When Scepticism Goes Belly Up

[PeteByrdie]

I thought a large part of the fun of FT and general ‘weird stories’ wasn’t necessarily whether they were true or not but why some people thought they were true. And why other people were so so adamant that they weren’t.

I think that's pretty much where I stand. As I've got older, especially, I've stopped thinking much about whether there's any physical truth in fortean claims. I've started to see the world as having many 'realities' superimposed over it, not (necessarily) literally, but in the sense that there are things that are or have been believed by those around me that yield no definitive evidence, but are nonetheless a part the way those people perceive the world. I don't know what truth any of it has, but I still enjoy that those things exist in the experiences of some.

 

[CALGACUS03]

With this mind, I thought it might be nice to create a complilation of those times when the sceptic attitude, or the individual claims of sceptics (on any Fortean issue) have been shown to be wrong - or where there at least are reasonable grounds to doubt them.

Would Ball Lightning fit your criteria? It's a phenomenon that's been reported for centuries but the actual existence of it was denied (or even derided) by scientists. Explanations for eye-witness accounts included the usual e.g. marsh gas, misidentification of the moon, planets, or street lights, hoaxes, etc. There was enough interest in it though for it to be, at least, investigated by science. I'm not actually sure what the scientific consensus is regarding ball lightning now considering that it was actually filmed in 2012.

Or possibly freak waves? For hundreds of years sea-farers have regalled land-lubbers with stories about waves that are sixty, seventy, eighty feet high or more and come out of nowhere. This was simply accepted by most as being true.
Then science came along and said that such things weren't possible; as scientific modelling showed that such waves couldn't exist. Anyone who claimed to have witnessed such a wave was exagerating, fantasizing or downright lying.
However, a number of occurrences showed that, indeed, freak waves do exist - forcing scientists to accept that they were wrong.

A good 2002 Horizon documentary on freak waves can be found on YouTube:

 

[EnolaGaia]

... However, a number of occurrences showed that, indeed, freak waves do exist - forcing scientists to accept that they were wrong. ...

That's not exactly how it happened. With photography and videography it was established decades ago that such waves do in fact exist. It took a lot more research to demonstrate that such waves could in fact arise from interference patterns, and then only after computer modeling techniques became sophisticated enough to prove it via simulations. Prior to this such waves were admitted to exist but the available scientific explanations (i.e., sub-sea quakes) didn't match up with the data whenever such things were claimed to have occurred.

 

[PeteByrdie]

Would Ball Lightning fit your criteria? It's a phenomenon that's been reported for centuries but the actual existence of it was denied (or even derided) by scientists. Explanations for eye-witness accounts included the usual e.g. marsh gas, misidentification of the moon, planets, or street lights, hoaxes, etc. There was enough interest in it though for it to be, at least, investigated by science. I'm not actually sure what the scientific consensus is regarding ball lightning now considering that it was actually filmed in 2012.

I think the jury remains out on ball lightning. Personally, I've always found reports of it compelling. Potentially, interesting new physics awaits if scientists can figure out how ball lightning occurs.

 

[CALGACUS03]

With photography and videography it was established decades ago that such waves do in fact exist. It took a lot more research to demonstrate that such waves could in fact arise from interference patterns, and then only after computer modeling techniques became sophisticated enough to prove it via simulations. Prior to this such waves were admitted to exist but the available scientific explanations (i.e., sub-sea quakes) didn't match up with the data whenever such things were claimed to have occurred.

I was basing my answer on the above documentary - which I admit I haven't watched for a number of years. It gave me the impression that, at least until the 1970s, freak waves were considered as believable as bigfoot or UFOs are (at least as far as science goes).

There used to be an interesting article on the Fortean Times webpage about a 'Ninth Wave' - I've managed to track it down (courtesy of the Wayback Machine) here (Hope the link works). Article dated November 2003.

