Is Skepticicm Dangerous?

Great Debates
1

Hello, there. This new forum is a continuation of the following closed thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=52901

One of the main things about unbridled skepticism is that I believe it can be dangerous. In flat-out dismissing things as fraudulent, or being simplistic about things, as I’ve seen skeptics do, lives can be endangered.

This refers specifically to the answer on Ouija Boards…at
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mouija.html .I worked as a tech on a mental ward in 1982 with a patient named Mrs.S.A.
She was in treatment for schizophrenia. I befriended her. She seemed a very sane, polite, intelligent woman, so she told me her story.

She had been interested in the occult for quite some time. She had tried everything to develop her mediumship abilities, but nothing she tried worked.

Finally, she tried the Ouija Board. For a while, she was unsuccessful. Eventually messages came through. First, the messages were garbled…then sensible…but the spelling at first was phonetic…for example, “bak” instead of “back”

She continued her experiments with the Ouija. Eventually the messages became clearer and more complex. Some time passed. There came a time when she didn’t have to use the board anymore, she heard them in her head.

The voices became menacing. They were telling her to kill herself. Fortunately, her husband was no skeptic. He didn’t think Ouija Boards were just “involuntary movements”…instead, he contacted a doctor. She was hospitalized for schizophrenia. The medication she was given worked.

In occult literature, the works of Jane Roberts are featured. It seems very similar to Mrs S.A.'s experience, but instead, Seth’s voice seemed to be a “higher-level” hallucination…or whatever. We’ll never know.

The thing that rankles me is that The Skeptic’s Dictionary, if my memory serves me right, just flat out called Jane Roberts a fraud. Cecil takes the position that Ouija Board experiments are “involuntary movements”. While that might be fair, it’s awfully simplistic.

My questian: is skepticicm dangerous? In these cases, it seems that it might. A simplistic view, or douwright calling a channeller a “fraud”, could cost a human life.

In that respect, I think skepticism is irresponsible. Open your minds up, folks!

2

Oh, my mind is open.

It’s just not so open my brains leak out.
Lies are harmful. Accepting lies is harmful. Skeptics do not accept the lies. In fact, skeptics make all effort to keep the credulous, the ignorant, and the easily-fooled from being suckered by pseudo-mystical crap spewed by people like Jane Roberts.

I’m sorry you find attempts to keep people from lying to others to be harmful. But if you really think ol’ Jane is not a fraud, you might drop her a line and see if she can make a cool million bucks here: http://www.randi.org

Hey, if she’s legit, maybe she’ll share the money with you.

3

andros, jeremytt seems quite familiar with Randi, if you’ll read the thread he linked to. But since this got resurrected in GD… jeremeytt, what do you think of the pig experiment in regards to SHC?

As far as Ouija boards go, yes, some people may be schizophrenic, but the majority of those who get answers from the board probably are not. It is interesting that in experiments on the board the spirits seemed to know only what the person manipulating the board knew (even if it was false).

I don’t think its fair to say skepticism endangered that woman’s life. A non-skeptic might have ascribed it to demonic influence, and tried to use exorcisms. The husband was still clearly a skeptic when it came to the board having a supernatural cause. He recognised that the negative effects she was experiencing were due to an underlying mental illness. I see nothing in your story that invalidates the hypothesis that Ouija boards, in general, are due to involuntary movements.

If other symptoms develop, such as hearing voices, again a good skeptic would conclude mental illness.

4

Thanks, Kyber.

5

Unless the husband believed that the voices were indeed coming from supernatural beings, he sure as hell is a skeptic.

I’m not sure you are using the same definition of “skeptic” that most people use.

6

David B already opened a new thread on the topic of SHC and the pig here.

Just FYI, and Jeremytt can get his book name and author’s name from there.

7

Andros, I don’t know if you realize this, but Jane Roberts has been dead for 16 years.

I was referring to the fact that the Skeptic’s Dictionary pretty much flat-out dismissed Roberts as a FRAUD…(like, how the HELL Could he know what was going on in her mind?) when in fact, it’s entirely possible, (and in fact probable) that she was having Dusan’s higher-order hallucinations.

That kind of flat out dismissal infuriates me to hysteria, because it might endanger people’s lives who are in need of medical attention!

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kyberneticist *
**andros, jeremytt seems quite familiar with Randi, if you’ll read the thread he linked to. But since this got resurrected in GD… jeremeytt, what do you think of the pig experiment in regards to SHC?

Kyber, I found Joe Nickell’s experiment both very interesting and believable. I must qualify that, though, in that the source I previously gave you, (the anthropologist at UF) says, in relation to the tsar, this isn’t possible.

Let me clarify…it was believed that a couple of the tsar’s family’s bodies were doused with petrol and burned. The anthropologist in that book says this is impossible.

I, of course, don’t know what the truth is. I submit it merely for you to ponder.

9

Jeremytt: I suggest you get James Randi’s excellent book, “Flim-Flam”.

James Randi has excellent reasons for debunking psychics…as a former professional stage magician, he saw psychics such as Uri Geller using the exact same techniques that he used to use in his act to con and defraud people. What started as a hobby became a cause.

James Randi has a huge amount of credibility with me.

And I fail to see how your OP shows that skepticism can be dangerous. I don’t believe in the paranormal. If my wife reported that she was hearing voices in her head I’d suspect schizophrenia, as would any skeptic. How would a skeptic act any differently than the husband in the story? It seems to me that a NON-skeptic would be more likely to ascribe the voices to some paranormal power, and be less likely to seek psychiatric intervention.

And how could calling a channeler a fraud cost a human life? You mean, we should be calling her schizophrenic rather than a fraud, and that her life is potentially endangered by our misdiagnosis? Well, I’m sure she’s not gonna seek psychiatric help just because a few skeptics change their theory about why she isn’t really channelling spirits.

Oh…and if you thought the “room” was rough over in Comments on Staff Reports, welcome to Great Debates.

10

Unless the husband believed that the voices were indeed coming from supernatural beings, he sure as hell is a skeptic.

I’m not sure you are using the same definition of “skeptic” that most people use. **
[/QUOTE]

I want to clarify. I’m referring to skeptic naysayers who say, “Not possible…liar…she’s a fraud”.
See Skeptic’s Dictionary on Jane Roberts, a parallel case.

In these terms, skepticicm might even be medically negligent.

11

I want to clarify. I’m referring to skeptic naysayers who say, “Not possible…liar…she’s a fraud”.
See Skeptic’s Dictionary on Jane Roberts, a parallel case.

In these terms, skepticicm might even be medically negligent. **
[/QUOTE]

So the Ouiji board is telling her to kill herself, and a skeptic would repond by saying “Ah, she’s trying to deceive us.”

What skeptic, where in the world?

A skeptic (one who would think she was moving the Ouiji thingee herself) would be all the more likly to think that if SHE HERSELF was saying she should kill herself, it would likely be due to a mental problem.

Jane Roberts is not a parallel case. She made money off those Seth books. Which might make the posssibilty of out-and-out fraud seem more likely. Although, since I am not familar with her story, and since I am a skeptic, I will refrain from speculating on what I do not have evidence on.

12

jeremytt, regarding SHC I have given contrary statements based upon observation and experiment in this and the other thread, some by experts in forensics. While you claim to have quotes that see that burning a body is impossible when only lit with gas, I still have no idea how they arrived at that conclusion, what evidence they used, or indeed which anthropologist and where.

Given that, I see no reason to make out SHC to some sort of a mystery, and I see nothing to laud in the post-modern attitude that “I don’t know what the truth is.”
There is evidence, there are reasonable explanations. There is no need to give equal weight to both the fantastic and the credible.

13

Jeremytt, I’ll agree that you would have a point if the essence of skepticism were just to deny that other people were having certain experiences.

But skepticism isn’t about denying the experience, but questioning what it means, and what we know and can prove about it. Skepticism doesn’t mean that you tell a person having auditory hallucinations that they really aren’t hearing anything. It means that you examine any claims about those hallucinations (like they’re a sign of possession, or communication from the spirit world) very carefully, and see if there is a better explanation that fits the facts (like schizophrenia).

By extension, a skeptic doesn’t tell the Ouija board user that they aren’t actually spelling out messages. A skeptic examines WHY they’re spelling out messages – is it the result of involuntary movements, or spiritual influence? We can test the difference between the two, and experiments have been done that strongly support the involuntary movement hypothesis. With enough evidence in favor of that hypothesis, and so little in favor of the alternate explanation, skeptics can be excused from not treating each new claim of Ouija board magic tabula rasa.

