I recently
read a book entitled Skeptic by Michael Shermer. It's a
collection of his essays that were published in Scientific
American. Shermer
is not a scientist, but his essays do serve as a kind of ideological
comfort food for a certain type of materialistic mindset.
In this book Shermer takes a jaundiced view towards all claims of
paranormal phenomena. But the book is not a powerful debunking of the paranormal. The reason is simple: Shermer almost
always follows the approach of simply ignoring all of the better
evidence for the paranormal. He's like some writer trying to prove
that the New York Yankees have never produced good hitters, and who
tries to prove it by pretty much only discussing Yankee hitters who
hit under .250.
I'll give
some examples. On page 99 Shermer delves into the subject of mediums.
He accuses medium John Edward of cheating, saying, “It's a trick.”
But he provides nothing to substantiate this claim, other than
speculation. He fails to mention that Edward was tested by scientist
Gary Schwartz, using controlled conditions. Schwartz did not find
cheating, but found impressive paranormal-seeming results (the paper is here). And what
about other mediums in history who achieved very impressive results
under scientific investigation? These include Daniel Dunglas Home
(who passed scientific tests of paranormal ability conducted by the
world-class scientist William Crookes), Leonora Piper (who passed
with flying colors long investigations by psychologist William James and his
colleagues), and Indridi Indridason (who produced spectacular
paranormal effects in a controlled laboratory setting, while being
investigated by some of Iceland's top scientists, as discussed here). We hear no word
of these in Shermer's book.
Shermer twice
mentions near-death experiences, but does absolutely nothing to
debunk them. He fails to mention any specific case of near-death
experience. He make no mention of the phenomena of veridical
near-death experiences, cases like the Pam Reynolds case, when a
person who should have been absolutely unconscious reported correctly
details of his or her operation, while reportedly floating out of the
body. Shermer does give us on page 106 this weird logic-mangling
non-sequitur:
The
December 2001 issue of Lancet
published a Dutch study in which of 344 cardiac patients resuscitated
from clinical death, 12 percent reported near-death experiences,
where they had an out-of-body experience and saw a light at the end
of a tunnel. Some even described speaking to dead relatives....These
studies are only the latest to deliver blows against the belief that
mind and spirit are separate from brain and body.
So
when you float out of your body that's evidence against
the belief that mind and spirit are separate from brain and body? No,
it's evidence for such
a belief.
Shermer's
book makes occasional mention of UFO's, although Shermer fails to
mention any of the more spectacular cases, and fails to discuss any
of the better evidence for UFO's. On page 54 he makes the very weird
calculation (without any justification) that superstring theory is
seven times more probable than UFO's. This makes no sense, because
we have very abundant observational evidence for paranormal sky
phenomena such as UFO's, but no evidence at all for superstring
theory.
Shermer's
claim to be a skeptic is very doubtful. The skeptics of ancient
Greece were those who were skeptical about all claims of knowledge,
and cynical about all claims of knowledge authority. But Shermer is
gullible when it comes to groundless ornate speculations such as
superstring theory, probably just because such speculations are
popular among some scientists. On page 22 Shermer reveals himself to
be a true devotee. Using the term “shaman” to kind of mean “high
priest,” Shermer says: “We show deference to our leaders, pay
respect to our elders, and follow the dictates of our shamans; since
this is the Age of Science, it is scientism's shamans who command our
veneration.” Veneration? Would any real skeptic ever gush in
such a fawning way, acting in such a worshipful way towards a human
authority?
In
discussing ESP (extra-sensory perception), Shermer absolutely owed
his readers a full discussion of the evidence gathered under
controlled lab conditions by Professor Joseph Rhine at Duke
University. As I discuss here, this is “smoking gun” evidence for
ESP. But here (on page 103) is all that Shermer has to say about
Rhine's research: “In the twentieth century, psi periodically found
its way into serious academic research programs, from Joseph Rhine's
Duke University experiments in the 1920's to Daryl Bem's Cornell
University research in the 1990's.” That's all. He fails to even
mention that Rhine's experiments were successful. They were, in fact,
a most spectacular success, repeatedly showing extremely dramatic
evidence for ESP, such as results with a chance probability of only 1
in 10 trillion (see below for a more specific discussion).
Shermer
does mention later ganzfeld ESP experiments in the late twentieth
century that also showed dramatic evidence for ESP – but he merely
cites some arch-skeptic who criticized them, and Shermer never
mentions the numerical results of the experiments. Again, Shermer
keeps his readers in the dark, hiding from them one of the best
examples of evidence for the paranormal. The results were that in a
long series of ESP experiments conducted by quite a few scientists over
years, in which the expected success rate was 25%, the subjects
scored with an accuracy of about 32%, something virtually impossible
to occur by chance.
