When they say... |
You can say... |
| "I know it's true because I
had this personal experience...." |
"That's interesting.
But people often have subjective experiences that turn out to have been
misleading. Do you have any external evidence to corroborate it?" |
| Note that rather than implying the believers are
deluded, mistaken or lying—which just insults them, ends the
discussion and convinces them you are closed-minded—the aim is to turn
their attention away from unreliable subjective experience toward
considering objective evidence that someone else can accept.
Some people who report personal experience
of paranormal phenomena may indeed be deluded, mistaken or lying. But
telling them this does not convince them to reconsider, nor persuade
anyone else who may be listening to be skeptical. |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "So many people reported it. They can't all be
wrong." |
"Millions of people
saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear. So did it
really disappear?" |
| "But that was just one incident.
Thousands of people have seen UFOs (or whatever) all over the world. All
the reports couldn't have been wrong." |
"Sure they could.
History is full of examples in which thousands of people reported seeing
things that didn't exist. Long before extraterrestrials were ever
dreamed of, sailors used to report seeing mermaids at sea. People in
numerous ancient and modern societies have had visions of the spirits or
demons that their culture led them to believe existed...." |
| You can probably think of more examples yourself of
things that were widely reported or believed, to later be disproved.
Explain this to the believers, then go on to explain the factors that
contribute to illusions in whatever paranormal field you're discussing.
Such as how planets, aircrafts and earthly lights bouncing off clouds or
atmospheric layers can create the impression of strange air-borne
vehicles for even expert witnesses, if the discussion is about UFO
reports.
You might also want to point out that each
single report has to stand on its own merits. People tend to think that
if you take a lot of unreliable reports and put them together the sheer
volume makes them more reliable, but a little reflection should show
this is illogical. It's like collecting a truckload of empty bottles and
then reasoning, "There are so many bottles here, they can't all be
empty."
You can also point out that anecdotes
(personal reports of experiences) are fun to talk about but they don't
prove anything. All we're asking for is one bit of concrete evidence to
back them up: |
| "With all those
thousands of reported incidents you talk about, how come we haven't got
a single scrap of material evidence to support them?" |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "Scientists said raining
frogs (or some other strange occurrence) was impossible too, and it
turned out to be true." |
"That was proven to
be true because hard evidence was eventually produced. That's all we're
asking for in this case—evidence." |
| Skeptics do not go around attacking strange phenomena
as impossible—we only attack beliefs being accepted uncritically.
Now, some claims such as perpetual motion
machines are indeed "impossible" according to the basic laws
of nature we have learned. But even here the smart skeptic points out
the seeming contradiction and asks for evidence or reasons strong enough
to justify overthrowing a law that have been concluded from millions of
other experiments and observations over many years.
You might also point out that raining frogs
or other bizarre claims that turn out to be true are extremely rare. In
the great majority of cases, extraordinary claims turn out to be false.
All the more reason for hard evidence to show why the claim being
discussed is the exception. |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "They laughed at
Galileo. They laughed at Columbus...." |
"They laughed at
Bozo too!" |
| That's the joking rejoinder, courtesy of James Randi.
The believer's argument is that, since
certain great ideas were once rejected, the rejection of their own ideas
proves these too are great ideas. This, of course, is fallacious
reasoning. Besides, most great ideas were not ridiculed when they were
introduced. Galileo's ideas were taken very seriously, although they ran
afoul of the church. And, please, let's drop the myth once and for all
that Columbus proved the world was round against flat-earth believers.
Since at least the third century BCE, people have accepted the
sphericity of the earth. Columbus's claim was that he could find a
passage to the Orient—which he failed to do.
However, the honest skeptic is not out to
ridicule anyone's ideas. We're simply asking why claims should be
supported. So the more sincere reply to this kind of statement is: |
| "Your claim has to
stand or fall on the evidence, just as Galileo's and Columbus's views
did eventually. So I'm not laughing at you—I'm asking for the
evidence." |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "It's been proven in studies
(or experiments)." |
"What studies (or
experiments) were those? Could I see them?" |
| It's very likely the believers will not be acquainted
with the studies they claim support them. "I don't know where
exactly. I've just heard about it." |
| "So you don't
really know if those studies exist, or if they prove what you may have
heard they do?" |
| They might say they'll show you the studies some time
in the future. (You'll never see them.)
