Skeptical Ignorance and Paradigmatic Smugness

If you hang around me long enough, you're eventually going to run afoul of me in the mood to talk about the paranormal.  I don't know a single living soul who is interested in the topic, so I have no outlet whatsoever for sharing my thoughts.  So people who are kind enough to not tell me to shut up and talk about something else are sometimes ambushed by an unprovoked monologue on one of those subjects. 

It makes it worse that I work in academia, where everyone has an advanced degree and the titular attitudes are prevailing.  Working in academia also gives me a real insider's view of how many paradigms, across various fields of study, are based on supposed truisms that can't be challenged, mostly because it would threaten the careers of senior researchers in the field who collectively control funding, and thus acceptance within their discipline.  Scientists tend to be completely blind to their own unscientific (political) approaches to unconventional thinking.

I don't hold it against anyone that they don't really care about these subjects.  Why should you?  However, I do hold it against people when they ignorantly chuckle and dismiss the whole notion of cryptozoology, nonmaterial sentience, extrasensory perception, extraterrestrial visitations etc.  To put it bluntly, skepticism is idiotic.  Whether it is smart people acting stupidly, or stupid people acting stupidly, the behavior in question is the same.  It is the very antithesis of scientific thinking and embodies, ironically, the same attitudes that supported witch hunts in the 17th century. 

Skeptics are the Spanish Inquisition of the 21st century.  Luckily it is the 21st century, inquisition or not, and the worst that happens is the general public continues to ignore overwhelming evidence against prevailing scientific paradigms.  At least nobody's getting burned at the stake.  Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see how much society might change if skepticism wasn't the smug center of materialist thought, keeping people warm at night 'knowing' that they are smarter than others for defending the academy against evidence that won't fit into preconceived molds. 

A skeptic, by definition, is not open-minded. They absolutely refuse to follow the evidence wherever it leads (the hallmark of actual scientific thought). The skeptic starting position is that anything paranormal is impossible according to broad scientific consensus (not true), and then refuse to look at any evidence that cannot be easily applied toward debunking. Along the way they'll undoubtedly quote fellow skeptics, some of whom are experts in a given field, but who are likewise completely unwilling to look at the actual evidence in question. They dismiss it out of hand because it "can't be." Professional skeptics, like Michael Shermer and Benjamin Radford, are the absolute epitome of this approach. And I hate to say it, but if you are an approving reader of Skeptic Magazine, or any of its ilk, you're tacitly admitting that you don't want to think for yourself, and would prefer to not be bothered by anything that might disturb your personally created view of reality.


So feel free to continue not caring.  I see no compelling reason why anyone must be interested in the paranormal.  But be forewarned, if you ever hear someone talking about ghosts, bigfoot, or bug-eyed aliens, and your inclination is to say, "But everybody knows that ______ isn't real,"  then you've basically painted a big sign above your head that says in big block letters, "I have no clue what I'm talking about."  In many crowds, such signs are a highly fashionable status symbol, but it doesn't change what the sign means.

If you do ever have the urge to do a little investigating, here's what to do: 1.Empty your mind of preconceived answers, 2. Keep your B.S. detector on full alert, 3. Read primary sources.  Most people are aware that numbers one and two are a good idea.  Most people don't know what number three even means.  It means that you don't get your information summarized by Time Magazine, the internet, or especially those supposedly neutral defenders of the institution, like Scientifc American (or tabloids, if that's what you're thinking).  You go and read the actual article/book/monograph/whatever, written by the original researcher, that lays out the evidence for or against a proposition.  No filters, no mediating and biased interpreters, just you evaluating the credibility of a person's research without anyone to jump out and say, "you can't believe that!  Smart people don't believe in such things!"  This approach takes a lot of work, which is why most people are content with what the media spoon feeds them (sympathetic media spoon-feeding included). 

In summary, don't feel attacked if you just don't know and just don't care.  Agnosticism is the only rational starting point for any opinion.  And everybody's ignorant about something - it might as well be something you're indifferent about.  But please, please, please, don't be that pathetic tool who tries to look smart by attacking viewpoints that he/she knows nothing about beyond what they've seen on TV. 

End rant . . . for now.  I'd be happy to give my opinions on particular issues in the future - some believing and some disbelieving.  But only if people seem to actually be interested.  The most powerful weapon in the skeptic arsenal is to label people with unconventional beliefs as tin-foil-hat-wearing loonies.  I'd rather not open myself up to that without a reason.