Shermer
does give us (on page 104) some lame armchair reasoning against ESP: “Until psi proponents can explain how thoughts
generated by neurons in the sender's brain can pass through the
skull and into the brain of the receiver, skepticism is the
appropriate response, as it was for evolution sans natural selection,
and continental drift without plate tectonics.” This is fallacious
reasoning for three reasons.
First,
evidence for ESP is evidence that the human mind is something larger
than neurons, so we don't have to explain ESP using the
assumption that the mind is only the product of neurons. Second, it
is wrong to claim that we should be skeptical about things that are
observed but not explained. For thousands of years, humans observed
plagues before understanding they were caused by microbes; and for
thousands of years humans observed earthquakes before they understood
they are caused by plate tectonics. Humans should absolutely not have
been skeptical about plagues and earthquakes before they understood
what caused them. Third, it is particularly ridiculous to say that we
should have been skeptical about continental drift before discovering
plate tectonics (discovered in the twentieth century), because
continental drift (which has occurred throughout history) has always
been the correct explanation for why Africa and South America fit
together.
The
rule Shermer is suggesting – one of “you can't believe in
something until you understand the cause” is a fallacious one not
actually followed by scientists, who believe in the Big Bang despite
having no explanation for it. Equally wrong is the principle that
Shermer states on page 53 (in a chapter entitled “Baloney
Detection”), in which he claims that we can detect baloney or
nonsense by asking: “Has the claimant provided a different
explanation for the observed phenomenon, or is it strictly a process
of denying the existing explanation?” Shermer claims the second of
these two is “unacceptable in science,” but that claim is itself
pure baloney.
There
is no reason why anyone criticizing an existing explanation must be
forced to give his own explanation that is better. It is, in fact, a
perfectly sound and fair technique to argue that a proposed or
popular explanation for something is wrong, and that we simply do not
know what the explanation is. It is, for example, completely fair for
a defense attorney to discredit a district attorney's claim that the
defense attorney's client is guilty of murder, without offering an
alternate suspect; and it would be quite absurd to argue “you can't
discredit my claim that your client is guilty of murder unless you
show who committed the murder.” To give another example, if I
criticize a physics “theory of everything,” it is absurd to say
that I am not entitled to do that unless I advance my own physics
“theory of everything” as an alternative.
On
page 258 of his book, Shermer gives us a glaring misstatement. He
says:
Either
people can read other people's minds (or ESP cards) or they can't.
Science has unequivocally demonstrated that they can't.
To
the contrary, professor Joseph Rhine provided conclusive evidence for
ESP using ESP cards, such as the test with Hubert Pearce in which he
scored 27 standard deviations above the expected chance result,
getting 3746 successes out of 10,300 trials, in controlled laboratory
tests in which the expected chance result was only 2575 successes.
The chance of that is less than 1 in a 10 trillion. His colleague
Pratt got similar results with the same subject. See here for details. In another test discussed here, a contemporary of
Rhine's (Riess, a skeptical CUNY professor) did a remote test in
which the subject scored a 73% accuracy rate while guessing 1850
cards. The chance of that has been estimated as 1 in 10 to the 700th
power. What Shermer has told us here about ESP is the exact opposite
of the truth.
The
same misinformation is provided by another Scientific American
columnist, John Horgan. Ignoring a previous account he has given us
of a laboratory experiment getting a 75% hit rate on an ESP
experiment in which the expected hit rate is only 20%, Horgan informs
us on page 104 of his book Rational Mysticism that “psi has
never been convincingly demonstrated in the laboratory.” This is
absolutely false, for the reasons given above.
Shermer's
closed mind on the paranormal is shown in a recent Scientific
American column, where he claims that “not even in principle” can
the paranormal be used to explain “hitherto unsolved mysteries.”
Consider how absurd such a principle is: it is the principle that
things we don't understand (the paranormal) can never explain things
we don't understand (unsolved mysteries). By stating that we cannot
even “in principle” use the paranormal, Shermer has made it clear
that no observations can ever persuade him of something paranormal.
Apparently he will not believe in the paranormal even if a city-sized
spaceship appears over his head. There is a phrase to describe this
type of “no evidence could ever persuade me” attitude: bullheaded
entrenched intransigence. It's a very unscientific attitude, since
being scientific means (among other things) being always open to new
evidence that might overturn previous assumptions. So why are
Shermer's essays being published in a magazine called Scientific
American?
No comments:
Post a Comment