Of course, if you can rattle off studies,
experiments or investigations of your own to disprove their claims,
that's even better. |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "It's been written up in
such-and-such a magazine." |
"In Fate
magazine? Do you understand why this publication is not a credible
source? Do you know the difference between this and a peer-reviewed
publication in which facts, reasoning, and experimental protocols are
rigorously checked to filter out errors, experimenter bias, and
fraud?" |
| On the off-chance they say it's been written up in
some credible scientific publication like Nature or JAMA,
you'll have to press to get the date or issue information, though it's
unlikely you will. Unfortunately, although their information is
probably wrong, you can't do much about it in the course of an impromptu
discussion, apart from saying it's strange you haven't heard about it
because it would be very big news if a major science publication proved
the existence of ESP (or whatever), but you'll look it up. While keeping
a skeptical attitude, it's important to appear fair and interested in
all evidence rather than be dogmatically negative. |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "You can't prove it doesn't
exist." |
"You can't prove
there's no tooth fairy either." |
| It's notoriously difficult to prove a universal
negative—that any particular thing does not exist anywhere, any time,
anyhow in the world. No matter how far and long and hard you look
without finding it, there's always the theoretical possibility it exists
somewhere else, at some other time, or in some other fashion. It's a lot
easier to prove that something does exist—just provide one tooth fairy
and you've proven your point.
The onus should be on the persons making an
extraordinary claim to prove it, not for others to prove the
extraordinary claim is wrong: |
| "Since no
compelling evidence has been presented to show it does exist, and it is
a rather extraordinary claim, why should either of us believe it?" |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "I'm a skeptic too." |
"That's great.
Because you must know that a skeptic keeps an open mind to all
possibilities, considering any new evidence for or against their
established views. So let's look at the evidence for and against the
phenomenon we're discussing...." |
| If I had a nickel for every time I've heard "I'm
a skeptic too"—and from some of the most gullible people I've
ever met—I'd be as rich as John Edward. Psychics also like to say this
as a debating trick to put you off guard.
But you have to try not to laugh in their
faces and use it to turn the discussion away from personalities to a
consideration of the facts and the reasoning. |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "I used to be skeptical too but then...." |
"You know, I
believe in a lot of things too. But I've never given up being skeptical
and open-minded. I hope you haven't either." |
| Similar to the response to the preceding statement.
Hopefully they won't want to admit they have developed a closed mind and
this will lead to a discussion of the evidence. |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "You skeptics don't believe anything." |
"I believe all
kinds of things but I don't accept things uncritically. Once a skeptic
finds good reasons to believe something, we keep an open mind in case we
find other reasons to reconsider our beliefs. That's what I'm asking you
for—evidence and reasoning to support what you say. Isn't that
sensible?" |
| There have been a few philosophical skeptics in
history who claimed not to believe anything, but modern skeptics are
critical thinkers who accept claims (that is, believe things) based on
evidence and reason—until we find evidence and reasons to lead us to
revise our beliefs. In this way, we are much more open to various
beliefs than paranormal buffs who adopt a set of beliefs that they hold
onto regardless of contrary evidence. |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "Einstein proved it." |
"He didn't do any
such thing!" |
| Any statement about the paranormal and beginning with
"Einstein proved..." is almost guaranteed to be a misquote. As
the world's most famous genius, poor Albert has had his name attached to
every crackpot idea of the past century.
"Einstein proved time travel was
possible." Uh, where exactly did he say this? He discussed it only
indirectly in reference to time passing at different rates for people
travelling at vastly different speeds (one of them near light speed).
"Einstein proved everything is
relative." And therefore anything is possible, supposedly.
Einstein's general theory of relativity, on one interpretation, had to
do with abandoning the notions of absolute space and time, replacing
them with space and time defined by the objects in them. It definitely
was not about everything being relative or about all claims being
equally true.
