http://www.news3news.com/wpo4.html

http://www.channel7daily.com/

You may notice that every link you click on takes you to the same product page, regardless of whether you want to check the latest hockey scores or the local weather. This is known as a microsite or landing page. It’s a pretty common practice to have ads pointing to such pages so that companies can market their products in a more enticing way than a puny banner ad allows. Most of the time landing pages present clearly branded messaging so you know you have clicked on the correct ad.

In the case of the examples above, the landing pages offer testimonials for products that shouldn’t exist yet and try to convince visitors to click on links to “free trials.” Clicking on these links will result in the actual product page. And then the fun begins.

The site that the faux news article takes you to (http://www.antioxwine.com), actually claims in the fine print on the Terms and Conditions page that the product it is selling may do nothing for you at all (although they have complete faith in it):

“D. We do not warrant or represent that Our Products will provide You with any particular benefits, or that Your results will match those of others who consume Our Products. Individual results will vary from person to person.”

The product page is designed very cleverly and is completely legal. It has an almost hypnotic way of advertising one product while selling visitors another by confusing them with two completely different but similar messages. It talks about Resveratrol and ResVmax, never once claiming that Resveratrol is present in ResVmax. Their actual claim is: “One pill = approx. 1000 glasses of wine,” without actually disclosing the exact ingredient they’re pumping you with at 1000 times a regular dose. There is actually no nutritional information on the site at all.

When buyers place their order they must provide their phone number, mailing address, and e-mail address. The purveyors now have enough information to pummel you with unwanted outreach. Again, in the Terms and Conditions they claim (in legalese) that they will send your information to third-party companies and offer you no opt-out preference. Most likely, they’re compiling a list of gullible people and selling it to the highest bidder to use in shady marketing schemes. If you want a lot more spam, junk mail, and intrusive phone calls, then simply buy this product!

The “free trial” will cost you a paltry $3.95 for shipping and handling, but they really start price-gouging with their opt-out ordering plan. The extremely confusing ordering policy automatically charges CAD$240 per month if you don’t contact them within 15 days of placing your free trial order.

This company is based in England, so if the order takes 16 days to arrive, you will automatically be charged $240. If you don’t contact them to cancel the order, they will continue to charge you every month.

This is a common scam, but it is worth reminding folks to always read the fine print!

The treatment most commonly associated with this issue is the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR). The furor began in 1998 after an unfortunate set of circumstances which led the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, to publish an article by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. I say ‘article’ rather than ‘research’ because the study may have had a (literally) fatal flaw – Dr. Wakefield was doing a study that was paid for by a group of parents of autistic children. These parents were looking for evidence that would aid them in a lawsuit against the makers of the MMR vaccine, which they were convinced had caused their children’s autism.

Immunization rates in Britain plummeted as a result of the article, with 25% of children not receiving the medication. A resurgence in the infection rates of these diseases followed, and in March 2006 a 13-year-old boy became the first person to die of measles in the UK in 14 years.

Since that time many of Wakefield’s collaborators have retracted their conclusions with a signed statement. The editor of The Lancet has said he never would have published the article if Wakefield’s conflict of interest had been known to him. As a result, vaccination rates in Britain have gone up to 85%. However, that is still lower than the 95% recommended by authorities as the minimum needed for herd immunity to keep those diseases at bay.

One would think that the purveyors and promoters of naturopathic medicine would be the last to accept any findings that the MMR vaccine is safe, but as skeptics we must keep an open mind to everything, and that includes giving credit where credit is due. The following can found on the web page of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine (CCNM) after searching “vaccine”:

Association of autistic spectrum disorder and the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: a systematic review.

Citation:

Wilson K, Mills E, Ross C, McGowan J, Jadad A. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2003;157(7):628-34.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence for and against the existence of an association between autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of the medical literature to identify all controlled epidemiological articles examining for an association between ASD and the MMR vaccine. We extracted data from the articles on the characteristics and objectives of the study as well as evidence of an association.

RESULTS: Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. One study found no difference in the rates of ASD and the MMR vaccine in children who were vaccinated and those who were not. Six studies examined for evidence of an increase in ASD associated with an increase in the MMR vaccine coverage, none of which showed evidence of an association. Four studies examined if a variant form of ASD was associated with the MMR vaccine, none of which showed evidence of an association. Eight studies attempted to determine if there was a temporal association between developing ASD and receiving the MMR vaccine. Of these, 1 study identified an increase in parental concern in the 6-month period following vaccination with MMR in one of its analyses. The results of all other studies showed no association between ASD and the MMR vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS: The current literature does not suggest an association between ASD and the MMR vaccine; however, limited epidemiological evidence exists to rule out a link between a rare variant form of ASD and the MMR vaccine. Given the real risks of not vaccinating and that the risks and existence of variant ASD remain theoretical, current policies should continue to advocate the use of the MMR vaccine.

This is a direct quotation from the article cited, so it doesn’t represent anything original on the part of the CCNM. It is, however, a rather powerful statement when you consider who is reprinting it. We all enjoy the odd gotcha” moment, so when someone tells you that their favourite alt-med de jour is against vaccinating children, you can refer them to the CCNM and demonstrate that even they don’t buy it.

Let’s consider two well-known phenomena that skeptics are often faced with: UFOs and talking to the dead. I’ll briefly examine the approaches taken by skeptics and by our detractors.

Scenario number one: You are faced with a story regarding a UFO sighting, maybe with photographs or videos. Someone breathlessly claims that this is really weird and possibly proof of an alien spacecraft. As a skeptic you list the possible explanations for it:

1. Someone is lying, making up a story for amusement or perhaps even with a view to attaining fame and money.
2. Someone has perpetrated a hoax and the claimant fell for it. Hoaxers will fake photographs, or fly lit-up kites at night, perhaps with foil strips to show up on radar.
3. Misinterpretation of a natural phenomenon. Meteorites, bird formations at high altitude in failing light, or lenticular clouds can all be misinterpreted as UFOs.
4. Misidentification of aircraft, weather balloons, or other mechanical items.
5. Camera artefacts showing up on film — lens flare, dust, bad optics, etc.
6. Alien spacecraft that have traversed many light years to skulk around in our skies without ever landing at the U.N. building and saying, ’Want to trade us some wheat for fifty snargs of praxlebidgit?’

Of all those possible explanations, and more, what is the least likely explanation?

Scenario number two: A friend reveals that they have received some wonderful news about recently deceased Uncle Bert — he is happy in heaven, surrounded by streets of gold and trees full of fruit, and his old buddies are telling him that he really was a good golfer despite all the ribbing they gave him. Possibilities?

1. The person giving your friend the revelations is a huckster after money.
2. The person giving your friend the revelations genuinely believes in their ability to see into the mind of the deceased and likes to make people feel better by revealing what they believe they can see.
3. The person really can talk to the dead, despite zero evidence of souls or life after death.

Again, what is the least likely of these possible explanations?

But a proper skeptic doesn’t stop there. In many cases Occam’s razor may tell us which is least likely, but it does not tell us which is the most likely. Therefore we are required to examine all of the possible explanations, giving equal weight to the evidence for all and eliminating, provisionally, explanations for which there is a lack of evidence.

Many of us know of the famous exposé of evangelist and faith healer Peter Popoff by skeptic James Randi. Despite the fact that Popoff was proven with evidence to be a fraud, many people stood by him, claiming that Randi was an agent of satan or simply had a vendetta against religion. Their minds were closed to any possibility other than the miraculous.

In 1976 the Viking mission to Mars took photographs of the planet’s surface. Among these photos were those of a rock formation that bore a remarkable resemblance to a human face. Immediately many people jumped to one conclusion: this was an artificial structure built by an intelligent civilization. Examination with a skeptical eye revealed many problems with that hypothesis (calling it such probably gives it more credit than it deserves, but I digress).

Pareidolia notwithstanding, higher-resolution photos taken by recent probes have shown it to be nothing unnatural at all. But this has not dissuaded the thousands who still hold fast to their belief that NASA and all the people working for it are engaged in a vast cover-up. They scoff at the skeptics and deride us for being — yes — closed-minded.