(I'd forgotten just what a marvellous resource of articles the website used to be )

 

[maximus otter]

There used to be an interesting article on the Fortean Times webpage about a 'Ninth Wave' - I've managed to track it down (courtesy of the Wayback Machine) here (Hope the link works). Article dated November 2003.

l remember that article distinctly! l’m not a seafarer, but l can recall pursing my lips and wincing at the graphic depicting the onrushing wave, a feature so immense that it actually had a separate climate going on atop it!

lt made The Perfect Storm look like a ripple on a village duckpond.

*shudders*

maximus otter

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

What an interesting discussion. Thanks, @Zeke Newbold, for starting it. I think of sceptics (with a c) and skeptics (with a k) as being two different categories, although one could argue they are degrees of difference in the same category.

I think these Forteana discussions are populated mainly by sceptics, meaning folks who want to weigh the evidence, subject the story to critical analysis, and often come to the decision that intriguing, but not definitive conclusions can be drawn. I think sceptics have more awareness of cultural biases and assumptions than skeptics do, and routinely take into account the assumptions and biases in their analyses.

I think of skeptics as routinely biased in favor of mundane explanations, and who look for reasons to reject any explanation which is not routine. BTW, I think this is a great starting point and a deplorable ending point. My personal observations of skeptics are that they are very frequently in denial of their own biases and will not admit willingly to their own assumption base, and can get offended easily if challenged. Perhaps I am extrapolating too widely from my experience in academia.

I proudly identify myself as a Sceptic and a True Believer in some weird shit!

Ps – this is another discussion in which multiple moderators are engaged. What does this mean?

 

[CALGACUS03]

I recall reading a post on a forum - possibly this one, where a poster pointed out that skeptics elevate their own beliefs to the point of an almost religous fanaticism. That struck me as very perspicacious.

I used to have long discussions/arguments with a former flatmate, when we were both drunk or stoned, in which he would deride anything that was in any way Fortean in nature and I would seek to defend it. On one of those occassions he admitted to having seen a ghost himself - except, of course, he hadn't! Since ghosts clearly don't exist (so he said), what he had witnessed wasn't actually real, and the explanation for his sighting must lie in a sudden aberation in his own brain chemistry or other similar scientific cause.

There's really no arguing with someone like that.

 

[eburacum]

Okay, so there are some scientists - and they are in the mainstream - who insist that we now have enough evidence that there is microbial life on Mars to declare this to be a fact - and that it is only the attitude of overcautious scepticism that is preventing the scientific community from doing so. C.f, for example:
Darling, David/ Schulze Makuela, Dirk, : We Are Not Alone (Onewotld Publications, Oxford, 2011).

I'm glad you picked the David Darling book, as he is one of my favourite authors. I feel certain affinity with Darling, since we both went to the same uni, and studied some of the same subjects with the same lecturers - although he left the year before I arrived, so I never met him. I've talked with him online on a few occasions and he is very sensible.

I recommend his on-line Encyclopedia, which I consult quite often - here, for instance, is his entry on ammonia-based life.
https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/ammonialife.html

However we really must be careful when examining the evidence for life outside of Earth. The Viking experiments may have detected signs of life, but there are numerous possible ways that this result could have been a false positive, so it is quite premature to declare that this has been proved. The case for the ALH 84001 meteorite fossils is even more shaky- if these fossils are evidence of lifeforms, they are much, much smaller than any currently known microbes, so we have to postulate a completely novel type of organism which does not occur on Earth, and which has left fossils that are unlike any found on this planet.

