Consumer Reports for the Paranormal

[IllegalArgument]

This thread got me thinking.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56475&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

There were a few comments in the thread about tactics, suggesting indirectly that tactics used by repressed minorites would be useful.

My problem with this is that skeptics are minority, but we aren't repressed and definately not victims. I do know that some posters were hurt by psuedo-science, but I'm talking about systematic wide spread repression.

We are watchdogs and advocates, like "Consumer Reports". I hate seeing people get suckered or lead on, especially when there is alternative, especially medical. At TAM3 one of the speakers commented that he saw, around the time of the Heaven's Gate mass sucide, Micheal Sherman wearing a shirt that said. "So, many cults, so few comets". So those who don't know a comet passing with the trigger for the mass sucide.

I don't know what Sherman thinks about the matter now, but he is a major public figure in skepticism. To me a shirt like that smacks of a lack of empathy and down right contempt for the victims.

I don't think members of medical advocacy group would wear shirts that said, "So many fat people, so little ephedra".

Just my two cents.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why not use the anecdote as a weapon?

Usually, a paranormal claim is backed up with anecdotes. And we spend a lot of time pointing out why anecdotes are useless. But why not take that weapon of theirs (which, clearly, they see as a strong one), and use it against them?

For every anecdote (usually unverifiable) a believer comes up with, we should counter with another (preferably more), but this time verifiable, anecdote. Names, places, time, references.

I'm not saying that we should replace evidence with anecdotes. There is no substitute for evidence. I'm saying that we can counter the faceless anecdotes with real, verifiable stories of how dangerous paranormal beliefs are.

I think we can all recognize the answers from this imaginary Believer:

Believer: "Well, my aunt (who shall remain nameless, of course) tried X, and it helped her!"

Skeptic: "Well, here's a verifiable story that shows how dangerous it is to believe in X."

Believer: "Oh, that's just a story!"

Skeptic: "Yeah, but so is yours. And mine is verifiable. Why should we believe your story and not mine?"

Believer: "Well...."

Skeptic: "If you don't want to believe my story (despite that it is verifiable), can we at least agree that these stories are useless?"

Believer: "......yessss, I guess so...."

Skeptic: "Good! Then, what? Do we leave it at that - or do we find out what is real and what is not?"

If the Believer accepts to find out, Score 1 for Skepticism. If not, or if the Believer doesn't want to agree that these stories are useless:

Skeptic: "Then, you select the stories that confirm you in your beliefs, and ignore those that don't. You cannot possibly claim to have any kind of evidence. If you recommend this to others, then you are not only cheating them, but also hurting them."

Believer: "Well, in your opinion..."

Skeptic: "No, not in my opinion. The story I showed you is verifiable. And, here's another one. And another one. And another one. And here's some evidence why X doesn't work. And here's some more. X doesn't work. People get hurt by believing in X. That's a fact."

Believer: "Well..."

Skeptic: "Can we at least agree, that I have provided better anecdotes than you, as well as backed them up with evidence?"

Believer: "Well, you can believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want."

Skeptic: "You are free to do that. Just remember, that the next time you argue that X works, you are faced with a much better case of why it doesn't."

It will not prove that the belief in X is invalid. But we will have taken their strongest weapon and used it against them. We have shown that their strongest weapon is useless.

This means that we should save every newspaper story about the dangers of paranormal beliefs, and catalog them. Not just save the links, but also the webpages. Cut the stories from the printed media, too. Always make it verifiable. If possible, save video clips.

We also need to document those stories of real people. If we hear of a friend or a relative, who has been hurt, ask permission to document it. Yes, with names, and contact info. It's not going to be easy, I know. But there is one big reason why those who exploit superstitious people can continue, and that is that we never see the bad side of the coin. We don't hear from the victims. And neither do those who believe. They will never realize that their beliefs hurt people.

I've saved newsstories for quite some time, and it is a good way of just learn about how the world of the Superstitious works. You learn the techniques, you recognize them, you learn how to counter them. And you can use them against the claims and arguments.

We need Consumer Reports from the victims of false beliefs.