In each of these cases the skeptics are closed-minded for looking at many possibilities and the deriders are open-minded for allowing only one? One for which there is less or no evidence?

A skeptic is required by scientific curiosity, investigative rigor, and intellectual honesty to consider all eventualities before reaching a provisional conclusion — provisional because one must always be open to new evidence.

No, skeptics are not closed-minded, and we must stand up to those who claim otherwise. Skeptics are in fact more open-minded than others because we are willing to consider and investigate all possible explanations and evidence.

Open your mind with a healthy dose of skepticism.

But modern skepticism demands that we question what we are asked to believe or to practice. It demands we base our beliefs and practices on the best available evidence, and be prepared to give these up when they are shown to be unsupported or are surpassed by better supported alternatives. In short, it considers the world scientifically.

Critical inquiry can be applied to all matters of life from the most mundane (what brand of detergent should I buy?) to the most profound (is there a purpose to life?). In practice however the skeptical movement has focused on paranormal claims and pseudoscience. This is what modern skeptics have become best known for dealing with.

To get an idea of what modern skepticism is about, let’s look at some of the interesting issues skeptics have addressed. The subjects that skeptics have investigated can be divided into two main groups:

A. PARANORMAL BELIEFS AND PRACTICES

Paranormal means “beside the normal” or “parallel to the normal reality”. It includes phenomena that are supposedly supernatural and are held to be unexplained by science — sometimes even unexplainable by science. Examples, in no particular order:

Ghosts • Astrology • Fortune telling • Psychics • Faith healing • Dowsing • Communication with the dead • Crystals • Spoon bending • Channelling • Past lives • UFOs • Alien abductions • Clairvoyance • Auras • Telekinesis • Bermuda Triangle • Weeping statues • Shroud of Turin • Nostradamus • Near-death experiences • Astral projection • Pyramid Power • Bible Code • Effect of the full moon • Prophecies • Tarot cards • Psychic detectives • Mediums • I Ching • Fairies • Atlantis • Palm reading • Crop circles • Psychic surgery….

B. PSEUDOSCIENCE

“Pseudo” means fake, so this category is about fake science — things that have been given an aura of scientific legitimacy but nonetheless are unscientific, illogical, or not supported by the evidence:

Parapsychology • Homeopathy • Naturopathy • Iridology • Creationism • Cryptozoology (Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Nessie) • Recovered memory • Facilitated communication • Chiropractic • Aromatherapy • Velikovsky • Perpetual motion machines • Graphology • Ancient astronauts • Spontaneous human combustion • Biorhythms • Iridology • Therapeutic touch • Face on Mars • Moon landing myth • Reflexology….

Some of these items, such as UFO claims and Nessie sightings, can straddle both categories, depending on how they are being put forward. Some UFO buffs, for example, claim that the unidentified flying objects are extraterrestrials visiting earth in spaceships, which may be a dubious claim but is at least scientifically possible and empirically verifiable, while others hold that UFOs are psychic manifestations, which puts them in the paranormal camp.

Then there are some things that do not easily fall into either the paranormal or pseudoscience camp.

C. GREY AREAS

In this miscellaneous category we can lump phenomena that are not necessarily paranormal or pseudoscientific but have been scrutinized by skeptics, as well as issues about which skeptics as a group are undecided whether they should come under scientific examination. Examples:

New science • Religious claims • Cults • Hypnosis • Assassination conspiracies • Psychoanalysis • Psychotherapeutic drugs • Political claims • Effects of prayer • Holocaust denial • Racism • Cold fusion • Placebo effects • Life after death • Morality….

According to some skeptics, such as myself, every belief or practice faced by human beings can and should be subjected to critical scrutiny. Other skeptics make exceptions for experiences that they consider outside the empirical sphere, such as religious experiences or moral questions.

In either case, we generally restrict our inquiry to claims that are testable. It is difficult to see, for example, how we could test the hypothesis that a Supreme Being exists, although we can certainly examine evidence that is put forward to support the claims for the existence of a god.

Whether or not we can find conclusive evidence for or against all claims, we can at least seek whatever evidence is available to help inform our decision making. That’s the skeptical approach.

Since the founding of CSICOP in 1976, and with the growing number of localized skeptical groups, the skeptic finds more ways to state his or her case. The broadcast and print media, along with other forums, provide more opportunities for us to be heard. For some of these occasions, we have the luxury of carefully planning and crafting our response, but most of the time we have to formulate our response on the spot. Regardless of the circumstance, the critic’s task, if it is to be carried out properly, is both challenging and loaded with unanticipated hazards.

Many well-intentioned critics have jumped into the fray without carefully thinking through the various implications of their statements. They have sometimes displayed more emotion than logic, made sweeping charges beyond what they reasonably support, failed to adequately document their assertions, and, in general, have failed to do the homework necessary to make their challenges credible.

Such ill-considered criticism can be counter-productive for the cause of serious skepticism. The author of such criticism may fail to achieve the desired effect, may lose credibility, and may even become vulnerable to lawsuits. However, the unfavorable effects have consequences beyond the individual critic, and the entire cause of skepticism suffers as a result. Even when the individual critic takes pains to assert that he or she is expressing his or her own personal opinion, the public associates the assertions with all critics.
During CSICOP’s first decade of existence, members of the Executive Council often found themselves devoting most of their available time to damage control—precipitated by the careless remarks of a fellow skeptic—instead of toward the common cause of explaining the skeptical agenda.

Unfortunately, at this time, there are no courses on the proper way to criticize paranormal claims. So far as I know, no manuals or books of rules are currently available to guide us. Until such courses and guide books come into being, what can we do to ensure that our criticisms are both effective and responsible?

I would be irresponsible if I told you I had an easy solution. The problem is complicated, and there are no quick fixes, but I do believe we all could improve our contributions to responsible criticism by keeping a few principles always in mind.

We can make enormous improvements in our collective and individual efforts by simply trying to adhere to those standards that we profess to admire and that we believe that many peddlers of the paranormal violate. If we envision ourselves as the champions of rationality, science, and objectivity, then we ought to display these very same qualities in our criticism. Just by trying to speak and write in the spirit of precision, science, logic, and rationality—those attributes we supposedly admire—we would raise the quality of our critiques by at least one order of magnitude.

The failure to consistently live up to these standards exposes us to a number of hazards. We can find ourselves going beyond the facts at hand. We may fail to communicate exactly what we intended. We can confuse the public as to what skeptics are trying to achieve. We can unwittingly put paranormal proponents in the position of underdogs and create sympathy for them, and, as I already mentioned, we can make the task much more difficult for the other skeptics.

What, then, can skeptics do to upgrade the quality of their criticism? What follows are just a few suggestions. I hope they will stimulate further thought and discussion.

1. Be prepared.

Good criticism is a skill that requires practice, work, and level-headedness. Your response to a sudden challenge is much more likely to be appropriate if you have already anticipated similar challenges. Try to prepare in advance effective and short answers to those questions you are most likely to be asked. Be ready to answer why skeptical activity is important, why people should listen to your views, why false beliefs can be harmful, and many similar questions that invariably are raised. A useful project would be to compile a list of the most frequently occurring questions along with possible answers.

Whenever possible, try your ideas out on friends and “enemies” before offering them in the public arena. An effective exercise is to rehearse your arguments with fellow skeptics. Some of you can take the role of the psychic claimants, while others play the role of critics. Also, for more general preparation, read books on critical thinking, effective writing, and argumentation.

2. Clarify your objectives.

Before you try to cope with a paranormal claim, ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish. Are you trying to release pent-up resentment? Are you trying to belittle your opponent? Are you trying to gain publicity for your viewpoint? Do you want to demonstrate that the claim lacks reasonable justification? Do you hope to educate the public about what constitutes adequate evidence? Often our objectives, upon examination, turn out to be mixed. Also, especially when we act impulsively, some of our objectives conflict with one another.