But why should I put the skeptical case? Here's David Darling himself, in his on-line encyclopaedia, to do it for me.
https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marsfossils.html

The most dramatic claim centered on the purported fossils. Under a scanning electron microscope, these appear as elliptical, rope-like, and tubular structures in the carbonate rosettes, and are extraordinarily small. Each measures a mere 20 to 100 nanometers across and has only one thousandth the volume of the smallest known terrestrial bacteria. Despite the recent claim that "nanobes" have been found, it is far from clear if anything this tiny has ever lived on Earth or even that something so small could encapsulate the minimum biochemical machinery needed to sustain and replicate a living organism. Moreover, no independent analysis carried out since the original announcement has produced evidence that the structures in question are anything other than fragments of inorganic minerals or clay.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I’ve been pretty steadfast in my belief that Patty is a man in a suit. I was brought up with that film, that particular frame and I’ve looked into the surrounding events, limitations presented by costume design and the intentions of the people who claim they filmed her.
However, after all that, I’m still open to the possibility that something else could have occurred, is still occurring and is potentially even more mysterious. I am open to some conflicting ideas and contributions from those who’ve researched the subject more and I think that’s a fairly healthy approach. You don’t want your mind so open that anything can crawl right in. This isn’t some tabloid newzoid site. We tend to look around the subject rather than right at it on face value. Remember that Loch Ness Monster pic where we found the exact markings on a catfish caught by an angler? If you believed the story from the outset, you’d never have looked for the evidence against.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I recall reading a post on a forum - possibly this one, where a poster pointed out that skeptics elevate their own beliefs to the point of an almost religous fanaticism. That struck me as very perspicacious.

I used to have long discussions/arguments with a former flatmate, when we were both drunk or stoned, in which he would deride anything that was in any way Fortean in nature and I would seek to defend it. On one of those occassions he admitted to having seen a ghost himself - except, of course, he hadn't! Since ghosts clearly don't exist (so he said), what he had witnessed wasn't actually real, and the explanation for his sighting must lie in a sudden aberation in his own brain chemistry or other similar scientific cause.

There's really no arguing with someone like that.

But the brain and how it works is pretty fascinating. For example... why would it seek to terrify itself with nightmares?

 

[Sharon Hill]

Anything and everything along these lines. Another one (off the top of my head, so don't hold me to specifics) is the Theory of Continental Drift - which was, I bellieve, fisrt proposed by one Madame Blavatsky - but rejected by the scientific mainstream because she was such a wacko (which she was) - only to be ressurected later as an accepted geological fact.

Then there is Allen Hynecks infamous `Marsh Gas` explanation for specific UFO sightings - which he later self-debunked!

Another interesting phenomena is when sceptics debunk something that later turns out to be mundane ; but their explanation was the wrong one. Thus the now infamous Surgeon's photo supposedly of Nessie (we all know the picture) was confidently asserted by some sceptics to be an otter's tail, or a swimmer's arm. We now know that is was (most probably) a toy submarine with an added extesnion. The sceptics were right to be sceptical - but have they `mea culpa'd` over providng the wrong reason for their scepticism? Something similar happens a lot with career UFO sceptics - they offer multile mundane explanations for a photo or a sighting - and then sit back to see which one turns out to be the right one and then claim victory!

I think saying Blavatsky first proposed continental drift is a bit of a stretch. I'd need some citations for that. The bottom line on continental drift from Wegener's perspective is quite complicated. Everyone could see the evidence he saw but there was no mechanism. It could only be confirmed when we gained the technology to see seafloor spreading. And even that evidence was LONG delayed because of military secrecy. So, it's just not right to say "science was wrong" as seems to be suggested in the initial post.

Science is, by nature, conservative. For good reason. The scientific process is proposing a lot of wrong ideas before progressively getting closer to the best or right answer. And at any point, that might be shown to be wrong. So, the premise of "skeptics shown to be wrong" is reasonable to explore only in a very narrow sense.

A better way to put it: What commonly accepted ideas and explanations were later dramatically overturned?
I feel a bit icky about treating such cases superficially, though, because the story is often far more complicated and nuanced.

[Does anyone seriously use the "swamp gas" explanation anymore? It's always been dumb.]

 

[Mikefule]

I've been thinking about this thread and have not yet come up with any examples of my own that fit the criteria: something that is strongly supported by evidence, but is rejected on the basis of a sort of reflex "sceptical debunking". We are looking for a mirror image of conspiracy theory in which the sceptic determinedly sticks to a mundane explanation in the face of good evidence to the contrary.

