claiming ghosts, or UFO's or whatever do not exist, it must be a terrible shock to the system when you are faced with a personal experience of something you just cannot explain away.

I think the "fluffy woo-woos" have it a bit easier when they realize something they whole-heartedly believed in does not exist, or is a hoax, or has a fully understandable mundane explanation. They can say, well yes, that was swamp gas, or the planet Venus, but that doesn't mean the next Fortoid isn't paranormal. Their faith may take the occasional hit, but generally rebounds well, unlike the hard-shell Skeptic who has just been offered a discount on anal probes by the BEMs that landed their saucer in his back yard.

 

[marslight]

B.E.M.s

I just realized I used a term that seems to have gone out of fashion: B.E.M. (bug-eyed monster).

 

[krobone]

Okay, not a sexy thread title.
What is your approach? How do the phenomena we discuss fit into your worldview, or threaten it? Without being snarky, how do you see yourself in relation to the others on this MB with respect to this thread topic? Which areas of discussion do you dismiss out of hand or accept wholeheartedly, and why?

Well, I'm more of a sceptic than a believer, so I pretty much demand incredible proof for incredible stories. Probably nothing less than a living, breathing alien or working alien spacecraft will convince me we've been visited by extraterrestrials, for example (although I'm pretty convinced there's other sentient life out there. It's just statistically impossible we're the only ones in the entire known universe). I know that seems contradictory, but so far I haven't seen any convincing evidence of alien visitations. To me, unexplainable UFO's are lights in the sky, not spaceships. To jump to the conclusion that they're aliens is unjustified.

Also, most ESP/telekinesis/ type stuff I find unlikely. Even if it is real, it mostly seems useless. If someone could read somebodies mind, for example, and get relevant, pertinent data (where a criminal hid the money, or wether a person was lying about their taxes). Or, if a medium could contact someone really useful (Albert Einstein or someone like that) and get their highly technical opinion on the work of Stephing Hawking. Now that would be something!

Cryptozoology is the most interesting to me, and seems most likely to pan out something amazing. I'm pretty certain we're going to eventually discover sea serpents, giant octopi (Krakken-sized), dinosaurs, and other creatures we haven't even dreamed of deep down in the world's oceans. I'm not terribly convinced by Bigfoot/giant snakes/lake monsters, though. We would have found some skeletons at least by now.

Ghosts seem pretty unlikely, too. I pretty much dismiss out of hand any ghost stories where people are either in bed/sleeping, under pressure or over-stimulated, under the affects of alchohol/chemicals, etc. If you do that, quite a few ghost sightings become very suspect. Basically, I think a lot of it is not understanding what the incredible human brain is capable of. We tend to think only crazy people hallucinate, for example, when in reality we will all experience hallucinations at some point in our lives. Humans can't always trust their perceptions or memory. Gestalt psychology has plenty of high weirdness on its own.

Having said all that, I try not to be dismissive of people's experiences, even if they've claimed to see Santa Claus. There's a lot of inexplicable things in this world, and I've experienced some of it myself. :shock:

 

[minordrag]

I pretty much dismiss out of hand any ghost stories where people are either in bed/sleeping, under pressure or over-stimulated, under the affects of alchohol/chemicals, etc. If you do that, quite a few ghost sightings become very suspect.

There's the rub. We can probably dismiss 99% of all paranormal reports, but what will we have left? Thousands upon thousands of first-hand experiences that cannot be explained.

Also, I have (upon occasion) consumed heroic amounts of alcohol and never had a resultant fortean experience. Most of the ones I've had occured when I was stone cold sober!

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

I tend to take accounts of paranormal - UFOs/ABC's/Religous Experiences etc... on the basis of each's own unique set of cirumstances and try not to allow my general view of the subject to interfere much.

I do believe in a creator being. I find cryptozoology facinating and very worthwhile. As I find fortean archeology very interesting and productive.

I'm quite sceptical of magic and parapsycology - other than an innate ability that links us all at some very primitive level.

