A Hit Piece of the Journal "Science" Is Goofy Gaslighting

Very recently the web site of the leading journal Science published an article that reveals an astonishing level of unfair predatory tactics. The title of the article was "Pentagon UFO study led by researcher who believes in the supernatural."  

Consider the strange premise behind such an article. Opinion polls routinely show that the vast majority of Americans believe in some type of supernatural power. Historically the Gallup Poll of Americans has typically shown in recent decades that 80% to 90% of Americans believe in some divine power. Other opinion polls suggest that a majority of American believe in the paranormal. A Chapman University survey found that "half of Americans do believe in something paranormal," and I explain in the post here why the survey would have found a percentage much higher than 50% if it had been better designed. But apparently the editors of the journal Science are thinking that it is  some outrage that a believer in the supernatural (like the great majority of Americans) can have an important position in some investigation of the anomalous.  

Very strangely, the target of the journal's "hit piece" is Travis Taylor, someone with very strong scientific credentials. The article lists the credentials like this:

"Taylor, according to his LinkedIn profile, has five advanced science degrees, including a Ph.D. in optical physics and a Ph.D. in aerospace and engineering, and is 'currently working on advanced propulsion concepts, very large space telescopes, space-based beamed energy systems, and next generation space launch concepts.'  He has published two academic textbooks and numerous peer-reviewed papers."

The article provides no quotes by Taylor to back up or clarify its claims that Taylor "believes in the supernatural," and fails to provide any quotes by Taylor specifying what Taylor believes about causes of anomalous events.  Here is what we read in the Science article, which includes a misstatement of what Taylor said to journalist George Knapp, and a careless statement that a ranch "claims to have a history of paranormal activity," as if a ranch could talk:

"In addition to his TV work with Ancient Aliens, over the past 3 years Taylor has starred in a show called The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch. It takes place on a Utah ranch that claims to have a history of paranormal activity. Taylor told Knapp poltergeistlike entities from the ranch had followed him home to Alabama and caused mechanical mayhem. 'My car has started and stopped itself,' Taylor said. Once, after his car stuttered in his driveway, Taylor said he 'looked up and there was an odd vortex in the clouds above my house.' "

The article in the journal Science has a link to a June inverview with Travis Taylor and Knapp, who also talk to each other in the May interview you can see on this page. But it is very strange that we do not have an actual quote from Travis Taylor backing up the Science article's claim he said that "poltergeistlike entities" from the ranch had followed him home to Alabama or "caused mechanical mayhem." 

In those videos Taylor sounds very noncommittal, like someone who observed spooky things, but does not know what caused them. Taylor does not use the term "poltergeist" or "poltergeistlike" in either interview, and never states or insinuates that anything he observed had a supernatural cause.

His lack of the use of such terms should not be surprising to the reader. It is very likely that if the journal Science had a quote in which Taylor claimed that "poltergeistlike entities" from the ranch had followed him home to Alabama, the journal would have quoted that exact quote. The reason why the article in the web site of the  journal Science failed to provide such a quote seems to be that Taylor never said such a thing.  Taylor merely reported seeing strange things, without claiming to understand the source of such anomalies. 

Anyone watching the full videos (or the first season of The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch on Netflix or the History Channel) will hear Travis Taylor sounding very much like a good objective scientist. He reports carefully strange things he has seen, briefly mentions a few explanatory possibilities in a noncommittal way, and sounds like he has very much suspended judgment about the cause of the anomalies he has observed.  Taylor mentions gamma wave and microwave anomalies that have gone on when the anomalies were observed, things that have never been previously reported in connection with poltergeist activity. The journal  Science has tried to paint Taylor as some kind of weirdo true believer, but the interviews show him to be someone very noncommital with an open mind, who says "I really don't know" and "I don't know" when asked about causes, asking "Is paranormal the right way to describe this?" 

In another recent long interview about Skinwalker Ranch, Taylor claims no knowledge about causes of spooky things, and says, "I have no idea what's going on at the ranch" (1:10), and "we gotta find out what it is" (3:56), and "I don't really know what's going on" (4:22),  while briefly mentioning a wide variety of explanatory possibilities without sounding at all confident about any of them. He gives no sign in the interview of being a believer in the supernatural, but around 12:35 speaks rather warmly of an "ancient aliens" idea that is not a supernatural explanation (and has long been suggested as an alternative to supernatural explanations). 

