SGU Episode 10

This episode is in the middle of being transcribed by Geneocide (talk) as of {{{date}}}. To help avoid duplication, please do not transcribe this episode while this message is displayed.

This episode needs: proofreading, formatting, links, 'Today I Learned' list, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing!

How to Contribute

SGU Episode 10
23rd August 2005
(brief caption for the episode icon)
SGU 9                      SGU 11
Skeptical Rogues
S: Steven Novella
B: Bob Novella
E: Evan Bernstein
P: Perry DeAngelis
Links
Download Podcast
SGU Podcast archive
SGU Forum

Introduction

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday, August 23^rd, 2005. This is your host, Steven Novella, President of the New England Skeptical Society and with me tonight, as usual, is Perry DeAngelis...

P: Hello.

S: Evan Bernstein...

E: Hi everyone.

S: and Bob Novella.

B: Hello everyone.

In Memoriam

Philip Klass (0:24)

S: So we're going to start tonight with an In Memoriam. The skeptical movement has lost two people in the–since the last broadcast. The first is Philip Klass. Phil Klass was the preeminent UFO skeptic. He almost single handedly founded the area of UFO skepticism. He was an editor of Avionics and Aviation Week & Space Technology for over thirty years. Received numerous awards for his work as a journalist and the latter part of his career was essentially spent debunking Roswell and UFO sightings. He is author of the book The Real Roswell Crash Saucer Cover Up which came out in 1997 and UFO Abductions: A Dangerous Game. Have any of you guys ever met Phil Klass?

E: I did not have the pleasure.

P: I met him at the world skeptics conference.

S: Right. I met him at the same conference. He was already fairly old at that time and that was maybe ten years ago. Interesting thing about Phil Klass, he is–the rumor is that he was the inspiration for the smoking man on the X-Files. This was the–the older agent who seemed to know what was really going on with the government and UFOs whose character was constantly smoking. And Phil Klass was a chain smoker. Not sure if that's true or not that–that was the rumor. So unfortunately he passed away a little over a week ago.

B: Steve, did you know that in '76 he helped found CSICOP.

S: That's right. He was one of the founding members of CSICOP.

B: And he served on it's executive council so that's pretty...

S: CSICOP is the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. And he was a senior research fellow basically in charge of their UFO research.

P: He wrote me a–a very nice letter once after an article of mine appeared in the New England Journal of Skepticism regarding a close vote up at PSICOP. And–He certainly was very concerned about the skeptical movement and the direction that some of the people wanted to take it. Particularly Dr. Kurtz. We've all had criticism of him over the years. In this particular case Phil Klass agreed with me and he wrote a letter stating so. When he asked me to keep it discreet at the time I did. Now its–it's not relevant anymore.

S: Yeah. There has been some, sort of, internal debate about what the relationship should be between organized skepticism, scientific skepticism, and organized secular humanism, and along those related lines to what degree skeptical movements should take on purely religious issues. Not matters where religion crosses over into science, like Creationism. Everyone agrees that that is a fair topic of our criticism. And some of the old guard–some of the real hardcore skeptics that are and were within the inner workings of CSICOP were very much against this–overly merging these two movements, whereas Paul Kurtz is very much in favor of unifying them. In fact he has done so as far as CSICOP is concerned under the Centers for Inquiry, or CFI. So–although things, you know, keep chugging along happily we're certainly very friendly and cooperative with CSICOP it remains a bone of contention within the movement. One without, I think, an objective resolution, at this point of time. But Phil Klass was definitely on the side of keeping skepticism, scientific skepticism separate from–from religious issues.

P: Which is certainly the position of the New England Skeptical Society.

S: Yes. That has been–we have advocated for that position within our own group and to CSICOP, as well.

P: Why, Steven, cause you're the President, can you articulate for the people why that's our position?

S: Well, I could refer you to the article that I wrote about it that was actually published in the Skeptical Inquirer. If you look on their archives you'll find it, but basically, I think, that the way we define scientific skepticism is essentially defending the turf of science and advocating for high standards of rigor and logic and evidence within the realm of science. Religious–religions however often deal with issue of value and morals. Things that are–or untestable claims that are not within the realm of science. They're untestable therefore they're non-scientific. We would say that the only thing that you could really say about them is that they are not amenable to scientific investigation. And that's it. Whereas–to secular humanists–deal with a lot of, sort of, political and social issues surrounding religion and also directly take on the faith itself. So, it's just–there's a–it's a difference in mission. It's not our mission to do that. It's also not our interest and not our expertise.

B: Steve, what about morality? That's always a point that–that bugs me a little bit in that a lot of people think that–if you're an atheist, if you don't have religion, then you're an amoral wild person, just totally hedonistic and–get what you can. Which I think is ridiculous. I don't think you need religion, or faith, to be moral.