I think this is all well and good, but I hope that we don't have people devising a 'Fortean Method' - this would go completely against what Fort himself wrote. I have only read a limited amount of Fort's works and he doesn't set out to prove or disprove anything.

 

[krobone]

There's the rub. We can probably dismiss 99% of all paranormal reports, but what will we have left? Thousands upon thousands of first-hand experiences that cannot be explained.

The problem there is first-hand experiences still aren't proof. I hate to come across as a die-hard sceptic, but it's probably going to take someone actually 'catching' a ghost (ala Ghostbusters) that the world can examine to make a believer out of me. I just know too much about human perception and the mind's determination to 'connect the dots' to be much of a believer in ghosts. It may be ghosts are nothing more than electromagnetic field anomalies that we subconciously assign cultural/enviornmental tags to, so the phenomena makes sense to our minds. Or, they could be dead human's spirits.

Also, I have (upon occasion) consumed heroic amounts of alcohol and never had a resultant fortean experience. Most of the ones I've had occured when I was stone cold sober!

Ditto - but sober doesn't really mean that much in pyschological terms. Your perception of reality is really the thing - when you see or experience something you don't understand or have never run across before, how do you describe it? In other words, if you and an Eskimo both saw the same thing, you would probably both describe it in completely different ways. An amorphous black shape that streaked across your field of vision, you might say (because you were near an old cemetary at the time) was a ghostly Victorian gent in a black cape. The Eskimo might say it was an animal totem. Someone else might claim it was an alien. Who knows what it was - we all percieve things our own way.

Not trying to piss in anyone's Cheerios - just stating my position.

 

[giantrobot1]

I pretty much dismiss out of hand any ghost stories where people are either in bed/sleeping, under pressure or over-stimulated, under the affects of alchohol/chemicals, etc. If you do that, quite a few ghost sightings become very suspect.

There's the rub. We can probably dismiss 99% of all paranormal reports, but what will we have left? Thousands upon thousands of first-hand experiences that cannot be explained.

I've come across this in the writings by J. A. Hynek. There are thousands of UFO sightings reported by groups of well qualified observers who are either pilots, in the military or in the police - people who are highly trained and in positions of some authority and would be strung up in their professions if they were making stuff up. Sometimes this is backed up by radar traces etc.

There's a pattern to these things, and there's certain behaviours you can expect from the average UFO, which can probably be statistically analysed to produce some rather interesting results.

But no matter how many eye witness reports from credible sources there are, it still will never tell you what actually is going on. The only thing that could would be to 'catch' a UFO, which makes the assumptions that there's only one explanation to them and that you could actually catch them in the first place.

'Paranormal' phenomena have two annoying features, IMHO - they refuse to go away, and they also refuse to play by our rules and appear 'on demand'. It gets a bit frustrating, really. :hmph:

 

[rynner2]

The trouble with this whole subject is the same trouble we have with life and reality itself - all our experience is just a mental construct, even our experience of 'reality' itself.

There is NO objective reality, only the stories we tell ourselves about it. Even 'consensus reality' is only a construct of our minds...

Or perhaps I should say 'Of my mind', because all you lot could be a construct of my mind as well... :shock:


We may think that mental experience can be described in terms of neurons, synapses, and chemical messengers, but ultimately all these ideas are just mental constructs, and we can never be sure what connection (if any) they have to 'reality' - we could be trapped in a vicious circle, or an infinite regression...


Ultimately, the only thing we know is
"Cogito, ergo sum" - which is really very little.

(An idea I know a lot of people will have problems understanding - but since they're probably figments of my imagination anyway, well,
Phooee! 8) )

 

[jarmaniac]

Also, I have (upon occasion) consumed heroic amounts of alcohol and never had a resultant fortean experience. Most of the ones I've had occured when I was stone cold sober!

I have to say that in my fairly extensive experience, alcohol does not seem to possess the hallucinogenic properties ascribed to it by many sceptics. I've never seen something that wasn't there. Occasionally I've failed to see something that was there, and have the scars to prove it... but no Little Green Men for me.