There are of course many examples of science being rejected for religious or cultural reasons. The ideas of evolution by natural selection, or the Earth revolving around the Sun, were initially rejected or resisted on Biblical grounds. However, I do not think this is what the OP had in mind.

Strong evidence is often rejected or selectively reinterpreted by people who prefer to believe in a conspiracy. Again, I do not think this is what the OP had in mind.

I think that dogmatic sceptics sometimes shoot from the hip. They may assert that something is "obviously a man in a suit", or that a photo is "fake", or that a bright light in the sky "must have been Venus" without properly considering the evidence for or against.

Of course, if you have formed an opinion of a phenomenon following careful consideration of the evidence, why would you put any time or effort into considering just one further generic report that offers no new data?

For example, I have reached a provisional conclusion that the Loch Ness Monster is not an unknown species of megafauna, and certainly not a plesiosaur. If I read that one more person has seen "a distant hump looking like an upturned boat" I will pay little attention. However, if someone presents a few seconds of clear video, or some DNA evidence, or even a report of a closer encounter, I will be seriously interested.

I think there are few cases where someone says, "Despite what appears to be a compelling case..." (when presented with the body of a platypus) "... this must inevitably turn out to be something more conventional, or a hoax, if only we dig deep enough."

Maybe there's even a case for a Fortean shorthand expression, "dissecting the platypus" to describe the situation in which a sceptic desperately tries to find a reason to reject good evidence in order to maintain their previous position on the subject.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Whilst not paranormal as such, archaeological discoveries such as Göbekli Tepe, Lepenski Vir and the Vinča script have forced a significant re-evaluation of human history.
As @Sharon Hill states above " Science is, by nature, conservative. For good reason" and, for decades, anthropologists were sceptical that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were capable of producing anything more complex than rudimentary tools and that no proper civilisation existed before the Mesopotamian Sumerians with their cuneiform writing.
Now though, Göbekli Tepe is indisputable evidence of substantial and sophisticated construction work some 10,000 years ago. Evidence from Lepenski Vir of house-building, arable farming and animal husbandry proves that these people were far more than mere hunter-gatherers and, of course, the Vinča script shows that a form of writing existed in Europe some 2,000 years before it developed in Mesopotamia.
Eventually, with enough solid evidence being dug out of the ground, even these conservative scientists will be obliged to change their points of view.

 

[Nosmo King]

Copernicus and Galileo.

In 1633, the Catholic Church convicted Galileo of heresy for “following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,” and placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life. More than 200 years later, in 1835, the ban on the book was finally lifted.

 

[eburacum]

[Does anyone seriously use the "swamp gas" explanation anymore? It's always been dumb.]

This so-called explanation is supposed to have been used in the Ann Arbor case, by Hynek, although there is a much better explanation available. These two photos taken by Deputy Fitzpatrick are quite obviously time exposures of Venus and the Moon, which were in exactly this configuration on 17 March 1966.

Are people really that blind, or was mischief involved? Surely Fitzpatrick knew exactly what he was photographing.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... There are of course many examples of science being rejected for religious or cultural reasons. The ideas of evolution by natural selection, or the Earth revolving around the Sun, were initially rejected or resisted on Biblical grounds. However, I do not think this is what the OP had in mind.

Strong evidence is often rejected or selectively reinterpreted by people who prefer to believe in a conspiracy. Again, I do not think this is what the OP had in mind. ...

Both these examples illustrate the problem of trying to designate who is the skeptic in any given scenario. Copernicus and Galileo were the skeptics with respect to church doctrine and Biblical mythos. Who were the skeptics versus true believers in the context of the clash between the tacitly flat earth-centric cosmogony of Judaeo-Christian tradition and the Greek natural philosophers who knew the earth is round?

Skepticism implies a response or orientation with respect to something (e.g., a belief) that's taken as the de facto basis for reference. Switching this referential basis can result in switching which side represents the 'establishment' and which represents the 'skeptical opposition'.