"Einstein believed in the
supernatural." If you're referring to God, yes, Einstein used the
G-word several times, but his God was far from the familiar kind of
personal, miracle-dispensing Deity who involves Himself in our lives. It
was more like a synonym for the Universe, or the Laws of Nature, which
would make him an atheist or agnostic in many books. A belief in some
kind of God is held by some brilliant scientists and thinkers, but this
does not justify belief in paranormal phenomena which require evidence
quite apart from personal beliefs.
"Einstein proved ESP exists."
"Einstein's theory of relativity showed perpetual motion is
possible." "Einstein proved..." No, no, no, he didn't. |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "According to Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle...." |
"You're misapplying
that principle. " |
| Physicist Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty (or
indeterminacy) principle came out of contradictions raised by quantum
mechanics in the 1920s and 1930s. It applies only to subatomic
particles, showing that we cannot know, for example, both the position
and the momentum of the same particle. Some paranormal buffs have
usurped the principle to claim it shows we cannot apply normal logic and
the rules of evidence to paranormal phenomena. But the widest scientific
interpretation of Heisenberg's principle is that it concerns only
certain characteristics of particles in the sub-microscopic world, not
entities in the macro world in which we live and concerning which we can
indeed determine a great deal.
(Einstein, by the way, argued long and hard
against the uncertainty principle.) |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "There are more things in heaven and earth,
Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." |
"You wanna compare
dreams? Try getting your mind around the curvature of space and time, or
quantum flux, or the creation of the universe in the Big Bang, or the
evolution of humans from single-celled creatures, or even the invention
of television. These are things not only thought up by science but
proven possible. Way beyond the paltry fantasies of psychics. Ghosts and
horoscopes? Phooey! Kiddies' stuff." |
| That's the serious answer. Believers in the
paranormal love to quote this bit of Shakespeare, as though it's an
endorsement of psychic phenomena by one of history's great writers. I'm
also tempted to answer: |
| "What's Horatio's
philosophy got to do with it?" |
| You see, the quote isn't necessarily Shakespeare
speaking, only one of his somewhat unbalanced characters, Hamlet,
chastising a friend. Some scholars, by the way, think Shakespeare's
wording was actually "dreamt of in our philosophy",
which would cast a different light on the quote. Throw that bit of
trivia in the next time you hear it to show you know the bard better
than they do.
Or, if you're dealing with an astrology
buff, give them that other famous Shakespearean quote:
|
| "The fault, dear
Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "You think you have all the answers." |
"I wish! But no, I
don't have all the answers. What I have is questions. Is there some
reason I shouldn't question these things?" |
|
Deflect the attention from the ad
hominem attack on yourself and keep it where it belongs—on the claims
being made. The onus is on the person making the extraordinary claims to
show why they should be believed and to account for contrary evidence or
reasoning. |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You can say... |
| "You're so close-minded." |
"I try to have an
open mind, but not so open my brains fall out." |
| Another Randi-ism. Say it with a smile, so they won't
be insulted, and follow it up quickly with an explanation about how you
think we should judge everything critically but, once we have compelling
evidence and reason for claims, we should accept them—always keeping our
minds open enough to consider any new evidence that could cause us to
reconsider our beliefs. |
| "Are you also willing
to keep an open mind to consider evidence and critical thinking that might
question your beliefs?" |
|
Return to menu |
When they say... |
You say... |
| "Well, it's just my opinion." |
"Right." |
| When they say, "It's just my opinion", you
know the discussion is practically over. They have nothing more to support
their claims.
There's a widespread view that all beliefs are
equally valid. People mix up the ideal of everyone having equal rights to
their opinions with the silly notion of everyone's opinions being equal.
You can explain this but, when people make this pointless statement with
finality, there's usually not much more you can do to convince them.
You can try to push on by saying, "I
understand it's your opinion but the issue is whether there are good
reasons for that opinion. If not, maybe you should reconsider."
There's a chance that, unwilling to lose face
before you, they'll nevertheless keep your points in mind and consider
them in private later.
It could happen. |
|
Return to menu |