 

[Vardoger]

Even though I'm a hardened skeptic and an atheist, I still consider myself open minded.
I like to read about all that weird fortean stuff.


It would be wonderful if something of the fortean would be proved, but on the other hand, then it would no longer be fortean.

Illuminati, reptilians, fairies, angels, MIBs, UFO's, shadow people and stickmen, monks with no faces and ghosts etc. : Gotta love'em all.
Can never get enough of that stuff.

 

[Bannik]

Or perhaps I should say 'Of my mind', because all you lot could be a construct of my mind as well... :shock:

Hey, let's get one thing straight - I created you, got that?

Ultimately, the only thing we know is
"Cogito, ergo sum"

And even of that I have my doubts.

 

[minordrag]

Not trying to piss in anyone's Cheerios - just stating my position.

It's this kind of open dialogue that benefits all of us. If we can't have an honest exchange about this kind of stuff, we've got nothing.

The term "healthy scepticism" comes to mind. As opposed to "you're crazy/drunk/weird." Like you, I totally accept ghostly phenomenon without necessarily believing it to be the persistance of a deceased personality.

 

[Anome]

The trouble with this whole subject is the same trouble we have with life and reality itself - all our experience is just a mental construct, even our experience of 'reality' itself.

You phenomenologist, you.

One problem that sometimes crops up in this kind of discussion (and hasn't here, but that says more about the people on this board than anything else) is that. despite what we might think an individual person is, most of them will claim to be objective, rational, and even sceptical. They will also claim to have an open mind, and willing to consider all possibilities.

Unfortunately, human nature is such that all of us (yes, all) are subjective, irrational, gullible, and close minded to some extent. The main difference is to what extent. The big problem is, we are probably the least qualified to determine our own position.

So does this mean that serious investigation of Forteana is impossible? Not at all. While we are all prey to the frailties mentioned above, we are able to rise above them. Some of us even manage it from time to time.

So where does that leave us? Well, as I've often said before, I honestly believe that people who have experienced the paranormal have experienced something. It just may not be what they thought it was. The trick is to remember it may not be what you thought it was, either.

(Of course, I am disregarding the perpertrators of hoaxes. Victims of hoaxes have clearly experienced something, ie the hoax.)

 

[stu neville]

The term "healthy scepticism" comes to mind. As opposed to "you're crazy/drunk/weird." Like you, I totally accept ghostly phenomenon without necessarily believing it to be the persistance of a deceased personality.

Yes, I've said this as well on here - the big stumbling block as far as I see it is the tendency to apply blanket explanations. There could (and IMHO probably are) hundreds of different phenomena that have outward similarities in their manifestation. Once mundane explanations have been examined, and either accepted or rejected as applicable, then what's left could be one of numerous phenomena.

To believe that ghosts are only the spirits of the deceased is as closed-minded as the belief that ghosts cannot exist in the first place. I believe any one of lots of explanations can apply depending on the case: one ghostly presence could be a lingering soul, another could be a loop-tape embedded in stone, another could be an independent discarnate entity.

Science tends to hook onto one paranormal explanation, discard it on the basis of science's own parameters (which are often shockingly narrow), and by default discard all phenomena on that basis. True-believers tend to do the same thing, but in the opposite direction: they believe all similar phenomena are the same thing. I've had passionate arguments with people who won't accept any alternative explanation for ghosts other than the lingering soul one, ditto UFOs being visiting aliens, etc etc. We've seen it happen on here time and again.

Forteanism, as far as I'm concerned at least, is the wilingness to accept all explanations as possible (but nonetheless assigning a degree of likelihood to each: subjectivity is a significant factor, like it or not), or indeed to accept that some things have no explanation yet. Just because they can't be explained doesn't mean they don't happen. It's Fort's Damned Data.