 

[BPScooter]

starting clipping file

In response to CFLarsen-

I am now starting a clipping file, from the Washington Post, Washington times, and Baltimore Sun. Including all their "style" sections and sports pages. I won't clip anything that is obviously from a wire service. If my file gets interesting, I am prepared to scan and post what I find.

My file will have a big word on the tab: WOO

and if that word disturbs non-sckeptichs, then they can wait and see what the file may reveal!

Keep up the good work, thanks.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: starting clipping file

I am now starting a clipping file, from the Washington Post, Washington times, and Baltimore Sun. Including all their "style" sections and sports pages. I won't clip anything that is obviously from a wire service. If my file gets interesting, I am prepared to scan and post what I find.

And I would be very happy to exchange files periodically.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Claus,

Great idea.

Sadly you just KNOW the regular woo will just ignore YOUR story and concentrate on the ones that confirm the belief they already hold.

It will hopefully sow the seed of doubt about reliance on anecdote though !

Ill try and start collecting stories too.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sadly you just KNOW the regular woo will just ignore YOUR story and concentrate on the ones that confirm the belief they already hold.

It most probably will. But then, we have shown that, while their anecdotes are unverifiable, ours are not. And we have evidence.

Ill try and start collecting stories too.

Perhaps there should be some place where people could post links to their zipped archives?

 

[clarsct]

Wow, you know, we've disagreed on a number of ideas, but this one I like. I don't know I'll be able to scan them in...I think my local library has a scanner. I'm going to try to do this.

What about having some of these, the best ones, shrunk into a notebook or something small that can be carried. Bull$h!t is rampant, and one never knows when one will encounter it. It can be like a Haz-Mat containment kit.

Just a thought...

 

[CFLarsen]

Wow, you know, we've disagreed on a number of ideas, but this one I like. I don't know I'll be able to scan them in...I think my local library has a scanner. I'm going to try to do this.

What about having some of these, the best ones, shrunk into a notebook or something small that can be carried. Bull$h!t is rampant, and one never knows when one will encounter it. It can be like a Haz-Mat containment kit.

Just a thought...

That should be up to people themselves to decide what stories are good. But these can be shared as well, of course.

 

[chillzero]

People keep stating that sceptics are the minority, and it doesn't seem to me that this has been questioned at all.

Where are the figures that identify this? How can it be stated with such certainty?

 

[IllegalArgument]

People keep stating that sceptics are the minority, and it doesn't seem to me that this has been questioned at all.

Where are the figures that identify this? How can it be stated with such certainty?

I don't think we should even try and open that can of worms. An arugment over what is a "true" skeptic is bound to ensue.

I do like the ideals being bounced around in the thread. Keep going.

 

[VeronicaX]

People keep stating that sceptics are the minority, and it doesn't seem to me that this has been questioned at all.

Where are the figures that identify this? How can it be stated with such certainty?

I'm the only one I know that is a skeptic.

Even psychology students I know believe in paranormal. Most young people I know certainly believe in it. I'm also assuming that younger people that believe in the "New Age" thinks it's being open-minded. And people like open-mindedness.

For me its quite obvious skeptics are a minority (in my social circle). This circle is also quite big and varied. I deal with a lot of corporate clients everyday and hardly I find a skeptic.

 

[Luke T.]

Why not use the anecdote as a weapon?

For the sake of bandwidth, I've snipped the rest of your post.

Here's where I see a couple problems with your plan. Let's say the believer tells an anecodote about how a psychic contacted her dead grandmother. That would be "X." What sort of Counter-X would you have to show how harm was done by a psychic reading?

Second, I don't think a believer (not having a copy forwarded to them) is going to follow your script. Instead of answering Counter-X with "it's just a story", they will more likely say that everything is capable of causing harm. They may even talk about medical malpractice nightmares which have occured during legitimate surgical procedures. They may also point out that even though there are some bad, evil con men acting as psychics out there, it in no way invalidates the good, real pshychics out there or psychic phenomena in general.

Not that I am against building a database of harmful paranormal practices. I am all for it. Started a topic seeking that sort of thing not too long ago. I am just cautioning that having pre-conceived notions of what a believer will do is a set-up for disappointment when they don't behave the way you think they should.


edited to add: Basically, while your goal is to point out the uselessness of anecdotes, a believer isn't necessarily going to want to stick to your mined path.

