Tag Archives: Believers

Please stop calling our guests “mad”.

Be Reasonable Logo

The people we interview on the Be Reasonable podcast often share ideas and beliefs that are way out there. I get that. There are occasions during the interviews where I sit in stunned silence wondering how to proceed with the next question. It’s a bit of adventure really, because you never know what claim someone is going to come out with and me and Marsh can’t challenge them all successfully because we don’t know everything about all paranormal and pseudo-scientific subjects. This is what the show is about though, that is what is at the core of the Be Reasonable podcast; laying ideas on the table to be explored with genuine-yet-skeptical curiosity.

It isn’t everybody’s cup of tea though, and we’ve had a number of comments left in different places telling us we’re too soft on our guests, that we don’t challenge them enough, or that we’re failing as skeptics by doing so. I disagree but I do understand where these commenters are coming from with this feedback and I understand that for some people listening to our guests talk about their strange beliefs unchallenged can be a frustrating experience. We realised from the very beginning that this podcast wasn’t going to be something that everybody enjoyed, but the majority of our feedback has been positive, with many people telling us how although they find episodes difficult to listen to in places, they come away having learnt something.

I can appreciate where they’re coming from too – I can’t speak for Marsh here, but when we came away from the Episode Two interview with Michael Wilmore of the Flat Earth Society I had learnt so much that I would never have learnt otherwise. It was (and is) fascinating to learn about a particular world view I’ve never encountered before, even if it is frustrating to hear someone making what I consider to be huge mistakes with their logic…

Does that make them crazy, though? Does someone arriving at a different conclusion about a subject than you or I have make them “mad”? Not necessarily. I mean, there’s a chance that all of us could have some form of a mental health disorder to deal with at some stage in our life, and someone who believes in, say, psychics could be one of those people with such a disorder. Yet one of the first things rational thinkers learn is ‘correlation does not equate causation’, so I find it very strange to see some of our guests being referred to as ‘mad’, ‘crazy’, nutcases’, and more on a regular basis. It seems such an irrational and reactionary thing to write in response to the podcast episodes. It is also quite offensive, but more on that later.

While there are mental health disorders that cause people to think others are out to get them or that can cause people to hear voices, health disorders that cause people to hear noises or see things, and psychological conditions that can convince people they’re psychic or that they’ve been abducted by aliens, it’s important to remember that not every person who believes in such things is automatically mentally ill. So, please stop calling out guests mad?

As many readers of my blog know, I used to believe in ghosts, psychics and more. I had a really interesting experience during a seance once where I physically felt what was described as psychic energy. This experience was caused by a mixture of expectation, the power of suggestion and desperation on my part to experience something and had you spoken to me all those years ago I would have sworn on my life that I felt the psychic energy. That didn’t mean I was mad. I just came to a different logical conclusion about what I experienced than I would today.

The casual manner in which people sometimes refer to the guests of Be Reasonable as ‘mad’ or ‘crazy’ is alarming and offensive, and it’s a behaviour I would see often when I was a believer, from people who didn’t want to offer the time of day to somebody with an opposing world view to their own. Although I don’t necessarily agree with their ideas and beliefs I still have a lot of respect for all of our guests for giving up their time for what they know is a skeptical podcast, which I imagine must be a bit of a daunting thing to agree to do. These are people who don’t deserve to be belittled because their ideas aren’t mainstream…

…and even if they were dealing with a mental health problem, I don’t think that the use of words such as ‘mad’, ‘crazy’, ‘nutcase’, ‘loopy’ and so on actually adds anything to the conversation. It’s combative and dismissive language. To call someone you disagree with ‘crazy’ or ‘mad’ is  hugely insensitive and stigmatizing too.

So, please stop calling our guests mad.

flattr this!

Posted in: Musings, Skepticism / Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

When skepticism is off target

a target graphic, similar to that of a guns cross hairs.

*update* Just to clarify, the Burzynski example included below refers to one person on twitter. It was included as an example of an ongoing problem. The tweeter in this case is what prompted me to write this post.

Skeptics are a varied bunch. Some skeptics are assholes and others aren’t. It’s that simple.*

I hate watching some conversations unfold on twitter where people who call themselves skeptics show the clear lack of knowledge they have about how to tackle misinformation and how not to, and make skeptics everywhere look like assholes when, in fact, they’re not. When the whole Sally Morgan thing unfolded, for example, it became apparent that there was a small group of skeptics who were intent on punishing Sally Morgan through continual postings online and through digging up facts, dirt and personal information as though it would make some sort of difference. They were viscious and obsessed. It was pathetic and scary and borderline dangerous. They were borderline dangerous.

It’s the sort of behaviour that should be discouraged. Yes, people who mislead others (intentionally or not) need to be challenged, but there’s a right way. Yet, it’s not just the people doing the misleading that skeptics on twitter and facebook seem to try to punish. It’s also those who dare be misled. People who supported Morgan, for example, were attacked online and called names – their crime? being misled.

More recently, with the skeptical focus on The Burzynski Clinic that has been taking place, I’ve seen it happening again. Those who are the victims of misleading information being targeted by skeptics.

 Skepticism doesn’t have anything to do with punishing people for being misleading, or for simply being misled by others.

Chances are that many people who are skeptics and seek to punish people for ‘being stupid’ would have called me pathetic and stupid years ago. In fact, some skeptics DID call me stupid, worthless and pathetic when I used to believe in ghosts.

My crime was being misled and confused. Rather than seek out a way to help me and others understand our errors, they just sought to punish us for daring to come to a different conclusion than they did.

Look at me now. I’ve changed, I’ve learnt, I’ve understood. It wasn’t those skeptics that called me stupid or belittled me online that helped that.

Basically, people who are interested in skepticism need to stop targetting those who are the victims of misinformation. It doesn’t help them, it doesn’t help you – the only person it will probably help is the person misleading them in the first place by pushing the victims closer towards them. Not only that, but in certain circumstances, telling someone they’re wrong about a treatment they’re seeking, or a belief system they’re clinging on to can have serious consequences to their health, both psychologically and physcially.

Don’t tell a stranger with cancer that the hope they’re clinging on to is a waste of time. Why would anyone think that’s a good thing to do?!

Don’t target the victims of quacks, target the quacks**.

*it’s not that simple.

**in a non-violent, non-personal manner, of course…

flattr this!

Posted in: Skepticism / Tagged: , , , , ,

Engaging?

The last week or so since the accusations against Sally Morgan were made public and the news spread all over the place and ignited much discussion I’ve watched as people have swarmed to her Facebook groups and online discussion forums and similar to talk about what has happened.

Many have posted on Facebook groups set up by fans of Morgan to see what they think of what she has been accused of and the response has been interesting with some becoming uncertain of the psychic and others standing in her defense. One horrible thing I’ve seen though is a number of people who are skeptics and were skeptics of Morgan (and other psychics) long before this happened invading these groups for people who believe in psychics and being rude, offensive and abbrassive.

Mocking people about their beliefs achieves nothing, gloating achieves nothing.

It’s pathetic behaviour and just furthers the divide between those with beliefs that others are skeptical of; that’s what is achieved - nothing great. Some skeptical people say that mocking is a good form of educational outreach and perhaps in some instances it does work – but quite often it turns you and every other skeptic into the bad guy and then those people you’re mocking cannot be engaged with by anybody.

Some times people who believe in psychics can be stubborn in discussions, their reasoning is difficult to debate and they don’t listen – but the person who, in response to that, crumbles into mocking and name calling probably shouldn’t be trying to engage with people until they mature a bit.

If you’re angry at Sally Morgan, don’t take it out on the people who adore her and follow her because it just pushes them towards her. You have then achieved the total opposite of what needs to be achieved.

When your belief in something is rocked by an incident like Sally Morgan being accused of cheating, the last thing you need is someone rubbing your face in it and pointing out how stupid you are. Rather than naturally questioning what it is you believe in, you will go on the defense and simply draw closer to that which you believed in.

When I talk about engagement I mean the sort of engagement that Project Barnum managed to aid earlier this week when Tannice & Myles spoke to people at a Sally Morgan stageshow who believed Sally is psychic and managed to help them understand that everything may not have been as it seemed. 

Armed with posters and a general sense of curiosity they achieved more in an hour than any skeptic sat on Facebook being snide and rude will in a month.

'How about a nice cup of STFU?' pictureSometimes it’s best to leave the gloating to your own Facebook wall, unless of course you really do intend to just cause upset, and you take pleasure from mocking people. In which case you’re a piece of crap – just like the people who used to call me names for daring to believe that ghosts were real. This isn’t me trying to claim some moral high ground or make people feel bad, and I hope it isn’t taken that way, but if you don’t think about the way in which you talk to people and the effect your manner can have on them you could just be shooting yourself in the foot and furthering the ‘them and us’ rift that often exists between skeptical people, and those who believe in pseudo-scientific ideas.