S: Well, it's certainly contradicted by the facts. I mean there are plenty of people who are atheists or agnostics who are perfectly good citizens. Who are moral, ethical people. I don't think there's even any positive correlation between a religiosity and morality. And, I think, it gets down to, also, a distinction between "morality" and "ethics". Ethics are essentially a system of behavior, rights, and privileges that we a–can mutually agree upon as members of civilized society. We shouldn't hurt each other, steal from each other, people have the right to privacy, right to–not to be killed. There's certain basic things that we can agree upon and you could start from some very self evident first principles and develop with careful thought and philosophy an ethical system that can–is certainly constantly being revised and debated but can be the basis of a system of ethics upon which you can base laws and a rational society. Morality is a, I think, more the realm of personal choice. It's how you choose–the standards by which you choose to live your life and if you want to base that on a religious faith then, fine. Go right ahead. But it's not necessarily something that you can logically argue or demonstrate to anybody else as–as a cultural imperative. And if–again, I think, that would be a distinction between–similar to that between science and religion–between science and faith you could make the distinction between ethics which is philosophy based and morality which is either choice or faith based.

P: It's also been my personal experience since I've gotten involved with the whole skeptical movement–it's now a decade ago. It's–is that they people who sort of advocate organized atheism, secularism are–are quite fanatic and disquieting and off putting and I think that they don't do–they do not deliver their message well and I think that it's extra baggage that the scientific skeptical movement simply does not need. And that's why I oppose the union of them as Dr. Kurtz sees it.

B: I remember when we were up at the headquarters of CSICOP in upstate New York...

P: Buffalo.

B: and I remember–in Buffalo and I remember running into a handful of militant atheists and–very off putting. Just so forceful and adamant and in your face.

S: Of course some people think that about us. (laughter) About skeptics.

E?: That's for sure.

P: Perhaps so. Perhaps so.

S: But, so even by our jaded standards they were a little bit rough. But, I think, the–there is a difference in, I think, background, in demeanour, in what they're interested in. I think a lot–certainly this is anecdotal, this is our personal experience, but a lot of the people who are involved with organized atheism or secular humanism are really angry at religion. They're really–either have a personal story where they were in some way harmed or repressed or oppressed whatever as a child by a religious figure or a tyrannical religious faith or they're philosophy is just so adamantly anti-faith that it becomes a very emotional thing for them.

P: Very emotional. Extremely emotional.

S: I think more so than skeptics. I think we tend to have a more of a scientific background and we care mainly about defending science. Just like–for myself personally I really couldn't care less what other people have as their personal faith. It's an internal, personal choice.

P: Right.

S: Who cares? It really does not bother me. I'm interested in defending science and reason and logic. When ever–when any–if anyone makes a factual claim. A claim about the factual state of nature then they step into the ring science, then they're fair game. But if they're talking about personal faith in the unknowable they're outside the realm of science and I really couldn't care less. That's–which is why I'm involved in organized skepticism but not organized...

P: Secularism or atheism.

S: Secularism. Even though I consider myself and agnostic it's just not something I care to put my time and effort into. Which is fine. I think–again I–I wish these secular humanists well and I certainly am–I certainly support their philosophy and their beliefs and what they're doing. I just don't think that I need to take it on as a skeptic. And that's what it really comes down to is the secular humanist, to some degree, feel like skeptics need to be fighting for their banner, too. That they're one and the same and they kind of resent it when we won't do that. "Why won't you take on religion. It's just as bad as UFOs and bigfoot." It's like, "Yeah, but it's different. Because..."

B: Plus, it's also the fact that–you know as tough as it is to dissuade people of their beliefs in paranormal phenomenon, religion is a much, much tougher nut than anything we're dealing with. I think, that to the end–to the last day that humanity survives, whether it be a century or a thousand millennia there's–we're still gonna–people will still have faith. And that's just so hard coded into our–into our brains that...

S: Perhaps.

B: I don't think–that's going to be like the last–one of the last things to go. It's just too comforting. Maybe once we're all–once we all live for millennia it won't–people won't concern themselves with it, as much.

P: Well, you can still be a good scientific skeptic and maintain faith. They're not incompatible.

E?: Right. That's true.

P: As far as our movement goes. Certainly not.

B: That's true.

P: Nor have I ever seen somebody involved in scientific skepticism demanding that organized atheists or secularists defend our banner. It's a one way street they're on.

S: And–you know what–and they don't. There is a different in agenda. About–there's admittedly a great deal of overlap between the two groups. About seventy percent, by surveys–seventy percent of self identified skeptics are also non-believers. Also either atheists or agnostics or secularists and about the same is true of secular humanists, although, I think, a lot of them–more of them consider themselves skeptics. Some of them are amenable to a lot of superstitious beliefs. A lot of them are enamored of alternative medicine or acupuncture or, sort of, eastern spirituality and even when confronted on this say, "Well, this is not religion cause it's a different culture. It's eastern. It's not western." Which is kind of silly.

B: That was a surprise when I realized that. It's like, "Whoa."

S: Yeah. So, it–again there's certainly a tremendous overlap. I think that the majority of both groups are in–are members of both groups, are both skeptics and non-believers, but as skeptics we need to be tolerant of what people profess as their personal faith. Again, I think we have to respect the freedom of religion. The freedom to believe whatever you want to believe. And if it's outside the realm of science then it's not amenable to the rules of evidence. And then the only other thing you can really demand of the belief system is that it's internally logical. It does not, sort of, contradict itself. But if it's a belief in something that's unknowable, unanswerable, and in and of itself–like Martin Gardiner, I believe, considers himself a deist. Martin Gardiner is one of the founders of modern skepticism. So, yeah, he believes in God but that's it. That's the beginning and the end of his belief. He does not make any factual claims about the state of nature. He's still a thorough materialist in terms of how the universe works and that belief is based on, just, personal desire and faith not any evidence, not any logic. He doesn't think that he can prove to you that God exists or that there's any evidence that he exists. It's not a scientific claim in any way, and, fine, if that's the kind of faith that you maintain, if you basically strip from it any factual claims, any scientific claims, then it's benign, and who cares?

B: That's uh...

P: Right.

B: That's rare, though. That's, unfortunately, pretty rare.

P: It's not relevant to the discussion.

Robert Baker (14:51)

S: So, to move on the second skeptic that I alluded to at the beginning of the podcast who passed away within the last couple week is Robert Baker. By coincidence we brought his name up at the last podcast when we were discussing the book by the–the Harvard psychiatrist who was talking about–What was the name exact–Clancy? Who was discussing the psychological aspects of people who believe they were abducted. Robert Baker was also a CSICOP fellow and he was one of the world's preeminent academic authorities on ghosts, alien abductions, apparitions, reincarnation, et cetera. He actually–He's one of the people who raised the level of skepticism of these things to really aca–the level of academic legitimacy. He served a really key role within the skeptical movement. It's one thing to analyze the claims of UFO abductees from a skeptical point of view. It's another thing to do psychological research to show what the psychological phenomenon is, and that's kind of what–what Robert Baker did. Certainly his–his writing and his influence and his contribution to this areas of skepticism will be greatly missed.

P: Is he the progenitor of the fantasy prone personality?

S: Yes. He is one of the progenitors–along with Joe Nickell who's also a CSICOP fellow. The idea of a fantasy prone personality. Basically recognizing that certain people have a heightened tendency to fantasize and may actually have a tendency to not recognize the–where their own fantasies end, basically, and where reality begins. He–Some of Baker's books include, They Call It Hypnosis, Hidden Memories: Voices and Visions from Within, Child Sexual Abuse and False Memory Syndrome. He also was one of the early critics of–of the, so called, false memory syndrome, that proponents called recovered memory syndrome. And he also–I think his most recent book was written with Joe Nickell–that's not fair–this is not his most recent one. This is written in 1992, with Joe Nickell he wrote, Missing Pieces: How to Investigate Ghosts, UFOs, Psychics, and other Mysteries.

B: Excellent book.

S: Excellent book.

B: Steve, did he actually coin the phrase, "There are no haunted places, only haunted people?" Was that Baker? Did he coin that?

S: I don't–I don't know if that is attributable to him. It may be.

E: I've heard that.

S: I don't know if was him or Joe Nickell.

B: Right.

S: Or maybe it was just in their book and I don't know which one it was. Yeah. That's a good phrase. "There's no such thing as a haunted location, there are only haunted people."

P: Right.

S: Which, very succinctly highlights the fact that haunting phenomenon are generated by people who believe in it, essentially.

E?: Right.

S: There's no such thing an actual haunted house.

P: Missing Pieces is certainly the best book I've ever read on the basics of investigating the paranormal. It is an excellent primer for anyone out there who is considering doing investigations in their local area.

Science or Fiction (18:04)

S: Well, why don't we move on to Science or Fiction.

VO: It's time to play Science OR Fiction.

S: So, each week I come up three science news items or facts, two of them are genuine, one is fake, fictitious, made up and false. I then challenge my panel of scientifically literate skeptics to figure out which one is fake.

E: Challenge accepted.

S: So far, you guy–I think that you guys are doing better than thirty-three percent which is what you would get from random guessing. I think you guys are running around fifty percent, so far.

B: Oh, yeah.

S: You're doing–I think probably even better than fifty percent. You're doing fairly well.

E: Oh. Okay.

S: There is a theme this week. I've been doing themes recently. I think it's fun. This week the theme is our solar system. Now this is to celebrate or commemorate the discovery of yet a new planet.

B: Sedna.

S: That's not going to be one of the items. No, not Sedna. And it–cause I know you guys all know about this. Or at least I thought you did. This is the first planet larger than Pluto to be discovered in our solar system, since the discovery of Pluto. Have they given it a name yet?

References