The difference between short-term and long-term objectives can be especially important. Most skeptics, I believe, would agree that our long-term goal is to educate the public so that it can more effectively cope with various claims. Sometimes this long-range goal is sacrificed because of the desire to expose or debunk a current claim.

Part of clarifying our objectives is to decide who our audience is. Hard-nosed, strident attacks on paranormal claims rarely change opinions, but they do stroke the egos of those who are already skeptics. Arguments that may persuade the readers of the National Enquirer may offend academics and important opinion-makers.

Try to make it clear that you are attacking the claim and not the claimant. Avoid, at all costs, creating the impression that you are trying to interfere with someone’s civil liberties. Do not try to get someone fired from his or her job. Do not try to have courses dropped or otherwise be put in the position of advocating censorship. Being for rationality and reason should not force us into the position of seeming to be against academic freedom and civil liberties.

3. Do your homework.

Again, this goes hand in hand with the advice about being prepared. Whenever possible, you should not try to counter a specific paranormal claim without getting as many of the relevant facts as possible. Along the way, you should carefully document your sources. Do not depend upon a report in the media either for what is being claimed or for facts relevant to that claim. Try to get the specifics of the claim directly from the claimant.

4. Do not go beyond your level of competence.

No one, especially in our times, can credibly claim to be an expert in all subjects. Whenever possible, you should consult appropriate experts. We, understandably, are highly critical of paranormal claimants who make assertions that are obviously beyond their competence. We should be just as demanding on ourselves. A critic’s worst sin is to go beyond the facts and the available evidence.
In this regard, always ask yourself if you really have something to say. Sometimes it is better to remain silent than to jump into an argument that involves aspects that are beyond your present competence. When it is appropriate, do not be afraid to say “I don’t know.”

5. Let the facts speak for themselves.

If you have done your homework and have collected an adequate supply of facts, the audience rarely will need your help in reaching an appropriate conclusion. Indeed, your case is made stronger if the audience is allowed to draw its own conclusions from the facts. Say that Madame X claims to have psychically located Mrs. A’s missing daughter and you have obtained a statement from the police to the effect that her contributions did not help. Under these circumstances, it can be counter-productive to assert that Madame X lied about her contribution, or that her claim was “fraudulent.” For one thing, Madame X may sincerely, if mistakenly, believe that her contributions did in fact help. In addition, some listeners may be offended by the tone of your criticism and become sympathetic to Madame X. However, if you simply report what Madame X claimed, along with the response of the police, you not only are sticking to the facts, but your listeners will more likely come to the appropriate conclusion.

6. Be precise.

Good criticism requires precision and care in the use of language. Because, in challenging psychic claims, we are appealing to objectivity and fairness, we have a special obligation to be as honest and accurate in our own statements as possible. We should take special pains to avoid making assertions about paranormal claims that cannot be backed up with hard evidence. We should be especially careful, in this regard, when being interviewed by the media. Every effort should be made to ensure that the media understand precisely what we are and are not saying.

7. Use the principle of charity.

I know that many of my fellow critics will find this principle to be unpalatable. To some, paranormalists are the “enemy,” and it seems inconsistent to lean over backward to give them the benefit of the doubt, but being charitable to paranormal claims is simply the other side of being honest and fair. The principle of charity implies that, whenever there is doubt or ambiguity about a paranormal claim, we should try to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the claimant until we acquire strong reasons for not doing so. In this respect, we should carefully distinguish between being wrong and being dishonest. We often challenge the accuracy or the validity of a given paranormal claim, but rarely are we in a position to know if the claimant is deliberately lying or is self-deceived. Furthermore, we often have a choice in how to interpret or represent an opponent’s arguments. The principle tells us to convey the opponent’s position in a fair, objective, and non-emotional manner.

8. Avoid loaded words and sensationalism.

All these principles are interrelated. The ones previously stated imply that we should avoid using loaded and prejudicial words in our criticisms. We should also try to avoid sensationalism. If the proponents happen to resort to emotionally laden terms and sensationalism, we should avoid stooping to their level. We should not respond in kind.

This is not a matter of simply turning the other cheek. We want to gain credibility for our cause. In the short run, emotional charges and sensationalistic challenges might garner quick publicity, but most of us see our mission as a long-term effort. We would like to persuade the media and the public that we have a serious and important message to get across, and we would like to earn their trust as a credible and reliable resource. Such a task requires always keeping in mind the scientific principles and standards of rationality and integrity that we would like to make universal.

The top two in my experience are (1) “Skeptics don’t believe anything” and (2) “Skeptics think they know everything”. Strangely, these charges often come from the same sources.

The second charge, that we think we know everything, is often put in different words — that we are close-minded to other points of view. That we think our philosophy and methods have provided all the answers.

Well, let me make a tiny confession. We are close-minded at times. We do display blind faith in our methods at times. Sometimes we do think we know it all.

But when we act like this, we are not being very good skeptics. We are human and fallible and sometimes we get carried away. But our skepticism does not support this kind of mentality.

For there is a single answer to both misconceptions. Modern skepticism of the kind that Ontario Skeptics Society for Critical Inquiry (OSSCI) is based on is not about having a set of beliefs. There is no creed or platform or party line that one must swear allegiance to in order to be a skeptic. There is only a method. And that method is one of doubting and of evaluating evidence, of critically examining whatever are put forward as beliefs to believe or practices to practise.

Believers all

Many skeptics do indeed feel there is sufficient evidence and reason to justify believing in a wide variety of things. I doubt there is a single skeptic who does not believe in hundreds of things. You’ll find skeptics who believe in God while others are atheists. You’ll find skeptics who believe the universe is teeming with extraterrestrial life and you’ll find a few like me who are doubtful there is much other technologically advanced life in the universe. You’ll find a variety of political beliefs and diverse opinions on social issues held by individuals in OSSCI.

There are also many other mundane beliefs that people need to hold to get through every day. We believe gravity will continue to operate, our shoes are where we left them when we took them off last night, and our loved ones have not been replaced by ingeniously devised identical cyborgs. Some of us even hold such strange beliefs as that the Toronto Maple Leafs will win the Stanley Cup this year (as we have believed for many years past).

Now, it’s true you won’t find many skeptics who believe that aliens created crop circles, that Bigfoot exists, that tumours are cured by psychic surgery, or that John Edward really relays messages from the dead.

But the reason why you won’t find skeptics believing these is not that these beliefs are prohibited by some OSSCI central committee. Rather it is because there is a great deal of hard evidence and reason discrediting those beliefs, which skeptics have considered. If someone has some new evidence or reasons for supporting those beliefs or practices, then we would love to see it and, who knows, it might convince the skeptics.

You see, while modern skepticism does not entail any particular beliefs, it is an approach that can and does lead to beliefs. You might say there is this one requirement for membership in OSSCI, although “requirement” is perhaps too strong a word: what skeptics expect of each other is that they keep open minds and are prepared to consider evidence for and against.

The key words in our organization’s name are perhaps “Critical Inquiry”, which were added to take the emphasis away from “Skeptics” which has negative connotations to many people.

Skeptical of skeptics

This brings me to a third misconception or accusation I keep hearing. People ask, “Ah, but are you skeptical of skepticism?” Are we skeptical of the scientific method itself?

The answer is right in our Mission Statement. The second-last paragraph states baldly, that we are “committed to the constant evaluation of the scientific process as a method for establishing truth”.

How, you may ask, can we do this and then still support the use of the scientific method for evaluating claims of the paranormal or pseudoscience?

I think the solution to this seeming paradox is also in our Mission Statement. It is hinted at it in the quotation from Carl Sagan which accompanies the statement:

There is no other species on Earth that does science. It is, so far, entirely a human invention, evolved by natural selection in the cerebral cortex for one simple reason: it works. It is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything.

The scientific method, the approach of open-minded skepticism, is the best, most powerful, most reliable tool available. Nothing else has been so effective. Nothing has brought humanity so much understanding of the world or helped us advance as far. However, if there is something defective about this approach, we want to know, so we may improve our work. Or, even better, if there is a more effective method, again we’d love to hear about it.

