Irish Skeptics Society
As a founder member of the Irish Skeptics Society I am delighted to see this discussion appear on your site. I have just flashed through the posts and will give it more time later, but I will offer a number of comments on issues raised so far. To get an overview as to why we set up and an outline of our position on science please visit our website at
www.irishskeptics.net.
Working backwards from the last posting by Marie on rigorous science: It is not our position to rubbish any position but to ask questions as to the veracity of claims. Yes, we seek objective answers in so far as these can be obtained. Skeptics generally take a materialist position, expecting that our clearest understanding of the natural world will emerge through the application of scientific method. If something cannot be "measured" scientifically, eg. the existence of fairies, then it does not fall into the scientific domain. We cannot prove the nonexistence of fairies. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim.
This does not mean, however that we cannot usefully explore and understand the fact that people can believe in and even "see" such fantastic beings. Clearer understanding of such experiences will emerge from areas such as psychology, sociology and neuroscience, not from more esoteric investigations. We are biological entities and are best explored and understood as such.
With regard to the practice of science, the scientist is always involved in experimentation, as designer of questions, interpreter of results and so on. The notion of a pure instrumental science is a naive one. Techniques such as the use of double blind procedures are used for the very reason that the serious susceptibility of all of us to misguided interpretation, self-deceit etc. might be controlled for.
Science is a human enterprise and has a history of bad and bogus practises. However, this is clearly acknowledged and strenuous efforts are made to tackle these issues and to minimise the errors that scientists (often unintentionally and honestly) commit. It does of course have its charlatans.
Skepticism does not in my view "shut people off from the surprise, delight, dialogue and discovery which comes from the demanding complexity and diversity of our psycho social relationships", nor indeed from delighting in the vast wonders of the universe. These are the very things that drive skeptics and scientists in their explorations of the natural world of which we are all a part. Our meetings are set up to provide an open, public forum to promote constructive discussion and dialogue.
Marie mentions that Newton was not wrong in his theories even though they were later superceded by Einstein's work. This is true with regard to Newton's equations of motion for example, but is certainly not true with regard to Newton's ideas on alchemy. In this he was wrong. What dictates the accuracy or truth of the first and not the second is data. All theories stand or fall on the data. If the data is strong, or indeed overwhelming, there is no choice for the scientist but to accept it or perish (academically that is!). The data is so strong for evolutionary theory that even the current Pope, arch conservative as he is, accepts the "fact" of evolution.
The term fact here, as always in science, is used tentatively. Similarly to the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, it would be nullified if the events predicted by the theory were not to occur.
A crucial idea in science is that of parsimony. When faced with a range of possible explanations for an observation, choose the one which requires the least number of assumptions. If a ball goes missing from my back yard and one neighbour claims the children next door hopped over the wall and borrowed it, while another neighbour claims the fairies whisked it away, the more rational choice is the former.
In seeking data for either story, a photo of the children in the garden would go a long way towards convincing me. A photo of fairies in the garden would not. Skeptics quite appropriately, do not assign equal validity to all evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Accident, coincidence, diverted attention due to stress etc. are all more likely explanations of the higher accident rates in the engaged people previously mentioned by Marie. Collective unconscious, unconscious anger, mind over matter etc. constitute extraordinary claims and minimal, if any evidence exists for their veracity. I have a similar view with regard to poltergeist and other "ghostly" experiences.
XXXAnotherpersonXXX asked what the default position of skeptics is. He referred to the idea of a flat earth as an example. The role of the skeptic is always to ask more questions. How do we know the earth is flat? How do we explain the curvature of the earth's shadow on the sun during an eclipse? etc. Again, the flat earth idea was wrong and was eliminated (almost at any rate) by the power of the evidence. The earth was in reality round, even when people thought it to be flat. It just took time to work it out. This is an important point as some people do not believe in an external physical reality at all. This is a fundamental assumption in science.
"Slaphappy", under "oops" asked if we ever have guest performers trying to move things with their minds etc. We are trying to put together a package to bring James Randi over here in the future. I'm sure he could demonstrate some interesting phenomena.
Bridget referred to an experiment under a posting on contagiousness of emotion. It was not quite as simple as she outlined. It was conducted in the early sixties by Schacter and Singer and involved the injection of adrenaline into subjects. Their interpretation of their heightened physiological arousal was affected by the mood of those placed close to them. This illustrated the significance of social cues to individuals in figuring out the causes of heightened emotion.
I apologise for the rambling nature of this post and I'll try to be more succinct in future.
As Marie has contributed significantly and is involved in psychology I should clarify comments made by Brendan. The ISS was set up by four clinical psychologists. We all subscribe to a scientific view of psychology. We all adhere to a cognitive behavioural model, which despite its significant limitations, is, in our view, the best model we have at present within the profession. It has the strongest evidence base and is likely to be the most productive approach for the foreseeable future in clinical psychology practice.
We see psychology as a science dealing with incredibly complex material. As Brendan mentioned in a previous post, this is all the more reason for caution and for careful scientific investigation and a parsimonious approach is advisable.
With regard to Jung and his ideas may I recommend as an excellent critical commentary, The Aryan Christ by Richard Noll which was published in 1997 and is available through amazon.co.uk.
Lastly, with regard to Marie's initial post re:Chris French. His position as I understand it remains as she describes. He is open to the idea that paranormal phenomena may exist, but to date (after about two hundred years of investigation) there is no evidence to support the position. Most and in my view probably all paranormal phenomena will indeed be explained in the language of science. ie utilising physics, biology, psychology etc.