 

[Anonymous]

One distressing tendency is for some people to argue that, because Case A was discovered to be a fraud, then all similar cases are likewise frauds. Rather like because the Hitler Diaries were frauds, then all diaries are frauds. Except no-one seriously thinks that. But if one poltergeist case is dismissed as fraud, then some people dismiss all poltergeist cases as fraud.

Likewise, when listening to people recounting any 'weird' experience, if they say they checked it wasn't seagulls on the roof, or foxes, or any logical explanation, I would consider it rude to continue down that line of argument. For example, if someone says they saw someone walk through a wall, and the interviewer asks if they were asleep, drunk or on drugs at the time (apart from the latter two being rather rude and impertinent questions anyway!) if the answer is no, I was wide awake, perfectly sober and nothing so much as aspirin in my system, it would then be wrong to go on about drug induced hallucinations and hypnogogic visions etc. Know what I mean? Some people really want there to be a logical explanation for what they've seen, but insulting their intelligence by suggesting things they've already dismissed is just going to make for a very belligerent conversation.

I've sat and listened to a fascinating guy tell me how he believes his young child 'channelled' her deceased grandmother, who she'd never met, the grandmother having died before she was born. There are any number of explanations, such as the child picking up on stories about her grandmother the adults related around her, without them being aware of her listening perhaps. But the guy said this didn't happen. Who am I to disbelieve him? And when he says his child uses words and idioms he only ever heard his mother use, what can I do but listen? And when I know the guy is a professional scientist with absolutely no interest in the paranormal, who am I to suggest he's talking 'rubbish'?

I do prefer to listen. Yes, I may suggest explanations, and sometimes they may work, but that doesn't mean they always work. Sometimes, I just don't know what could cause what people describe.

I'm also not a huge fan of the argument that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Why? Why should tests be more difficult just because those in charge of checking the evidence have their own beliefs to get over? Does that mean that if they are investigating ordinary claims they only require ordinary evidence? So if they believe the outcome is likely, they don't expect so much evidence before declaring it to be so? Doesn't strike me as good investigative practice. Surely, the only fair, open-minded, logical way to investigate anything, is to investigate it without any strong feelings on the outcome, one way or the other. Or at least being honest enough to acknowledge that they may be skewing the evidence to support their own hypotheses.

Evidence is evidence, whether it's beyond reasonable doubt, or on the balance of probability. It's just the conclusion arrived at through (hopefully) fair assessment of the available evidence. Requiring greater evidence from one case than another seems incredibly prejudicial.

 

[jarmaniac]

One distressing tendency is for some people to argue that, because Case A was discovered to be a fraud, then all similar cases are likewise frauds. Rather like because the Hitler Diaries were frauds, then all diaries are frauds. Except no-one seriously thinks that. But if one poltergeist case is dismissed as fraud, then some people dismiss all poltergeist cases as fraud.

This seems to be exactly what's happened with crop circles, for instance. It's all done by two old blokes with a ladder, whatever it is. I think this may turn out to have been Today newspaper's only lasting claim to fame.

I'm also not a huge fan of the argument that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Why? Why should tests be more difficult just because those in charge of checking the evidence have their own beliefs to get over? Does that mean that if they are investigating ordinary claims they only require ordinary evidence? So if they believe the outcome is likely, they don't expect so much evidence before declaring it to be so? Doesn't strike me as good investigative practice. Surely, the only fair, open-minded, logical way to investigate anything, is to investigate it without any strong feelings on the outcome, one way or the other. Or at least being honest enough to acknowledge that they may be skewing the evidence to support their own hypotheses.

Evidence is evidence, whether it's beyond reasonable doubt, or on the balance of probability. It's just the conclusion arrived at through (hopefully) fair assessment of the available evidence. Requiring greater evidence from one case than another seems incredibly prejudicial.

Absolutely. The classic example is Lavoisier and the meteorite: in his world-view, it was a well-known fact that rocks do not fall out of the sky, therefore this one didn't. Except that it did.

