Comments on: “I Don’t Want to Believe”: What You Need to Know About Professional Skeptics

By: video dancing

video dancing — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:49:43 +0000

video dancing…

[...]“I Don’t Want to Believe”: What You Need to Know About Professional Skeptics | blog.area51.org[...]…

By: Gary Babbitt

Gary Babbitt — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:27:57 +0000

I’m having trouble with calling skepticism a worldview. Thinking critically about things is, in my view, quite healthy and I don’t think anyone is a ‘professional’ skeptic. Milo’s point that the existence of bigfoot is unknown is quite correct and I think most skeptics accept that. We only want some real evidence and if it is presented to us we will accept bigfoot as real. I think the number of people searching for bigfoot has probably increased over the the last few years but the number of believers among the general public has diminished. My personal view of the research being done by the BFRO and groups like it is that they camp out in the woods and do the same things over and over with the same lack of result. It has been 43 years since the Patterson/Gimlin film, a place they never returned to, and it is still the ‘evidence’ many refer to as proof. I personally think it is a hoax and an elaborate one with more than Patterson and Gimlin involved but you may think whatever you like. The example of psychic ability in savants I find to be a red herring. There is no evidence for psychic ability anywhere but there is plenty of evidence for people finding hope in the actions of their loved ones who are ill which is comepletely understandable. Hope everone had a good holiday.

By: Thomas R

Thomas R — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 02:26:28 +0000

I am only 19, and from what I’ve read and studied (no i dont have references), the only way I am forced to be is a skeptic. I believe in this blog/post you label skepticism as a bad thing, whereas my definition of disbelief may be different than yours. When I don’t believe something, I am 100% sure about it not existing, until proof is given. When proof is given I am 100% sure it does indeed exist. But when someone tells me that I am being closed minded, what I think to myself is, “how can you TRUELY believe something without evidence?” You can’t be telling me you are 100% sure about something. You can say you “believe” something, but honestly, since you don’t really know (ie no evidence), you can only take sides. Taking sides is fine, but to tell me you TRUELY believe is a damned lie.

By: Milos

Milos — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:44:22 +0000

The real issue is not whether one believes something exists or does not exist. The problem with skepticism as a worldview is that it determines, ahead of time, what subjects are worthy of study, inquiry and research. A world view based upon a pre-set paradigm will be forever blind to anything that pops up outside the paradigm. Skepticism per se is healthy. The problem is the certainty that nothing outside the skeptic’s world view is worthy of study.

I completely agree that we can’t “believe in” Bigfoot until we see some hardcore evidence. A footprint is insufficient.

The problem is that those who are certain Bigfoot cannot possibly exist will do nothing to invesigate further, while those who believe in the possibility of Bigfoot will continue to search for evidence.

The only truthful answer to the question of whether Bigfoot exists is to say that we do not know. Scientists and skeptics hate saying they don’t know something. But in fact, there is a tremendous amount that we JUST DO NOT KNOW YET about the nature of everything, from our own psyches and bodies to the natural world around us to the origins of life to the extent of the universe and on and on.

A recent interesting example of professional skepticism attempting to squelch controversial ideas appears in a fine book, ISLANDS OF GENIUS, by Darold Treffert, MD, one of the world’s leading authorities on autistic savant syndrome. Dr. Treffert provides a detailed report of the many extraordinary manifestations of savant syndrome that he has studied over a period of almost 50 years. In passing, he notes that family members of savants have on occasion reported psychic abilities in the savants they know personally. Treffert comments that he can neither confirm nor deny such reports and has always focused his research on other areas of savant syndrome that are more common and easy to study, but he includes these reports because they were reported to him and he wants his survey to be complete. He then notes that his colleagues had chastised him for EVEN MENTIONING this subgroup of psychic patients. In other words, he was told “don’t utter a word about this, even in passing, because it falls outside our world view. That way we don’t have to address its iimplications or study the issue further.”

This attempt at censorship is symptomatic of the problem of professional skepticism. Scientists who are unwilling to consider uncomfortable topics are not the objectivists they claim to be.

By: Garu Babbitt

Garu Babbitt — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:16:53 +0000

It appears that a prevailing view among true believers in Bigfoot is that if those with a skeptical take on Bigfoot don’t ‘proove’ it’s non-existance it somehow makes that existance much more likely. This is just wacky, you cannot prove a negative. I can take a picture and say that it is a picture of not bigfoot but that of course would not satisfy any believer which is exactly what skeptics are saying about the the blobs and trees presented as evidence to say nothing of all the hoaxes. That not one strand of hair, body part or scat has ever been confirmed will continue mitigate against the existance of Bigfoot until some form of real evidence is presented. I think I will go to my grave never having seen that evidence.