Having said that ... I agree with (what I believe to be ... ) your point that Zeke was referring to some more particular context. My impression is that this is the specific context of modern times (i.e., the Enlightenment era onward) and Fortean (anomalous; as-yet-unaccounted-for) phenomena reports as the referential basis against which any questioning or dismissal is framed as the skeptical position.

You'll notice this reverses the roles of skeptic versus believers in tradition / common knowledge insofar as the skeptic is now framed as the person invested in the establishment's tradition (i.e., science) and the outsider / alternative view is taken to be the basis for framing who's who and what it is one versus the other believes.

I'm not disputing what I believe to be the thrust of Zeke's original query. I simply wanted to point out how confusing it can be to assume the notion of a skeptic provides any solid basis for orienting oneself in responding to that query.

SIDE NOTE: Anyone in the Albany area wondering about the muffled sounds from underground? That's Fort laughing (what's left of ... ) his ass off ...

 

[Mikefule]

Both these examples illustrate the problem of trying to designate who is the skeptic in any given scenario. Copernicus and Galileo were the skeptics with respect to church doctrine and Biblical mythos. Who were the skeptics versus true believers in the context of the clash between the tacitly flat earth-centric cosmogony of Judaeo-Christian tradition and the Greek natural philosophers who knew the earth is round?

Skepticism implies a response or orientation with respect to something (e.g., a belief) that's taken as the de facto basis for reference. Switching this referential basis can result in switching which side represents the 'establishment' and which represents the 'skeptical opposition'.

An interesting perspective. I agree that "sceptical" says something about your orientation towards an established point of view, so both sides in an argument could sometimes be described as "sceptical" of the other's claims.

However, there is more to it than that. I think when someone comes up with a new idea, based on observation and inference, and challenges existing ideas, that is not really what we mean by "sceptic".

A sceptic looks at the evidence and arguments for an established or proposed point of view and checks and challenges them — rigorously and honestly, or otherwise, depending on their mindset and motivation.

The person who makes their own observations, and honestly produces and analyses the evidence they gather themselves before propounding an alternative hypothesis is breaking new ground and is more than "just" a sceptic.

 

[PeteByrdie]

Both these examples illustrate the problem of trying to designate who is the skeptic in any given scenario. Copernicus and Galileo were the skeptics with respect to church doctrine and Biblical mythos. Who were the skeptics versus true believers in the context of the clash between the tacitly flat earth-centric cosmogony of Judaeo-Christian tradition and the Greek natural philosophers who knew the earth is round?

Interesting point! Modern flat-earthers are forever justifying their opinions by referring to them as scepticism, thus giving their delusions a veneer of healthy enquiry. I suppose we don't know the sceptics from the lunatics until a case is proven beyond doubt.

Spoiler

Flat-earthers are lunatics.

 

[escargot]

Interesting point! Modern flat-earthers are forever justifying their opinions by referring to them as scepticism, thus giving their delusions a veneer of healthy enquiry. I suppose we don't know the sceptics from the lunatics until a case is proven beyond doubt.

Spoiler

Flat-earthers are lunatics.

My father told me 50 years or so ago that people who believe the earth is flat know it's not really, but they that want to challenge what they are told. I just thought they were prats.

 

[catseye]

But the brain and how it works is pretty fascinating. For example... why would it seek to terrify itself with nightmares?

I sometimes find the psychology behind events more compelling than the events themselves. It's along the lines of the Douglas Adams quote, ' 'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'

 

[PeteByrdie]

My father told me 50 years or so ago that people who believe the earth is flat know it's not really, but they that want to challenge what they are told. I just thought they were prats.