The evil corollary to this view is that any explanation, however feeble, which conforms to "common sense" is acceptable (the "mad fishmonger" springs to mind). In other words, the burden of proof is lowered on that side, even as it's raised on the other.

This attitude is a great way not to learn anything - which, of course, many people prefer; hence its popularity. I take the Fortean position to be the opposite - a preparedness to take things on their merits, as far as one can (we're only human).

 

[dreeness]

The Fortean approach is eminently reasonable and precautionary. Tolerance for uncertainty, neither belief nor disbelief, but always the belief in possiblities when confronted with a universe of infinite unknowns.
The "most likely" explanation is not necessarily the correct one, and indeed what causes an explanation to be deemed "most likely" frequently has more to do with taste, habit and prejudice than anything empirically gleaned from the evidence. Credibility is not the same thing as factuality.
Saying "that has never happened before" should not automatically translate into "that could never happen". (But all too often, it does.)
Saying "I do not see how that could be possible" should not automatically translate into "I know that to be impossible".
Too often the merely "familiar" is exalted as "credible", while the "novel" is denounced as "incredible".

 

[dreeness]

(And now, in the same vein, by imaginary demand, even more of my timeless yet convoluted and strangely sucky postmodern peregrinations...)

The Fortean prefers the possible explanation, even if it is incomplete, vague and "improbable". The "possible unknown" trumps the "impossible familiar".

on the other hand

The csicopath will invariably champion the "impossible mundane" explanation, as a rampart against the "unacceptable unexplained". Thus we are confronted with a host of hypersonic penguins, wandering lighthouses, and all manner of ideologically imperative peculiarities.

 

[krobone]

Even though I'm a hardened skeptic and an atheist, I still consider myself open minded.
I like to read about all that weird fortean stuff.


It would be wonderful if something of the fortean would be proved, but on the other hand, then it would no longer be fortean.

Illuminati, reptilians, fairies, angels, MIBs, UFO's, shadow people and stickmen, monks with no faces and ghosts etc. : Gotta love'em all.
Can never get enough of that stuff.

You and me both, Vardoger. It's one reason I love Fortean stuff - it's a wonderful exercise in critical thinking. I love it when I can reason away peculiar stories, but I love it more if I can't!

 

[bringerofbroom]

try this for a point of view:

things happen. they have an explanation. we just might not be aware of it. It is most probable that events have an explanation that fits within our fairly good physical definition of how the world works. It is less probable that their explanation is based upon structures and causes beyond our definition ( the so called supernatural ). If an event can be explained within a level of reasonable doubt to be 'natural' then that is the most likely cause. If it cannot, and is a unique event, then it must simply be accepted as an anomaly and no other judgement made other than to accept that the definition of 'natural science' is not perfect. if the event is repeating or repeatable, it is capable of being studied, and thus add to the understanding of the world and expand what natural science can define.

also, recognising that no source is truly objective, and many are highly subjective is important. Who would you trust more as a witness?

 

[dreeness]

Michael Prescott article

 

[Anonymous]

Michael Prescott article

Thanks very much for posting that link, dreeness! I've been working away along the same lines as this Michael Prescott chap recently, albeit from a slightly different direction. It's slightly eerie to read an essay that so closely echoes my own researches and conclusions.

 

[Bannik]

Ones those paradoxes of life is that rationalism taken to an extreme seems about as ir-rational as you can get. It's as if the irrational subverts from within those very movements that attempt to deny it altogether.

Also, in those states that attempted to build a purely rational, materialistic society, ideological leaders like Marx, Stalin, Mao, etc. were treated like gods. It's like there's an irrepresible human urge to bow down to a higher power, and this urge finds expression even in those societies where such impulses are (in theory, at least) denied.

It brings to my mind the Hindu practice of Bhakti -

(“devotion/love”) — the love of the bhakta (devotee) toward the Divine or the guru as a manifestation of the Divine; also the love of the Divine toward the devotee.

From here.

EDIT: Also, I like the way Michael Prescott refers to a blend of the rational and the religious as a "common-sense mixture." :mrgreen: