Don’t call them ignorant
A while ago Professor Brian Cox called people who had complained to the BBC about an earlier statement he had made about ghosts a nobber. I blogged to say that if him calling the complainants ‘nobbers’ made him a nobber it also made me one too. I still think people perceived Cox as saying people who believed in ghosts were ‘nobbers’ when this isn’t what he originally said.
However, I’ve changed my mind about this whole drama. It was this blog post by Tom Williamson that sealed the deal for me.
Williamson wrote:
Science tells us that the human mind is the product of brain activity, so no living brain, no concious mind. That fact alone should make the very concept of ghosts laughable, but even if there was some sort of medium for the mind to be independent of the brain, that mind would somehow then have to manifest itself. How could a ghost appear to and communicate with someone? The list goes on, but I think I’ve made my point. I would even go so far to say that anyone who thinks that there is a possibility of ghosts existing (at least according to my above definition) is either totally ignorant of science or they lack respect for it,
Reading this it became apparent that he had missed a very important thing, and made me realise that I in turn had done the same.
People who think it is possible for ghosts to exist are not ‘totally ignorant’ of science, and their belief does not mean they ‘lack respect for it’. People who think it might be possible for ghosts to exist are generally people who have had experiences that confuse them – experiences that they cannot find a suitable answer for.
Sure, there probably is a logical explanation for it that someone else might be able to offer them, but as it currently stands for them they cannot logically explain why what they experienced happened.
This does not make them ignorant and it does not make them disrespectful. It makes them lacking a bit of information that might fit the jigsaw puzzle together for them, so to speak.
People only become ignorant or disrespectful when they constantly refuse to accept perfectly logical explanations for that which they have experienced. It’s not a bad thing to not be able to find an answer to a question. Sure it’s not perfect – but it’s not ignorant.
Of course, we also have to consider those people who have what they believe to be paranormal experiences as an symptom – those who are bereaved, those who are delusional or vulnerable, and those who have been seriously misled by people claiming to be paranormal experts.
When it comes to those who believe ghosts might exist it really isn’t a simple case of them all being ignorant of science, or indeed disrespectful of it. It’s about people having experiences they cannot explain, people interpreting things in a different way than others might, and people being convinced by the things they have witnessed.
This does not make them bad people, this does not make them people to be mocked, this does not make them ignorant, and seeing people suggest so makes me extremely angry.
It makes me feel disconnected from ‘skepticism’ as a whole, because I know those people who believe ghosts are possible. I’ve spoken to them, heard their stories, seen the terror in their eyes, and know them to be intelligent people who have come to their own conclusions about what they saw and experienced.
Sure, it might not be a logically sound conclusion, but that doesn’t make them ignorant.
I too have had experiences that I cannot explain, I have been scared silly by things for which I have no explanation. I do not conclude that those things might have been ghosts (though that possibility always sits in my mind because I’m open minded), whereas others might believe them to indeed be ghosts, but don’t call them ignorant.
8 Comments
Leave a Reply
I support…
I have friends and family who believe in ghosts. I mock them- gently I hope- but calling them ignorant would be too much! As you said there’s a vast difference between ignorance and coming to an erroneous or illogical conclusion.
I’m a bit of a hypocrite here because my blog is a bit sharp in dealing with things that I would call woo or irrational. I’m getting more and more concerned- largely since I started following your blog- that I am creating a false dichotomy where there are rational people and non-rational people. That’s obviously and demonstrably wrong- people sometimes are rational; sometimes not.
A couple of my ghost-believing family are very rational in *most* things and certainly don’t deserve the label ignorant.
“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
― Carl Sagan
Interesting post Hayley (did you make my talk at Bradford Library, by the way? I noticed you tweeted that you hoped to go).
I think one of the big problems here is that a lot of people in science tend to make unscientific statements as a convenient generalization/shorthand. So we will say ‘The universe started 13.7 billion years ago in the big bang.’ What we ought to say is ‘According to our current theories best supported by the data we have at the moment, the universe started 13.7 billion years ago in the the big bang.’
No science is ever definitive fact, it’s our best theory given the current evidence.
So, I have to say the ‘Science tells us that the human mind is the product of brain activity, so no living brain, no concious mind,’ if taken literally is rather silly science. We have no good evidence that the human mind is not a product of brain activity, but given we don’t understand the nature of consciousness it’s a big leap to say there is nothing else. Also it’s perfectly possible for there to be phenomena that will be labelled as ghosts without there being a conscious mind involved.
Good scientists should try to be careful about the way they say thing, but they tend to use shorthand that gets misinterpreted!
I didn’t make your talk, sadly
I think that you have a point regarding people who believe they have experienced a ghost first-hand. Perhaps your past experiences mean that you know more such people than the average person. I have never met anyone who has claimed to have seen a ghost but I have met those who believe due to a general willingness to accept the paranormal, including ghosts and psychics etc. A lot of these people *are* ignorant and neither care about nor know the scientific reasons for disbelieving such things.
Ignorance is not always about rejecting knowledge. It can simply be about not having that knowledge. I am a scientist and I am ignorant of much of the evidence for the Physics that underpins Brian Cox’s convictions about ghosts. I’d be surprised if even those who have had ghostly experiences and looked into it would have that knowledge. They are also ignorant.
I think the real problem is that people mentally add a prefix of “wilful” to “ignorance” and take it as an insult. As a scientist, it is my ignorance that drives my research. It is my ignorance of others’ fields that drives my collaborations. We cannot know all things about all things. We are all ignorant.
I think one of the problems here is the word “ignorant”. I think Tom meant it in the sense where if someone is unaware of something, they are by definition ignorant of it.
That’s a different thing to what I think you’re talking about Hayley, where I think the ignorance you are referring to is where people choose to ignore facts. That’s not really ignorance in the strict sense.
I know this sounds a bit nit-picky, but a lot of these issues arise when one person means one thing when they use a word and someone else uses a different definition when they hear it.
I completely agree that empathy is important when considering why people have the beliefs they do, and that name-calling doesn’t achieve anything.
“This does not make them ignorant and it does not make them disrespectful. It makes them lacking a bit of information that might fit the jigsaw puzzle together for them, so to speak.”
What do you think “ignorant” means if not “lacking a bit of information”?
Although “ignorant” may be offensive, it’s still accurate and I’m sorry, but facts (like Honey Badger) don’t care.
“Ignorant” is one of those terms that has two meanings (much like theory). In its truest form, it merely means a lack of knowledge in a certain area. In that light we are all ignorant of one thing or another. However the popular definition of “ignorant” is seen as an insult, equating it to stupid. Using the truest form, Cox is correct. However most people would perceive being called ignorant under the popular definition and feel insulted. Given that it can be a loaded term, maybe different words should have been chosen.