I think that's true of some. And perhaps there's some nobility of purpose in challenging accepted wisdom, even if you know it's correct. But some modern ones are just trying to get money from youtube videos and merchandise, and some, no doubt, are attention seekers. In one online debate I saw, a flat-earther presented as deadpan as you like photos and illustrations of a particularly long canal, and made the argument that if the world were a sphere a canal of that length would require locks to allow for the curvature of the Earth! So, I'm afraid some are just idiots destined forever to embarrass themselves. It was at that stage that I stopped following the flat-earth debate after a couple of years of fun.

 

[Alchymist]

I suppose the classic case of the debunkers getting debunked was with regard to meteorites. The consensus among 18th-century "natural philosophers" could be summed up as "How stupid and ignorant do you have to be to believe rocks can fall out of the sky?" Now, of course, we know better . . . .

Personally, along with Bob Anton Wilson, I believe nothing. I suspect a great many things - I suspect that some of my suspicions might turn out to be true, or at least point towards some kind of truth - but I don't believe any of them. I suppose this makes me a sceptic rather than a skeptic, which is where I prefer to be - an attitude of "H'mmm . . . that's interesting . . . tell me more . . . "

 

[Sharon Hill]

An interesting perspective. I agree that "sceptical" says something about your orientation towards an established point of view, so both sides in an argument could sometimes be described as "sceptical" of the other's claims.

However, there is more to it than that. I think when someone comes up with a new idea, based on observation and inference, and challenges existing ideas, that is not really what we mean by "sceptic".

A sceptic looks at the evidence and arguments for an established or proposed point of view and checks and challenges them — rigorously and honestly, or otherwise, depending on their mindset and motivation.

The person who makes their own observations, and honestly produces and analyses the evidence they gather themselves before propounding an alternative hypothesis is breaking new ground and is more than "just" a sceptic.

As an example of the fuzzy terminology, many years ago, there was a group effort to write the Media Guide to Skepticism.

"Skepticism is an approach to evaluating claims that emphasizes evidence and applies tools of science. Skepticism is most often applied to extraordinary claims – those that refute the current consensus view. The Skeptical process considers evidence obtained by systematic observations and reason."

This was a PR effort to distinguish scientific skeptics from climate change "skeptics" which was being used a lot in the media at the time.

The effort to claim "Skeptic" only for this narrow community failed because you can't force a word to mean just one thing (as you can try to do in scientific literature) or stop language use from evolving. But it does illustrate that use of the term "sceptic/skeptic" is so ambiguous, it needs specific context.

 

[Sharon Hill]

Personally, along with Bob Anton Wilson, I believe nothing. I suspect a great many things - I suspect that some of my suspicions might turn out to be true, or at least point towards some kind of truth - but I don't believe any of them. I suppose this makes me a sceptic rather than a skeptic, which is where I prefer to be - an attitude of "H'mmm . . . that's interesting . . . tell me more . . . "

Well, you do believe in the sense that you provisionally accept lots of things. Or else how would you get through life? I pretty strongly accept that the earth will continue to orbit the sun tomorrow the same as today, that the general laws of physics are going to keep on keepin' on, and that I'm not living in a simulation, etc.

This stuff gets deep really quick -- too deep for a Monday, at least.

 

[Nosmo King]

As an example of the fuzzy terminology, many years ago, there was a group effort to write the Media Guide to Skepticism.

"Skepticism is an approach to evaluating claims that emphasizes evidence and applies tools of science. Skepticism is most often applied to extraordinary claims – those that refute the current consensus view. The Skeptical process considers evidence obtained by systematic observations and reason."

This was a PR effort to distinguish scientific skeptics from climate change "skeptics" which was being used a lot in the media at the time.

The effort to claim "Skeptic" only for this narrow community failed because you can't force a word to mean just one thing (as you can try to do in scientific literature) or stop language use from evolving. But it does illustrate that use of the term "sceptic/skeptic" is so ambiguous, it needs specific context.

The word euroskeptic always made me laugh, ive alway been sure there is a euro as in the currency and a Europe as in the continent.

