Faith Based Skepticism

Faith Based Skepticism Headerby Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

Faith Based Skepticism

For some time now I have pondered the dichotomy between the mission statement of scientific skepticism and its actual practice. On the one hand, a healthy dose of skepticism is essential for finding truth. However, taken to extremes, skepticism can become every bit as irrational and delusional as the faith based perspectives.

skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism  (skpt-szm) n.

1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety.

2. Philosophy

a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.

b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.

c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

There are few who would find anything objectionable with skepticism based on its definition. However, the way skepticism is actually practiced now borders on religious fervor. First, let me state, I am a devout Agnostic. A friend once defined that as being a “weak atheist.” Actually, there is a distinct difference between atheism and agnosticism. The root of “atheism” is theism. Atheism is the disbelief in gods or God and in particular God as a “personal saviour.” Agnosticism leaves that door open and is not inextricably linked to religious philosophy. The Agnostic simply says, “I do not know.”

Who Debunks The Debunkers?

Faith Based Skepticism - James Randi

The Amazing Randi

While I could certainly focus on matters of religion, the focus of this article is on the cottage industry of skepticism that has sprung up over the past few decades. One of the better known ones is the “James Randi Educational Foundation” founded in 1996. It’s expressed purpose is “to help people defend themselves against paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims.”  While this mission statement certainly seems laudable, we must remember Randi himself admits to being a cheat, trickster and a charlatan. I’m not sure if those are the best credentials for someone who purports to uncover the truth about claims of the paranormal and extraordinary.

I have followed James Randi over the years. I actually saw his appearance on the “Tonight Show” when the inimitable Johnny Carson was the host. On the night in question he was demonstrating how spoon and key bending is done and damnit if the key didn’t break. Thinking quickly he immediately stomped on the broken piece to conceal it from the audience. Of course, this was done so clumsily, everyone noticed him do it.

As a magician, Randi really isn’t all that exceptional. Thus, his foray into debunking did not come as a surprise. Not unlike the “Masked Magician” who has made his living revealing how magic tricks are done, Randi has figured out a way to generate revenue as a professional debunker. That may be his best “magic trick” to date!

Don’t get me wrong. Exposing the pariahs of society which feed like parasites on the fears and superstitions of the ignorant is a good thing. I’m all for unmasking, exposing and defaming hypocritical religions and their leaders who have turned a gullible public into their personal cash cows. I feel equally malignant towards medical quacks who are giving people false hope while looting their bank accounts. A pox on them all!

CSI – Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Faith Based Skepticism - Joe Nickell

Dr. Joe Nickell

This organization does a slightly better job at suppressing its biases.  Nevertheless, those biases are exposed by the experts they send out to speak to various issues. One such expert is Dr. Joe Nickell. I’ve seen him sent out to debunk everything from UFOs to Bigfoot to paranormal claims. He’s a credible debunker right? He does have a Ph.D after all… Yes he does! He has a Ph.D from the University of Kentucky in English with a focus on literary investigation and folklore. In other words, he’s an expert at evaluating books on the customs and myths of indigenous peoples. He does not have a background in science or the scientific methodology. His opinions on these matters is no more valid than the Janitor’s down the hall.

Occupationally, Dr. Nickell has been a carnival barker, private detective, blackjack dealer, riverboat manager and a stage magician. While he might certainly make for an interesting dinner guest, there is nothing in his background that would qualify him to speak to the matters he often is seen debunking.

What Is The Scientific Method?

Perhaps we need some clarity regarding just what the “scientific method” entails. The “Cliff’s Notes” on the scientific method or methodology are as follows:

  • Hypothesis. Your idea as to what is going on.
  • Null Hypothesis. What you should find if your hypothesis is wrong.
  • Experimental Design. The experiment you design to test your hypothesis.
  • Experiment. You run your experiment and collect your data.
  • Data Analysis. You analyze your data producing a “finding.”
  • Acceptance or Rejection of your hypothesis. Your results.
  • Repeatability. You and others should be able to follow your methodology and reproduce the same results.