If you want to approach people for a reasoned debate consider talking to them as though they’re humans who have arrived at a different conclusion about psychics to you – that is what they are, after all.

The other important thing to remember is that you won’t change peoples minds straight away (even when being nice) and you certainly wont when being horrible – but having a civil discussion can help show that skepticism really isn’t as bad as people often think. Who knows, after a civil conversation they might just check out the things you talked about and slowly arrive at their own conclusion (says I, who did just that….)

I’ve managed 100 episodes of Righteous Indignation without being rude or condescending to those guests who believe in things I don’t – surely people can manage one fucking conversation on Facebook without descending into scorn and bile?

flattr this!

Posted in: Skepticism / Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , ,

If Cox is a "nobber" then so am I*

Roy Stemman has been not at all childish in calling Professor Brian Cox a “nobber” in retaliation for Professor Cox daring to say on twitter…

“Just heard we got complaints about lack of BBC balance about ghosts – there are some utter nobbers out there! Here is my official statement, which also has the benefit of being fact. There are no ghosts, so it would be silly to believe in them.”

ZOMFG!!! HOW DARE HE! HOW DARE HE SAY SUCH HORRID, UNTRUTHFUL, NASTY THI-

Oh wait… there is nothing to suggest ghosts exist, so it WOULD be silly to believe in them. So what’s the problem? Well, Roy says in this article on ‘Paranormal review’:

Particle physicist Brian Cox has angered many by mocking people who believe in ghosts and the afterlife. He did so on Twitter after learning that the BBC had received complaints that Infinite Monkey Cage, the Radio 4 show he hosts with comedian Robin Ince, was unbalanced in an episode dealing with the paranormal.

Which is where Roy is very wrong because Brian didn’t mock anyone who believed in ghosts – he mocked the people who had complained to the BBC about there being no ‘balance’ in the science comedy show when they spoke about ghosts.

People have a right to make complaints to the BBC, but you have to admit that it’s a bit silly to demand that a science panel show bring in ‘balance’ to a discussion about ghosts, when to do so would go against the whole theme of the show and wouldn’t really do anything for the target audience.

I’ve blogged before about ‘bringing in balance’ to such environments and discussions, and how ‘balance’ in these situations is sometimes an illogical request and I genuinely believe this is one of those times.

Roy’s post is actually really sarcastic in nature, and quite embarrassing to read because it is filled with glaringly obvious logical fallacies and assumptions such as:

Brian Cox is sceptical of the paranormal, as were the guests on the very entertaining programme that caused offence: psychologists Richard Wiseman and Bruce Hood, and actor and magician Andy Nyman. Which is fine, of course, and their views shouldn’t be taken too seriously; after all, the programme’s concept is to inject comedy into science and make it a fun subject to discuss. [emphasis mine]

True as it is that the show is comedy, their views are actually valid. It IS possible to be factual while being funny, believe it or not…

The Twitter pronouncement, on the other hand, was delivered as a statement of fact, based on the assumption that Cox knows the truth of such matters better than anyone else. Has he become God? Does he believe that his scientific credentials are sufficient to allow him to pass judgment on other areas, in which he has no expertise?

No Roy, What Brian has done is look at the available evidence that supports that ghosts exist and, like most people, has come to the conclusion that it is at best weak, at worse, laughable.

Roy then goes on to name Peter Sturrock, a scientist who has studied anomalous phenomena and remains open minded about the subject. He compares Sturrock’s work to Brian Cox’s and seems to conclude that Brian has no right to say anything about ghosts.

Roy, pick up your toys and put them back in your pram. It’s embarrassing. Brian isn’t being closed-minded, and, although I don’t speak for him as I’ve never met him and don’t know him, I’m willing to bet that he’d change his mind if evidence came along that showed ghosts existed in some way or another. Just as Sturrock is open minded, so is Cox and other skeptics too (if they’re not open minded, they’re not truly skeptical).

*edit*

I should point out that I do not believe a great way of communicating with people who hold opposing belief systems is to mock them, I do not think that what Brian Cox did deserves such wide criticism. It’s barmy!

*yes, I am aware that the title of this blog post will allow people to call me a ‘nobber’, but it just gives me an excuse to judge people for using Ad homs again. Not that I need an excuse to judge them…

flattr this!

Posted in: Musings / Tagged: , , , , , ,