You’re correct, that it goes beyond pure skepticism at times to question the motives of people. Jane Roberts may have had, as you argue, a disorder. However, that doesn’t change the underlying basis for skepticism as to how Ouija boards work.

Amending “She’s a fraud” to “She may have been a fraud, or may have been delusional” is perhaps an improvement, although I don’t believe the late Jane Roberts would have been happy with the change.

In any event, you are right, Jeremytt, to point out that there is a third way that was almost overlooked in the case of the woman with schizophrenia. You are content to blame “skeptics” who you assume would have ignored her symptoms; I, however, feel that the woman’s lack of skepticism was the source of negligence here. If she had been skeptical of the belief that an Ouija board could be the source of the voices she heard, then perhaps she could have sought treatment on her own.

In short, I remain convinced that skepticism is a good thing. And if I hear voices, I’m damn well getting some help.

14

Jeremytt, you have not provided any cites of a skeptic holding any of the positions that you claim they hold. In the absecence of such evidence, your argument seems to nothing more than an attack on a straw man.

15

I might have not made clear in my first post one very important fact–Mrs S.A, before she began experimenting with the Ouija Board, had NO HISTORY at all of any psychiatric illness. And this was a 50-odd year old woman.

It seems almost certain, at least in her case, that her experimentation with the Ouija Board led DIRECTLY to her episode with schizophrenia.

Someone mentioned that Jane Roberts and Mrs S.A. weren’t parallel.

To the contrary, they are EXACTLY parallel. Jane Roberts’ first psychic experiences involving Seth were brought on by using a OUIJA BOARD. I refer to The Seth Material, or How to Develop Your ESP…ibid.

I don’t know, and indeed, Jane Roberts herself didn’t know, whether Seth came from her own subconscious mind, or was extradimensional, or what. That’s not what I came here to discuss.

I’m just saying the skeptic idea of Jane, that is, “liar, cheat, fraud” is downright medically negligible. If you don’t believe skeptics say that about her, I refer you to the Skeptic’s Dictionary on Jane Roberts.

The Ryan, I am specifically talking to you. Look it up, please, before you presume.

16

One other point:

If Ouija Board use can lead to psychotic episodes, I think this deserves further medical study…

not accusations by naysayers as “fraud, liar, cheat”…

17

Keenan, by the way, your objectivity seems rare both in this world, and in this forum. I’m very pleased to meet you…:slight_smile:

Your post seemed both fair and unbiased…kudos to you.

18

“No history” doesn’t mean “never had problems”.

Is this conclusion based solely on your conversations with her after the incidents?

I am not presuming anything. What part of “you have no cite” do you not understand? “Look it up” is not a cite.

19

That schizophrenia is a bio-chemical brain disorder is fairly well-established; that Mrs. S.A.'s symptoms were relieved by treatment of a bio-chemical brain disorder suggests that (surprise, surprise), she suffered from a bio-chemical brain disorder.

Research on schizophrenia has determined that “late onset schizophrenia” (occuring after age 45) is more common than previously thought. That Mrs. S.A. had no history of mental illness is unremarkable.

You should do some more reading at the Skeptic’s Dictionary on the Post Hoc Fallacy.

20

Not hardly certain. A possibility. One I don’t fine particularly credible, but as a skeptic and an open minded person, I would be happy to listen to any actual evidence that the Ouiji board caused her schizophrenia. The fact that her illness and her interest in the Ouija board coinsideded is proof of nothing (I believe their is a logical fallacy named after thinking it does). How do we know her interest in the Ouijia board wasn’t caused by he schizophrenia rather than the other way 'round.

**

That’d be me. The polite thing to do would be to scroll back and find my actual name.

**

No they’re not. The reason people accuse Roberts of being a fraud rather than deluded is because she makes money from it. And I believe it’s the money making aspect of it that most debunkers are anxious to debunk. That is, their concered about the people who will give money for books or seminars because they believe Seth is a supernatural entity.

**

But it is a good reason for her not to charge money to listen to him.

**

I had no idea a bunch of strangers who take issue with her claims would therefore become responsible for her medical well-being. I believe they are critisizing her because they think the Seth books are ripping people off. Shouldn’t her family and friends be the ones to look out for her mental health?

And I think you meant negligent.