In a nutshell, this is the “Scientific Method.” If I am measuring acceleration caused by gravity and drop a 2 kilogram lead ball from 10′ feet and take the measurements, I should get similar results if I perform the exact same experiment in Russia, China, Australia or Brazil. Repeatability is one of the hallmarks of the “Scientific Method.”

Faith Based Skepticism - Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann

Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann

In 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced that they had discovered “Cold Fusion.” This is nuclear fusion at room temperatures. The Sun is powered by nuclear fusion but clearly not at room temperature. It created quite a stir as you might imagine. Cheap, clean, abundant energy without the danger of nuclear radiation or radioactive waste? Oh yes, they made quite a stir. Instantly laboratories around the globe began trying to replicate their findings. Some were successful, many were not.

They were ultimately denounced and censured. Why? Well, largely because they violated the orthodoxy of the Scientific Community. There was more outrage at their violation of the orthodoxy than there was interest in what they may have discovered. According to the orthodoxy, they were supposed to have submitted their discovery for “peer review.” Instead of doing this, they published their results to the world. In typical debunking fashion, the labs that were able to replicate their experiment were largely ignored and only the labs who could not were focused on.

The result was, Cold Fusion was considered to be a hoax or an error and the public largely forgot about it. Think about what it would mean to have a small fusion reactor powering your home or your car. Not only would it mean an end to carbon emissions, all the fossil fuel industries would collapse. World poverty could be ended and the wars over oil and resources would end. The military industrial complex would go broke. We can’t have that now can we? Fortunately there have been scientist working quietly behind the scenes to realize the potentials of “Cold Fusion.” Some have been wildly successful.

The Higgs Boson Does Not Exist

Faith Based Skepticism - Large Hadron Collider

LHC – Large Hadron Collider

If we hold the discovers of the Higgs Boson – the so called “God Particle” which gives mass to all other particles – to the same standards as Pons and Fleischmann were held to, we must similarly conclude that the Higgs Boson does not exist. Why? Because you cannot replicate the experiment unless you happen to have the equivalent of the – Large Hadron Collider – LHC. Yet, scientist around the world believe that the Higgs particle has been discovered. Text books are being rewritten and this new discovery is now being factored into the mathematical equations used by physicist around the globe. Evidently, they all take it on faith!

Faith Based Skepticism - Philip J. Klass

Dr. Philip J. Klass – Member of CSI

Yes, the Scientific Community, just like any church organization, has it’s own orthodoxy, it’s own recognized Apostles – Albert Einstein for one – their own Bibles – peer reviewed journals – and they meet all the definitions of a faith based community. If one of their Apostles says that UFOs don’t exist or are not visiting Earth, they all fall in line with the orthodoxy. Never mind the reams of data, eyewitness testimony, photographs and videos to the contrary. Two old farts over in the UK are making all those crop circles around the globe.

If one of their Apostles says Bigfoot is a hoax, they all fall in line. Never mind the fact that the Roger Patterson film was never sold, nobody has yet attempted to profit off of it and if that’s a man in a monkey suit, they should have got the same fellow to make Chewbacca’s suit. We even have DNA evidence for Bigfoot. Foot prints have been found in such out of the way locations, the likelihood of anyone coming upon them would make it pointless for a hoaxer to plant them. Yet, because the orthodoxy does not accept their existence, I guess they don’t exist.

Even in the face of scientific evidence that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel – if it did, what would you make jet engines out of? – the scientific orthodoxy believes that jets brought the twin towers down on September 11, 2001. If you point out that “Building 7” was never hit by a jet this doesn’t seem to bother them. Never mind the fact that immediately following the “attacks” when the entire nation was under a “no fly order” our government was rounding up family members of Osama Bin Laden and flying them out of the country, nobody asks how or why our government was doing this when presumably they did not yet know whom they were going to blam… excuse me, whom was responsible for the attacks.

Faith based skepticism for some strange reason is rarely applied to whatever the official government approved party line is. I find that not only odd, but extremely disturbing. If we cannot rely on our Scientific community to use the tools of the Scientific Method to ferret out the truth, how are they any better than the pastor of that “mega-church” who sells heaven for a price to his gullible followers?

Evidence is always defined by the persons requiring it. _Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.