Nowhere in the June interview that the journal Science mentions does Taylor say anything about strange occurrences in Alabama. At the 12:40 mark in the interview here, which is the May interview beween Knapp and Taylor, Taylor starts to respond to a question Knapp asks about people who have suggested that maybe there was a strange kind of "hitchhiker effect" that followed people who had been to Skinwalker Ranch : an effect in which strange things happened after they had left the ranch.  Here is exactly what Taylor says:

"Yeah, a lot of people don't want to talk about it but it's something we need to put centers on and figure out because -- Mike I live in Alabama, that's not anywhere near Skinwalker Ranch and there are instances when all the electronics in my house get fried, my car starts and stops itself. I've had my chicken coop that I had an electronic system on, I had to get rid of it because it kept opening itself and letting my chickens get out when they're not supposed to be. The biggest thing that I've seen (find) microwave signals and gamma ray signals in my house in Alabama that should not be there. So I get concerned about it. There have been some other things, but if I told you about it, you'd think I was making it up."

That's all Taylor says about this, and then the subject changes. It is untrue and defamatory for the journal Science to be summarizing this statement with the claim that "Taylor told Knapp poltergeistlike entities from the ranch had followed him home to Alabama and caused mechanical mayhem."  Taylor merely mentioned some strange occurrences, without saying anything about the cause of such occurrences, and without even claiming they were paranormal. At 9:42 in the interview here (with someone other than Knapp), when asked about the same "hitchhiker effect," Taylor again mentions some odd things occurring at his home in Alabama, but does not attribute any cause to such events, and does not claim they were paranormal or supernatural. 

At 20:16 of the long recent interview here, Taylor is asked about whether there is poltergeist activity at Skinwalker Ranch. The answer he gives is one that is the opposite of the opinions which the journal Science has attributed to him. He says this:

"I wouldn't call it poltergeist. Poltergeist is a thing where you say it's an unexplainable supernatural paranormal ghost kind of phenomena. And while there may be phenomena like that I don't believe anything is paranormal so that means it's outside normal and science couldn't explain it. I believe science can explain everything if we get smart enough to do it." 

What is going on from the journal Science seems to be journalistic malpractice of a very bad type. The article in the web site of the  journal  Science seems to have "stuck in the mouth" of Taylor some thing he did not actually say, the opposite of his actual claims, apparently as part of some kind of smear job to discredit him. At the bottom of the Science  article attacking Taylor, there is now a confession that "an earlier version of this story misquoted an email from Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough." The journal has not yet confessed that it attributed to Taylor a causal explanation of poltergeists that he did not actually make.  What the journal Science should do is to put at the end of its article a statement like this: "Correction: our article was just making things up when it claimed that Taylor said he was being followed by poltergeists."

What was going on in the journal Science smells like gaslighting, which sociologist Paige Sweet defines as "making someone seem or feel unstable, irrational and not credible, making them feel like what they’re seeing or experiencing isn’t real, that they’re making it up, that no one else will believe them.” The visual below shows two examples of gaslighting:

The visual below shows two other examples of gaslighting:

What we should always remember is that mainstream sources have very often provided inaccurate information and jaundiced journalism when covering topics of the paranormal. I suggest the following rule when reading a mainstream source discussing claims of the paranormal: do not confidently assume the accuracy of any summary of someone's beliefs or actions merely because you read it in a single mainstream source; and do not confidently assume the accuracy of any summary of that person's views that is not supported by a specific quote. 

With its attempt to tar someone as unqualified for participation in an investigation because he allegedly believes in the supernatural, without providing any proof of such belief, the hit piece in the journal Science is kind of like some article trying to drum up outrage that a position was given to an "India-sympathetic" person, an article that fails to show that the person was India-sympathetic, and also fails to explain why such a tendency should be a job disqualification. We can only wonder: what kind of bizarre reasoning was behind Science's article? The article seems to suggest if you are sympathetic to the possibility of poltergeists, then you are not qualified to be investigating UFOs. That makes no sense at all, because no one even claims that UFOs are caused by poltergeists. 

There is no sense whatsoever to the idea that an investigation of anomalous phenomena is invalid unless it is conducted by people completely skeptical about all anomalous phenomena. Such an idea does not involve any sound principle of scientific investigation.  The people who should be appointed to investigative committees are those with qualities such as honesty, fairness, objectivity, open-mindedness and perhaps knowledge of the topic being investigated (or knowledge of closely related subjects).  There is no generally recognized principle that a belief on some other topic (call it Topic X) is a grounds for excluding someone from being on some committee investigating a different topic (call it Topic Y). 

The unscrupulous zeal of the journal Science to enforce "nothing spooky allowed" ideological purity seems like a symptom of a malaise contrary to the spirit of objective scientific inquiry.