I might point out how difficult this would be however. For to prove another method is more effective than science and skepticism, one would have to present a comparison of results. One would have to open one’s mind to new hypotheses, set up tests, check and double-check the test for fairness, and determine which produces the best results.

And what do you call that process?

Right, it’s science. It’s the skeptical approach and the scientific method.

Premises regarding skepticism:
A skeptic bases belief upon evidence and reason. He or she uses critical inquiry—the scientific method—to examine claimed phenomena. A skeptic holds beliefs provisionally, rather than absolutely, accepting that new evidence and reason may be found to require a revision in beliefs.

Premises regarding theism:
Belief in a god—theism—is belief in an absolute. Belief in god is also usually considered a matter of faith, rather than of the evaluation of evidence.

Conclusion:
A skeptic cannot be a theist.

Despite this logic however, many skeptics are also believers in God. Many are atheists, but not all.

How can this be so? Are the believing skeptics just bad skeptics? Or are we missing something in the logic that seems to lead to the equation skepticism = atheism?

To find an answer to this perplexing mystery, let’s look, as good skeptics do, at the evidence and reasoning concerning belief in God. We’ll start with the reasoning.

Arguments for God

Over the centuries, numerous argument have been put forward both for and against the existence of God.  Here are a few of the standard pro-God arguments:

• The cosmological argument (the first-cause argument)
• The teleological argument (the argument from design)
• The ontological arguments (arguments from being)
• The argument from perfection
• The argument from authority
• The argument from the existence of morality
• The argument from miracles
• Divine revelation
• The will to believe

Some of these arguments have had their day and have disappeared.

Others have changed their form over the years. The teleological argument we know better today as the argument from design. It holds that the world seems too well designed for having been a chance event—a superior intelligence must have designed it. This was once perceived as a very strong argument, but in the past two centuries it has been blunted by theories of biological and cosmological evolution which show that natural processes can be pretty good designers too. The argument has had to become more sophisticated in the past century and survives in two forms. On one hand, some scientifically minded believers have pointed to the fine balance of forces and precisely accurate natural laws that allow life to exist in the universe as evidence of God’s handiwork. On the other hand, we have the Intelligent Design people arguing that natural selkection  may have created some things but couldn’t have created everything we see in biology, such as the human eye, and so God must have had a hand in our creation.

All of these pro-God arguments though have been debated endlessly over the years. They all have their atheistic answers, and their counter-arguments, and counter-counter-arguments, and so on.

What has become clear though is that none of these arguments clearly carry the day. There does not seem to be an irrefutable logical case to be made for the existence of God.

Yet billions of people—including lots of very smart, logical people—have believed and continue to believe in God.

Obviously, it is not the logical arguments that convinced most of them. Have you ever heard anyone say, “I used to be a sinner, but once I heard the ontological argument, I was saved”?

Perhaps a few people have been so affected. But we can probably agree it usually doesn’t work that way. It seems unlikely to account for most believers.
These theistic arguments have been used, I submit, mainly to bolster the belief of those who already believed, or as part of the general intellectual superstructure that supports a community with an existing religious orientation.

Arguments against God

Now let’s look at some the standard arguments on the other side, the atheist side, to see if there are any knock-out arguments that compel disbelief in the existence of God:

• The problem of evil
• The problem of human suffering
• The argument from poor design
• The incompatibility of God’s attributes
• The failure of prophecies
• Scientific explanation
• Psychological explanation
• Sociological explanation

A notable feature of most such arguments is that they are generally negative. Many of them are aimed at countering already stated arguments in favour of God’s existence. Or they are trying to argue against particular kinds of gods, particular characteristics of God, or particular claims for Gods. Or they are trying to explain why people believe in God, as if that explanation invalidates the belief itself.

Again, looking over all these arguments, I seriously doubt many people have had their minds changed by them. For one thing, each of these arguments has a strong answer from the theist side, answers that even an atheist could guess at.

In my experience, these are the kinds of arguments that atheists tell each other. Atheists go on about how ridiculous it is to believe a loving God would allow children to die of horrible diseases. They rant about how both sides in wars claim God is on their side. They deride superstition and the power of churches.

But they have little success in using these points to win over believers. Rarely have I heard of a believer being turned to atheism by argument alone. Have you ever heard anyone say, “I used to go to church and worship God, but once I heard the scientific explanation of how the universe evolved from the Big Bang, I became an atheist”?

We do occasionally witness people falling away from faith because of personal disillusionment—say, for example, after the death of a child leads them to question “How could a loving god have allowed this?”. But this is usually due to a personal situation having an emotional impact on them, rather than due to the rational argument on its own changing their minds.

The never-ending story

In summary, both sides have heard all the arguments. Both sides have their answers. And almost no one is convinced to switch by the arguments alone.

I’m not saying rational arguments cannot be effective under the right circumstances. At certain historical junctures or at certain points in peoples’ lives, they may be looking for a new way to see the world. And, over time, like water dripping on a rock, some rational arguments may have a cumulative effect. But it’s usually not the rational argument itself that does all the work of sudden conversion in the examples I’ve seen.

But why is this? Why don’t these rational arguments convince people?

There are emotional, logical, psychological and sociological reasons you could put forward why reason does not prevail. But I’d like to point out another factor. One of the main reasons why logical arguments don’t work may be that the two camps—the believers and the non-believers—approach them with entirely different points of reference.

Consider an argument that is used on both sides, the First Cause argument. It often goes something like this.

Theist: If there’s no God, then what created the world? Everything must have some cause.
Atheist: But if everything has a cause and God created the world, then what caused God?
Theist: God is eternal. He has no cause.
Atheist: If God can be eternal, then the world can be eternal too. The universe can have no ultimate cause. Therefore there is no need for God as the first cause.

And so the atheists have won the debate.

Or so they think. For the funny thing is, the theists go away from this kind of argument thinking that they’ve won.

The believers don’t conceive of God as being part of everything that is the world. They see God as both outside and enveloping the world—transcending the world. So when they say everything has a cause, they don’t mean to include God in that “everything”. God is beyond causation. When you say to them that God too must have a cause, that is obviously wrong to them. And when you say the world could exist without a cause, that too is obvious nonsense. In their minds they’ve forced the atheist to retreat to a ridiculous position and thus shown atheism to be nonsensical.

Now to atheists, it seems like special pleading to say God is not part of everything that’s been created. “Everything” means EVERYTHING. When you say everything has a cause, you can’t except God, or whatever you want, from that rule. You can’t say, “God created everything but God was not created.”

But is it really so crazy to do so?

The theist’s statement is reminiscent of various paradoxes that philosophy and mathematics have had to deal with. You may have heard of the liar’s paradox or the paradox of the set that includes all sets that are not members of themselves. Another version is Bertrand Russell’s famous barber’s paradox which goes like this: A town barber puts a sign in his window boasting, “I shave all the men, and no others, who do not shave themselves.” Does the barber shave himself?

These really are difficult puzzles to sort out and have been argued about for centuries. The most widely accepted solution today, usually expressed in terms of set theory, seems to be that we cannot make such statements and expect to be able to apply them to everything. We cannot create the set of “all the men who do not shave themselves and are shaved by the barber” and then see whether the barber fits into it. Rather a set is built by grouping together certain things and then seeing what defines them as belonging to the set. This way you would never end up with such a self-contradictory set.

Returning to our theist-atheist debate, at first glance it seems that the statement “God created everything but God was not created” is a similar kind of paradox outlawed by modern set theory. One could not create a set by grouping items together and then finding the group consists of “everything and not God”. But sophisticated true believers need not be fazed by this. They can say that such a group is exactly what we have found. The modern notion of set theory could be used to support, not disprove, their claim. For we find ourselves in the world as it is, a world of everything and God. So what if this offends ultra-rationalists?