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

To place someone in a category, either sceptic or believer, requires a choice. This choice is between detailed descriptions of that person’s thoughts, opinions, orientations, etc., or ignoring some of those details in order to speedily put the person into a category. Not all sceptics/skeptics have the same opinions about a specific topic, the Loch Ness monster, for example. Neither do the individuals who have opinions about the unconventional nature of the creature.

For anyone on the spectrum of belief/disbelief/convinced/unconvinced, the details of what that person knows, and how he interprets those details, will place that person in a specific spot on the spectrum. Those details are necessary to understand someone’s stand. I have seen mistakes made equally by believers/convinced and sceptics/unconvinced. I am sure I have made mistakes myself – but my awareness of my mistakes is a continually evolving process, and specific to the topic and my access to facts.

Here is one example I know a little about: spoonbending. Briefly:

Belief: Uri Geller claimed and apparently demonstrated bending metal by psychic means. He never, to my knowledge, admitted cheating on even one occasion.

Sceptic counter-belief: James Randi claimed and apparently demonstrated Geller was cheating and never bent metal by psychic means. If I recall correctly, Randi demonstrated this by bending a spoon through mechanical manipulation as a stage magician.

Pesky, unwanted facts for both believers and sceptics:

1. Uri Geller was caught cheating at least some times.

2. Randi extrapolated from this and proclaimed Geller was a cheater, with the implication that he cheated every time he claimed to bend a spoon, and further, that anyone who claimed to have bent a spoon by psychic means was either lying or deluded. Randi was publicly rude to anyone who disagreed with him, calling them fools, etc., which increased the reluctance of anyone who wanted to publicly disagree.

3. Metallurgic analysis of bent cutlery revealed distinct structural differences between the ones bent by psychic means and cheating conventional means. Many other people (thousands) also bent cutlery in spoon-bending parties. The metallurgical differences between the psychic and conventional cutlery remained consistent. The metallurgical changes from a psychic spoon could not be replicated through mechanical means. (Halsted, John. “The Metal Benders.” London, Routledge & Kegan Paul ltd, 1981.)

4. Other university-level metallurgical experts were unwilling to examine the evidence directly for themselves that psychic spoons were different. Their unwillingness was based in reluctance to be publicly involved in a disrespectable topic; one moreover in which everyone knew (was convinced) that Geller and other spoon-benders had cheated. (Halsted.)

(BTW, if anyone has more information on this, please PM me so this topic stays on course. No, I have never bent anything by psychic means.)

The belief and assumption bases of the sceptics in the example above has many similarities to sceptic pronouncements on other damned topics (bigfoot, communication with the dead, UFOs, etc.) Of course, individual sceptics will have different stands on any topic - as will individuals who are persuaded on the evidence they have in addition to their beliefs and assumptions.

The echo chamber of public discourse: access to “facts” are near universal. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, we seldom make the effort to find equal and opposite facts because we have already aligned ourselves to an interpretation. Once we are aligned, anywhere on the spectrum for any topic, we don’t want to change our minds or admit we were wrong. Many times, we selectively choose the facts which reinforce our previously-determined position.

People want to be accepted and respected. This driver of human behavior means that unpopular opinions which go against one’s community are not often expressed. I was personally dismayed at how pervasive this was in university settings in the US. Somewhere along the way, the specific facts were ignored because a superficially plausible explanation was socially acceptable or politically correct. This ignoring of facts is found everywhere on the spectrum of sceptics/believers.

 

[Mikefule]

... you can't force a word to mean just one thing (as you can try to do in scientific literature) or stop language use from evolving...

I absolutely agree. There are many words that have completely different meanings now from what they had 10 or 100 years ago. There are many where the scientific or formal meaning is losing ground to the public perception of the meaning. (e.g. Epicentre is becoming just a fancy word for centre.)

Some people try to distinguish between "sceptic" and "skeptic" but to my mind this distinction by spellings is as irrelevant as fairy/faerie, magic/magick, and wracking/racking. We live in a world where most people struggle with to/too/two, or there/their/they're.