In a situation where someone talks about 'X', the only Counter-X that would have a chance of effectivenss would be one that related directly to the same people involved in 'X.' You have to show them their personal psychic is a con man. This is why so many conversations about psychics end up focused on the John Edward and the Slyvia Browne who is known to all parties. "Slyvia said this, how could she have known that?" being 'X,' and "Have you seen the Slyvia Clock?" being Counter-X.

 

[Garrette]

I agree with both CFLarsen and Luke T.

Claus' tactic is a good one but not guaranteed of success in all or even most cases. Therefore, the skeptic must be prepared to adjust the tactic as the situation demands.

Which leads me to opine that to effectively educate others skeptically, one needs to be both well informed and flexible.

 

[CFLarsen]

Here's where I see a couple problems with your plan. Let's say the believer tells an anecodote about how a psychic contacted her dead grandmother. That would be "X." What sort of Counter-X would you have to show how harm was done by a psychic reading?

Easy, Luke. Easy.

How about Sylvia Browne dispensing medical advice that can kill people? How about psychic detectives who claim to be able to find dead or missing relatives, thereby sending the police on wild goosechases, and giving false hope to the families?

How about creating a dangerous emotional dependency on the psychic? How about spending money on fake psychics?

I doubt that any believer will deny that fakes exist. So, how do we find out which are fakes and which are real? We need to do that, don't we? By not doing anything, then the believer is actively helping the frauds cheat other people.

Second, I don't think a believer (not having a copy forwarded to them) is going to follow your script. Instead of answering Counter-X with "it's just a story", they will more likely say that everything is capable of causing harm. They may even talk about medical malpractice nightmares which have occured during legitimate surgical procedures. They may also point out that even though there are some bad, evil con men acting as psychics out there, it in no way invalidates the good, real pshychics out there or psychic phenomena in general.

I repeat: So, how do we find out which are fakes and which are real? We need to do that, don't we? By not doing anything, then the believer is actively helping the frauds cheat other people.

Not that I am against building a database of harmful paranormal practices. I am all for it. Started a topic seeking that sort of thing not too long ago. I am just cautioning that having pre-conceived notions of what a believer will do is a set-up for disappointment when they don't behave the way you think they should.

Not "should", but "would". It's based on experience, of course. But, if there are other patterns of behavior, let's hear them, so we are prepared.

edited to add: Basically, while your goal is to point out the uselessness of anecdotes, a believer isn't necessarily going to want to stick to your mined path.

In a situation where someone talks about 'X', the only Counter-X that would have a chance of effectivenss would be one that related directly to the same people involved in 'X.' You have to show them their personal psychic is a con man. This is why so many conversations about psychics end up focused on the John Edward and the Slyvia Browne who is known to all parties. "Slyvia said this, how could she have known that?" being 'X,' and "Have you seen the Slyvia Clock?" being Counter-X.

Sure, no worries. Which is why we need as many stories on as many psychics as possible.

 

[CFLarsen]

I agree with both CFLarsen and Luke T.

Claus' tactic is a good one but not guaranteed of success in all or even most cases. Therefore, the skeptic must be prepared to adjust the tactic as the situation demands.

Which leads me to opine that to effectively educate others skeptically, one needs to be both well informed and flexible.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by CFLarsen:
Elementary, my dear Watson.

You realize, of course, that it is only anecdotal that Holmes ever said that?

 

[Ashles]

You realize, of course, that it is only anecdotal that Holmes ever said that?

[zammit]Prove he didn't.[/zammit]

 

[Darat]

You realize, of course, that it is only anecdotal that Holmes ever said that?

No it's not - a friend in the pub told me that he'd read it in a book somewhere.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Darat:
No it's not - a friend in the pub told me that he'd read it in a book somewhere

Another anecdote.

There are no friends in pubs. There are only pub-zombies.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Ashles:
[zammit]Prove he didn't.[/zammit]

I did.

To my own satisifaction.

So I'm keeping all my money.