Another tact they may point out is that supposedly paradoxical statements do not create such problems in everyday life. If someone in real life (outside of Philosophy classes, that is) were to confess to me “Everything I say is a lie”, I would immediately realize they did not include that very statement in their claim. If I saw in real life such a barber’s sign as in Russell paradox, my rational world would not be rocked, but instead I’d assume that he was exempting himself from the rule. (Or that the barber was a woman, of course). Similarly when the theist says, “God created everything”, God is being excepted. God is being excepted because He is different from everything else in the universe. He is beyond natural causation.

It might also be pointed out that the believers have a slight advantage over the non-believers in resolving the first-cause debate. If there is a uncaused first cause of our world, wouldn’t it more likely be something that is very different in nature from the things in our world. If there must be an uncaused cause, would it more likely be something natural or something outside our normal reality?

Actually I would still vote for something natural, but I can see why human intuitions would favour the extra-natural solution.

The atheists cannot apply the same logic to the universe creating itself in the First Cause argument, as theists can with God creating himself, since atheists (at least the ones we are concerned about here) seek only natural causes and cannot assign characteristics beyond our rationality to the universe, as theists can with God.

You may or may not balk at this reasoning—and I don’t entirely accept it myself—but at least it shows how very problematic rational arguments can become when they deal with cosmic questions such as “how did everything begin?”, “how could something come out of nothing?”, and so on.

In any case, after the First Cause argument takes place, neither the believer nor the non-believer has convinced the other that there is or is not a God. Each is left with showing only that their side is possibly right. Neither side has demonstrated that its arguments eliminate the opponent’s position.

There are no knock-out punches. Both sides come away with thinking they’re right, or at least they could be right.

Life in the Matrix

Skeptics however rely not only on logic but also on empirical research. What we see, hear, smell, touch and taste—either directly or indirectly with instruments. In a word: evidence.

However, on the question of the existence of God, there is no evidence either way. This lack of evidence is actually the atheist’s strongest asset.

The French mathematician and astronomer Laplace is supposed to have once shown Napoleon his treatise on celestial mechanics. Napoleon noted to Laplace that in all the wheeling of planets and moons and suns, Laplace hadn’t mentioned the role of God. Laplace’s reply: “I have no need for that hypothesis.”

After all is said about God and religion and first causes and evil and morality, the bottom line is that we do not need the concept of God for any immediate practical purpose. We certainly do not need it for science at this time.

“We have no need for that hypothesis” is a perfect skeptical position that we apply to all kinds of other claimed phenomena. I have seen no convincing evidence that the Loch Ness monster exists, so I don’t believe in the Loch Ness monster. There is no evidence that aliens have abducted my neighbours, so I don’t believe my neighbours are being beamed up by ETs. Lack of evidence, plus lack of convincing argument either pro and con, should by default result in a lack of belief.

There are several variations on this position in science and philosophy, not just as applied to the existence of God but as applied to all sorts of hypotheses or claimed phenomena.

• Most people know Occam’s Razor as “the simplest answer is usually the right one”. It is also called the principle of parsimony and is better expressed as “the simplest explanation that covers all the evidence is the one that should be adopted”. The original formulation of this famous rule is that one should not multiply entities needlessly. Applying this to God, we find there is no need to introduce the entity God as this entity is not needed to explain anything. We can explain the world more simply without God, therefore we do not need God in our explanation for the world.

• “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is the famous maxim that skeptics cite. If you are presented with an extraordinary claim, according to this rule of thumb, you should demand clear evidence supporting it before you accept it. The existence of a supernatural being like God would be extraordinary some people think, so we should require very good evidence before believing such a thing. Since there is no such evidence, we should

• Logical positivism and verificationism hold that only statements that are verifiable by appeal to either experience or reason are meaningful and therefore worthy of consideration. No statement about the existence of God can be verified by experience or reason and therefore it is a meaningless issue.

• Falsifiability, usually associated with philosopher Karl Popper, says only claims that can in principle be found false are scientific. A theory like “Life is a dream” may be interesting but it’s not scientific because there is no way it can be proven that life is not a dream. You could say the same of the claim “There is a God”. No way to disprove it, so not a scientific issue.

But note that something else is in common to all these guidelines, which would purportedly rule out questions of God’s existence; they do not determine ultimate truth or reality. These are rules of thumb to show the likely most successful way to go about considering various claims. The guidelines do not prove anything on their own.

For instance, extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence to support them do sometimes turn out to be valid after all. Think of such great scientific advances as the Copernican system of the planets revolving about the sun, Darwin’s theory of evolution, and Einstein’s theories of relativity. These ideas all once seemed extraordinary, but in the years before the extraordinary evidence was found to support these extraordinary claims, these claims were still true, were they not? Two thousand years before Copernicus, a few individuals theorized that the earth went around the sun. They were right, of course, despite the lack of evidence to support them at the time.

Or consider string theory, the latest set of ideas being proposed to succeed relativity and quantum mechanics as the most profound explanation of how our universe works. So far there is no known test to determine whether string theory is valid. In fact—and this is disturbing—string theory may be in principle incapable of empirical confirmation. It may be impossible to test this idea about the basic structure of our physical world (although string theorists argue about this).

String theory may not only bypass the “extraordinary evidence” rule, but applying the standards of logical positivism, verificationism and falsifiability may also indicate it is meaningless or unscientific. Yet string theory must be either right or wrong. So these guidelines do not determine what is really true about the world—in this case, perhaps missing some very basic and far-reaching truths about the world.

Think of all the other things most of us believe that would not pass these tests of evidence and reason. That our loved ones love us. That it is wrong to murder our loved ones. That our loved ones, or anyone else for that matter, have minds. These are assumptions we all operate on every day, yet they have been notoriously difficult to prove by argument or evidence for several millennia.

We don’t even have a test to determine that we are not dreaming right this instant. We don’t have a test to determine our entire lives have not been illusory. Yet we tend to think that we are awake and our lives are meaningful, despite the lack of empirical evidence one way or the other.

So if science cannot present evidence for its theories about the basis of our universe’s existence and if we cannot even test the basic things we take for granted as being true every day, is it fair to demand these kind of proofs about a religion’s hypothesis about what it also considers a basic fact of our existence—namely, God as creator?

Saying we don’t need God as an hypothesis, or saying there is no evidence for His existence, is not the same as saying there is no God.

99-percent atheists

Some rational theists say the existence of God does have evidence or reason on its side, . It has passed some public or personal test for them. It is meaningful to them on some level to talk of God’s existence. God is an hypothesis they think they do need in their understanding of how the world works.

In this short space I’m not about to argue over their evidence. The fact is that, rightly or wrongly, some skeptical theists hold that such evidence exists. And this is all anyone needs to be a skeptic—to hold beliefs on the basis of evidence and reason.

Skepticism is not a set of beliefs that must be held or actions that must be taken. Skepticism is a method. Like science, it’s a time-proven approach to considering beliefs and practices. It gives people the tools to decide for themselves what to believe or not to believe, what to do or not to do.

Here’s an analogy.

Suppose someone asks you to explain what democracy in Canada means. A possible answer you might give is “Well, in Canada we get to choose who runs our government.” Another answer is, “Every few years in Canada we elect Liberals or Conservatives to form the government”.

Both of these answers may be true. But one is about the process—the method—the democratic election. The other is about a possible result of that method. For some people the democratic process leads them to certain conclusions and they vote for a particular party.

With skepticism, our method based on evidence and reason considers questions of ghosts, aliens, alternative medicine, miracles, gods, etc. Our goal is not to debunk all these claims but to consider the evidence for them. Some people using our methods come to hold very confident views on these issues. Most, if not all, of us have come to deny the existence of ghosts, for instance. Many of us have also come to disbelieve, or be confirmed in our disbelief, in gods. Others are confirmed in their theistic beliefs. But what binds us all as skeptics is the method, our acceptance of evidence and reason as an approach to all claims.

To ask “why aren’t all skeptical people atheists?” is like asking “Why aren’t all democratic people Liberals?”

As an atheist I’m willing to stay up all night arguing with fellow skeptics that the evidence and reason should lead them to disbelieve in God. But I know religious skeptics who would stay up all night to argue their side on the basis of evidence and reason too.