However, what is important is that we preserve the distinction between qualitatively different concepts. Whether we express this with a different word, or by defining that word for a specific context, is not as important as recognising that there are two or more different things.

Otherwise, there is a danger of someone securing your agreement or disagreement to a statement based on one understanding of what a word means, then applying it to a different statement using the same word with a different meaning.

Back to "sceptics" and the point of this thread, which I genuinely find interesting: the sort of sceptic the original poster was talking about was the one who will reject evidence rather than considering it fairly if that evidence goes against orthodoxy.

A Bad Sceptic:
Witness: This photo is evidence that Bigfoot exists.
Sceptic: That photo must be a fake because Bigfoot doesn't exist. There's absolutely no reliable evidence to support Bigfoot.
Witness: Well, this photo is pretty clear, and seems to be evidence.
Sceptic: But the photo is a fake.
Witness: Where is your evidence that it is a fake?
Sceptic: My evidence that it is a fake is that it is a photo of something that doesn't exist.
Witness: And remind me why you say it doesn't exist.
Sceptic: Because there is no evidence at all to suggest that it exists.
Witness: Apart from this photo...
Sceptic: ...which is a fake.

A Good Sceptic:
Witness: This photo is evidence that Bigfoot exists.
Sceptic: Let's have a look. Interesting. Do you mind if I check the EXIF properties? And tell me about when and where the photo was taken.
Witness: (Gives an account.)
Sceptic: (Listens, checks, identifies apparent inconsistencies, highlights them, and invites clarification. Makes further investigations.)
Sceptic: I do not think this photo is evidence that Bigfoot exists because (a) You told me you took it in America 6 years ago. (b) The EXIF properties show it was taken last week in Dagenham on a model of iPhone that was only introduced 1 year ago and (c) you can clearly see the zip on the suit.

 

[AnonyJ]

Not strictly Fortean per se but the neurological condition now named Multiple Sclerosis was often thought to be a psychological or psychosomatic illness, even as recently as the 1920s. Although anatomists and doctors had discovered some brain abnormalities in autopsies of deceased patients in the 19th century, they couldn't connect these to the disease conclusively.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16085995/ ('The emergence of multiple sclerosis, 1870-1950: a puzzle of historical epidemiology' by Colin Lee Talley)

It wasn't until more advanced nerve conduction tests and new kinds of imaging apart from X-rays were developed that the illness mechanism was discovered.

I am personally minded to say that this sounds much like the conditions currently called ME and Fibromyalgia which are often dismissed as either malingering or 'all in the mind'.

 

[stu neville]

Ps – this is another discussion in which multiple moderators are engaged. What does this mean?

Any thread which discusses Fortean philosophy tends to involve us all as we each have our own perspective: all of the admin & mod team are coming from the basic same place but still have different takes on it all. Engaging with others keeps the views fresh.

I recall reading a post on a forum - possibly this one, where a poster pointed out that skeptics elevate their own beliefs to the point of an almost religous fanaticism. That struck me as very perspicacious.

For a long time I've likened hardcore Conspiracy Theorists to religious fanatics, in that belief overrules demonstrable fact. They have a cardinal view of the world, and any information which contradicts this is dismissed as either mistaken, wilfully misleading or being propagated with malign intent.

Some people try to distinguish between "sceptic" and "skeptic" but to my mind this distinction by spellings is as irrelevant as fairy/faerie, magic/magick, and wracking/racking.

There was a move towards (broadly) skeptic with a k meaning absolute dismissal as with your own "Bad Sceptic" example, and sceptic with a c being your "Good Sceptic", but as with all things it's a spectrum, and many people can be absolutely dismissive of all manner of phenomena but subscribe entirely to another. Or when the deeply religious deny the existence of (for example) the possibility of alien life.

To restate my usual point - Forteanism is as much as anything else examining data on its own merit. Similar data should- and are - factored into the discussion, but we never (or at least very rarely) start from the standpoint of immediate denial. Just because it doesn't make sense or isn't readily explained, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Damned data.