As a skeptic I am also aware of the inconclusiveness of arguments on both sides, as already discussed here. I am also aware of the obligation of skeptics to always keep an open mind for new evidence or reason.

For these reasons I do not consider myself a 100-percent atheist. I’m a 99-percent atheist.

Maybe 99.5 or 99.99999 percent.

(I have no way of measuring this accurately of course. Just use whatever figure you think indicates great confidence in atheism while keeping a tiny part of the mind open for potential contrary information.)

This is no different from other positions we skeptics hold on all sorts of extraordinary claims.

We’re pretty sure there is no Loch Ness monster since there is no persuasive evidence and there is lots of inductive reasoning that would make it unlikely such a creature of that size could survive in the loch. So I’m 99 percent sure (maybe 99.5 or 99.999 percent) there is no such animal. If they drain the entire loch and don’t find it, I’ll get up to as close to 100 percent sure as possible.

Have aliens ever visited earth? A more reasonable question, no evidence for it, some good arguments against it, the limiting speed of light and so on. So, maybe I’m 80 percent sure aliens haven’t visited earth.

Do aliens regularly beam up earthlings today to study their reproductive organs? A farfetched claim, no evidence for it, lots of evidence debunking such claims, lots of reasoning against it. So, 99 percent sure it doesn’t happen.

I would hope that those skeptics who believe in God also keep an open mind about what they believe, though I cannot speak for them, and that does not affect my own beliefs.

In a way, this may seem to be an escape clause for us.

Suppose today the sky should open up and God appear, revealing Himself once and for all to the world. Or suppose a group of credible scientists were to announce that looking deeply into space they have found disturbing evidence that an all-powerful intelligent being resides there and seems to be manipulating the laws of the universe.

If either of those unlikely events were to occur today, I and other atheistic skeptics would still be skeptics tomorrow. Why wouldn’t we be? We’d never said the existence of God was impossible. We’d only said there was no evidence for it and thus no reason to believe in it. Now apparently we have the evidence and thus reason to believe.

Our approach to basing belief on evidence and reason would still be valid. Our willingness to wait for evidence would have been rewarded. We could then move ahead with beliefs that were supported by the evidence.

Skepticism is not about holding a set of beliefs —“there are no aliens, there is no God, etc.”—that we defend against all contrary claims. It’s about holding provisional beliefs based on available evidence and reason.

Believers in God may meet the general requirements of skepticism by holding that beliefs should be based on evidence and reason wherever they are available.

Not that there is such a requirement or creed to which one must swear an oath of allegiance in order to be considered a member of the skeptical movement in good standing. We’re a movement to encourage widespread use of the scientific method and critical inquiry, not to demand agreement on every point on pain of excommunication.

We’re not, after all, a religion.

For research purposes, I have successfully posed as a psychic on Yahoo Voice Chat (chat.yahoo.com on the Web). Thus prepared, I was able to follow up each of the reenacted readings with a detailed analysis of Sylvia Browne’s performance, which I believe were simply cold reading.

“Cold reading” is the extraction of seemingly unknowable information by a psychic, using a variety of tricks. In the skeptical literature there are many references to cold reading, but seldom is it explained in any detail. In my opinion, the best reference is “The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading” by Ian Rowland (www.ianrowland.com), which was reviewed in the Fall 2003 edition of this newsletter.

Cold reading is not a science, so when I was describing Browne’s methods to the audience, I had to invent some of my own words. I will be using these terms here, but other skeptics may use different ones.

The psychic game

I would like to clear up a misconception about cold reading. It is not a matter of making vague statements and uttering generalities. A psychic who relies on these won’t hold on to many of his or her customers. Good cold readers have at their disposal hundreds of techniques.

In many ways, a cold reading is like a game of chess. There are opening moves and standard gambits. The gambits are especially important when the psychic does not have time to think. Also, as in chess, the psychic has to plan ahead, setting things up to score big later on, yet always having a fall-back position in case things don’t go as planned. In both chess and a well-executed cold reading, the player does not take chances without considering all of the ways that the game may proceed.

One final similarity to chess: to play the game well, you can’t panic. You have to keep a cool head, even when things are going badly. That is why most people can’t play chess competitively or do effective cold readings. You may understand the techniques fully, but actually putting yourself on the line, where you can be swatted down, is a risk that few people are willing to take.

Cold reading basics

The first term I introduced in my presentation was “the mark”, which is the psychic’s customer. The word “mark”, of course, is normally associated with confidence tricksters, but I think it is appropriate in this context.

In cold reading there are “hits” and “misses”. Most people think of a “hit” as revealing something that the psychic seemingly couldn’t have known, while a “miss” is saying something that turns out to be wrong. Those definitions are essentially correct, but incomplete.

Remember that the psychic is providing a service, and they try to give their customers what they truly want, which might be at odds with what they say they want. Professional psychics know that people who request a reading usually aren’t looking to be convinced that the phenomenon is genuine. On the contrary, the mark will work very hard to avoid exposing the psychic.

For example, in one experiment I logged into the Yahoo Chat system with the intention of doing a terrible job of posing as a psychic. I made many howling errors. Yet the other people in the chat room obligingly made up excuses for me. They desperately wanted me to be the real thing. People might be asking about a dead relative, but they usually have additional needs, such as a desire for validation, absolution, or empathy. They cannot get these from somebody they believe is a fake, so they have a subconscious motivation to avoid debunking the fraud.

Because of this, what sometimes appears to be a “miss” is better described as a “no-hit”. In other words, the psychic was working towards a goal and failed. However, the customer is not disappointed. First of all, he or she has no idea what the psychic was going for. Second, the mark has a strong desire for the psychic to succeed and thus will tend to overlook mistakes. An experienced psychic like Sylvia Browne makes very few conspicuous misses, but she does get plenty of “no-hits”.

Another important concept in cold reading is “repackaging”. A psychic will often rehash bits of the reading but put an expedient spin on it. Repackaging is usually what makes or breaks a cold reading session. An example of repackaging is when the psychic emphasizes a hit by rephrasing what was just said, taking the liberty of enhancing the performance by mixing up who said what, or what actually happened. When the mark later thinks back, they will often credit the psychic with a near miracle.

In one cold reading I did two years ago, I used repackaging to convince a woman that I had told her precisely what she had dreamed the previous night. What I actually did was alter her recollection of what had occurred. If you were to ask her today what I did, it’s quite likely that she would have a vivid and detailed memory of something that never happened. (To learn more about the malleability of memory, a good place to start is by searching the Web for “Elizabeth Loftus”.)

In addition to hits, there are what I call “magic hits”. Occasionally the psychic will take a risk, saying something that can result in a potentially embarrassing miss. If the psychic is successful, the mark will be extremely impressed. If the psychic fails, though, he or she will have to go into “damage control”. This can involve repackaging what was said, or refocusing the mark on something else — in short, anything to get the mark to forget the miss and move on.

Damage control sometimes requires some very fast thinking, but there are plenty of standard fall-back positions. For example, the psychic can insist that he or she is correct, but the mark has forgotten, doesn’t know, or will soon find out.

Are any psychics genuine?

You will note that I tend to use the word “psychic” as if it meant “charlatan”. Is it possible that some people genuinely have psychic abilities such as are claimed by Sylvia Browne and John Edward? I consider this highly unlikely.

Psychics claim to have access to the collected wisdom and intelligence of everybody who has died, and various spirit beings as well, yet they have never produced a single invention, or cure, or scientific insight. It’s hard to see how the entire population of the dead, which includes such notables as Galileo and Newton, have failed to come up with at least one revolutionary idea — especially considering that we’re told they are happy and no longer have any worries.

Incidentally, after a local newspaper interviewed me about psychics, a woman phoned to inform me that she was in daily communication with Albert Einstein. I said that this was wonderful news, and asked her what new discoveries he had made. She responded that Albert felt guilty about the atomic bomb and thus was no longer interested in physics! He did, however, pass along the message that we should all love one another. I can’t disagree with that.

People do occasionally have astonishing insights and make amazing predictions. For example, I predicted in public that the Blue Ghost Tunnel (described elsewhere in this issue) would be sealed up this summer. Lo and behold, this is indeed what happened.

Does that mean that I am a true psychic? No. What I just did was repackage the truth. What I actually said was that I considered it likely that this would happen. It was an educated guess, not a definite prediction. However, if I was a self-promoting psychic like Sylvia Browne, I might have overlooked that fine distinction.

What about people with astonishing insights? Well, I’ve never been convinced that ESP (Extrasensory Perception) exists, but I do believe in what I call XP. No, not the Windows operating system, but something I call Extraordinary Perception. I invented this term back in the 1970′s after I met a woman who could, as the expression goes, “read people like a book” simply by watching them in social situations. She never claimed to be psychic; she simply said that she paid attention.

I sometimes wonder how many people think they are receiving information from the Great Beyond when they are, in fact, using their innate capabilities.

Where’s the harm?

Some people may ask, “What harm do psychics do?” They figure that psychics actually do some good, by helping people get over their grief. Well, when people say that to me I ask: who gave the psychic permission to tell someone how they should remember somebody they cared about deeply? The psychic is altering the legacy of the beloved. In a way, it’s as if they are spray-painting that person’s grave stone. It strikes me as a particularly egregious form of vandalism.

There’s another problem. What happens to those people who believed the psychic, but eventually realize that it was all a trick? Now they have to go through the grief all over again. What’s more, they no longer know what to believe, and their memory has been tainted. Because of the psychic, the person has to endure another funeral, so to speak.

The final problem I have with psychics is that they are pitching a lie about the way the universe actually operates. I happen to believe that the truth is always better than a lie in the long run. Imagine what hospitals would be like if we still believed that disease was caused by evil spirits!

Although my objections are philosophical, I also feel a sense of moral outrage. I see these psychics as con-artists, turning grief into money.

Conclusion

Next time you watch a psychic perform, you may not be able to figure out every trick they pull. Sometimes they may even do something so amazing that you will be utterly baffled. Remember, though, that some of these people have been doing this for decades. They are master illusionists and we can grudgingly acknowledge that they are highly skilled at what they do. So it’s not surprising that we can’t explain every deception.

Incidentally, nothing that Sylvia Browne did in her readings on the Larry King show struck me as particularly clever. The only thing that mystifies me is how she can live with her conscience.

There is a curious fact that I’ve never seen stated in quite the way I’m about to say it: “Skeptical magicians hate real magic.” This may sound a bit like an oxymoron. However, skeptical magicians have a deep respect for the scientific method, born largely of their keen appreciation for the difference between reality and outright fantasy. After, all, fantasy-making is their business! As a result, they don’t appreciate quack-pretenders claiming to have a divine gift to perform “real” magic (a claim legitimate conjurers never make), and so they hate to see people conned in this way.

As a lifetime practitioner of performance magic myself (hereinafter called “conjuring”), the art of fooling people has taught me that we cannot always believe our senses. I have always marvelled at the incredible capacity of the human mind to be to be positively stimulated by phenomena that appear to defy common sense. Conjuring is the art of stimulating the senses through visual phenomena that challenge our preconditioned ideas about how the world works. I use the term “conjuring” because the word cannot be confused with popular ideas of what “magic” is supposed to be about, from witches to fantasy novels to religious miracles – and more.

Magicians, by virtue of their many years of training in the art of deception, realize that what we see and hear is not always what it appears to be. But it goes much deeper than this. The paranormal con artist tricks people into believing unproved notions by the clandestine employment of emotional appeal and convoluted logic. They prey upon our fears, our innate gullible nature, and our preconditioned beliefs. Conjuring involves a multi-faceted strategy of disciplines. Falling loosely under the heading of “misdirection”, these techniques of persuasion (to make you believe the impossible), include entertaining falsehoods (statements that mislead); visual strategies to distract your attention (look here! not there!—or if you will, sleight-of-hand); and conjuring props that contain ingeniously-engineered optical principles to fool the eye (and consequently, the mind).

Like the magician, the paranormal charlatan’s deceptions involve similar forms of misdirection. But unlike the innocuous magician interested only in entertaining you, the psychic misdirects his or her audience in order to convince them that they are witnessing inexplicable miracles of the paranormal or supernatural kind. They then attempt to persuade you by cleverly fogging your logical faculties with methods such as cold reading; uncertainty of results; appeals to sympathy; and flattery.

The charlatan also relies on projecting a charismatic image of authority. This involves seeking out uncritical coverage by the media; publishing self-promotional websites; and authoring books and newspaper columns. The bigger the reputation they can develop, the easier it is for them to persuade the masses that they are truly psychic.

Magicians understand the “how and why” of this meticulously engineered promotional process. They know how the right kinds of marketing can convert a budding psychic into a media-savvy, million-dollar superstar. They also understand how this can lead to the creation of “wonder workers” with egos bigger than Mount. Rushmore. Among the religious tricksters such as certain powerfully-influential televangelists, the messiah complex can run deep.

The psychology of misdirection also shows the magician how we can be easily sidetracked by false explanations. If we can be fooled by David Blaine’s relatively simple card or coin tricks (for the methods of conjuring, however subtle and ingenious, are nearly always simple), how easily might we be taken in by the apparently authoritative claims of a famous psychic, given that millions of people already believe and worship at their feet?

You may be thinking that I view myself and all other magicians as above the fray. As a legitimate entertainer who performs simulated magical effects with no agenda to deceive people in a spurious or pernicious manner, I can say: it isn’t so. As an unabashed atheistic skeptic, though, I do take a jaundiced view of those in the profession of magic who promote Christianity by illustrating parables and general religious messages with tricks of the trade.

Most of my fellow atheistic conjurers feel this somewhat bastardizes the noble art of magic. It puzzles us to see certain conjurers of a religious persuasion – the ones who proudly call themselves “gospel magicians”—into churches and perform “secular miracles” as a way of dispensing a religious message, purportedly in the name of God. We find this a jarring juxtaposition, and as you can clearly see here, some of us have difficulty coming up with adequate words to elucidate our consternation. A little sugar helps the medicine go down, as they say, but is it not a just a little insulting for adults to see their religion proselytized with a magic act?

What this has taught me is that you cannot paint all skeptical magicians with the same brush. There are those within the skeptical community who believe that all phenomena that appear to contradict scientific discovery to date – including religion – should be subjected to the axe of logical inquiry. Religious skeptics and agnostics sympathetic to the sanctity of religious belief, take an opposing view. What this tells us is that both opinions must somehow be accommodated within the skeptical movement; and magicians are just as much a part of both schools of thought as anyone else.

We all know about the magicians who have become conscientious crusaders for the cause of rationality. This has raised the profile of magicians among skeptics, with the latter assuming that the magicians are bastions of skeptical thought and scientific inquiry. Let me set the record straight: magicians who write for skeptical magazines and give lectures and demonstrations that promote scientific rationality constitute a small minority within the magic community. My guess is that probably less than 1% of the magicians working today involve themselves in what should be thought of as an extra-curricular activity, the promotion of skepticism and free inquiry. The visible profile these few magicians have attained within the skeptical community, spearheaded by one of the most celebrated of the lot, James Randi, can give the erroneous impression that magicians, in the main, are free thinkers of the highest calibre. It isn’t necessarily so. Magicians come from all walks of life, and so their interest in skeptical causes is no more prevalent than that of the general public at large.

However, it can also be over-stated. Magicians can be made to look like highly gullible rubes, as illustrated in the weirdly vindictive essay by George P. Hansen, entitled, “Magicians Who Endorsed Psychic Phenomena” (www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/MagWhoEndors.htm).

As a practicing wonder-worker (mostly for children and family audiences) I learned about the powerful psychological effects magic can have on those not versed in the art. It showed me how easy it is to fool people into believing almost anything, including the paranormal demonstrations of fraudulent psychics and mediums. The psychology of deception between the two camps (i.e. conjurers and psychics) is a close one – so close in fact, that when self-proclaimed mediums or psychics discover they are in the company of James Randi or another skeptical magician, they often mysteriously lose their ability to read people’s thoughts, talk to the dead, or bend physical objects with the power of the mind alone. They don’t want to be found out and exposed by people intimately familiar with their methods!

Some psychics will go to any lengths to convince you of the efficacy of mind reading, psychokinesis, or communication with dead. They will even resort to the employment of recognizable conjuring (or “mentalism”) techniques.

There are, for example, dozens of visually convincing ways to magically bend a spoon (the trick popularly associated with Uri Geller), all invented by enterprising magicians. If a psychic wants to mutilate kitchen silverware, or car keys, or a large nail, then magic dealerships around the world will be happy to sell them the means to do so. (Geller, by the way, started out as a magician in Israeli nightclubs.)

Even when magic’s secrets are revealed in national magazines or on television—which has happened often throughout the last century and continues today – the same tricks can be applied in a “spiritual” or “psychic” context and the public will still be fooled. Simulated psychic phenomena using conjuring principles are all but immune to exposure in the hands of the skilled practitioner. People who desperately want to believe in the paranormal manifest credulity akin to self-hypnosis that overrides their capacity for logical analysis. There is a fine line between the legitimate mentalism performed as harmless entertainment, and the more virulent pseudo-psychic persuasion that robs people of their cash, their dignity, and even their common sense.

The so-called ethics of psychic entertainment are not clearly delineated. There have been many disagreements within the magic community about what constitutes legitimate mentalism and what crosses over the line into unethical practices. There is a group calling itself the Psychic Entertainers Association (www.p-e-a.org), and while it is largely a legitimate organization concerned with entertainment, its members are not fully in agreement when it comes to defining ethics within their profession. While some magicians are true skeptics, still other magicians despise these critics in their ranks, referring to them disparagingly as “party spoilers”.

We all know skeptic crusader-and-magician James Randi is openly displeased by the shenanigans of Uri Geller (who claims offstage to have genuine paranormal powers). But some mentalists—and even some disgruntled magicians—think Geller is a marvellous performer and a self-promotional genius. They don’t think very highly of Randi for criticizing Geller. Does Randi have enemies within the field of magic? Hey, does Sylvia Browne make promises she can’t – or won’t – keep?

These are strange times we live in. Dozens of psychic charlatans and crackpot mediums have become famously wealthy by scamming the public, by writing wildly successful books, and by appearing on endless radio and television programs with total impunity. Society and the media doesn’t just tolerate this behaviour, they actually promote it! Honest psychic entertainers, on the other hand, choose to follow the good path, while disavowing any claim to being truly psychic. Unfortunately, some people within the magic and mentalism community observe the famous con artists as the true winners. The pressure on mentalists is then to defect from the good side and go over to what might be termed “the dark side”. A few have done exactly that.

The skeptics trying to counteract this nonsense are engaged in an uphill battle. They get very little support from the media. Since society panders to the likes of Sylvia Browne, John Edward, and James Van Praagh, these tricksters are free to sneer at the skeptics and cavalierly dismiss them, laughing all the way to the bank. Even with the combined efforts of the skeptics, the magicians, the skeptical journals, their websites, and the many supporting local skeptic organizations in cities everywhere, the effort to enlighten a scientifically-disenfranchised public (not to mention putting the charlatans out of business) sometimes seems utterly fruitless.

Let me end with a candid opinion that will probably annoy the skeptics. The battle has been solidly won—by the psychics! They have as their protective armoury the entire fabric of society. Proof of this contention is that in just about any city in North America, the self-professed necromancer, with no apparent formal training, can put up a sign on their front lawn or window advertising their psychic services. It is not against the law. They appear legally in every carnival and midway. Hundreds of newspapers feature astrology columns. Yearly predictions by the psychics in end-of-the-year newspapers are the norm. Annual Psychic Fairs abound in every city. Talk shows by the dozens feature psychics. It should be glaringly apparent to even the most ardent skeptic that the world fully supports paranormal charlatanism for the same reason it supports Halloween, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy: They don’t take it seriously. And that is the problem.

However, let me do a sudden about-face here, by asserting optimistically and boldly that all is not lost. The steady and unshakable advance of science will eventually – and inevitably – turn the tide. But that is a subject for another article.

It’s a centuries-old rule of thumb for scientists, philosophers and journalists, among others. But to explain how I hit upon it, I have to make a confession that’s embarrassing for a skeptic.

I once believed in ancient astronauts—the idea that Earth had long ago been visited by aliens and that many of the great achievements of old civilizations, like the Egyptian pyramids and Mayan art, were proof of their stay here. There was quite a craze for this theory in the 1970s with the publication of Erich von Daniken’s best-selling Chariots of the Gods. That book and others like it are still being read and believed.

For me though, the craze died in 1973 in a second-run movie house.

I was watching a documentary based on von Daniken’s books. On the screen were images of foreign-looking statues on Easter Island and animal outlines drawn on South American plains from apparent aerial perspectives. Ancient murals depicted, as the film would have it, the ETs themselves, piloting their spacecrafts. Proofs of alien presence.

And then appeared a small mysterious stone object. The film narrator suggested this could be an ancient replica of an extraterrestrial’s device, or perhaps a remnant of their spaceship.

“It’s a wrench!” called out a voice in the audience. And the theatre erupted with laughter.

The supposedly mysterious object did indeed look like a common, earthly tool, once you stopped trying to see it as a device from Betelgeuse.

After that, I viewed the rest of the film more skeptically, noting that elaborate stories were being concocted at every turn to fit everything into the gods-from-space hypothesis, when simpler and more likely explanations were always available.

This was my practical introduction to the principle of parsimony. The principle is more commonly known as Ockham’s Razor and it states the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts is usually the right one. Even more commonly, it’s the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

You already use Ockham’s Razor, whether you know it or not.

A friend is half an hour late to meet you after work. What do you do? You could call the police to report your friend missing. Or call the hospitals to see if there’s been an awful accident. Or run through the streets alerting the populace that aliens have abducted another victim.

But what you usually do is figure your friend is held up in traffic and you wait a little longer. All the explanations for your friend’s delay are at least logically possible. But you settle on the simplest explanation that fits the facts, one that doesn’t require making up esoteric scenarios.

Scientists think the same way. Faced with various hypotheses about how the earth was formed or how the pyramids were built or what killed the dinosaurs, they wield Ockham’s Razor to select the theories that cover all the facts without bringing in additional, unneeded premises or unnecessarily complicated scenarios.

Ockham’s Razor, often attributed to 14th-century philosopher William Ockham (also spelled Occam), warned that one should not multiply entities needlessly. This applies very neatly to stories of ancient astronauts, ghosts, UFOs, Sasquatch, devils and other denizens of the paranormal world. In most cases, if not all, we don’t need to postulate such incredible entities to explain the facts. We have explanations that do no not require us to multiply entities.

Does this mean we have proven these entities don’t exist? No. Ockham’s Razor does not give us proof. Too often I’ve seen skeptics act as if it does: something can be explained simply and therefore the simpler explanation (fraud, a hoax, insanity on the part of witnesses, writing off all UFO reports as marsh gas or Venus sightings without investigating the actual circumstances, etc.) is taken to be the one and only explanation. Rather Ockham and the law of parsimony give us only the most promising explanation, showing us the route most likely to lead to the actual answer — and only if that explanation covers all the known facts.

But Ockham and the law of parsimony do cast serious doubt upon the existence of such paranormal entities. It is of course remotely possible, for example, that extraterrestrials evolved and developed advanced technology on another planet, travelled light years in space to come to this planet, decided to help earthlings build monuments for purposes that remain enigmatic, departed without leaving any clear messages, and haven’t been back to work openly with us ever since. It is remotely possible. But it is much more likely that ancient peoples built their own monuments using the down-to-earth skills we know they had.

There is no reason to jump to esoteric explanations when ordinary ones already account for all the evidence.

Unless you’re writing a bestseller or making a movie.