Post hoc fallacy!
That’s the one!
But hansel, the fact that you posted that just as i was trying to think what it was called means absolutly nothing. 
Jeremy,
Skepticism isn’t dangerous. It (and I’m talking about modern Skepticism here) is a combination of rationalism, the scientific method and humility. The skeptic starts with the position, "Events that occur in nature have natural causes, and it is possible to identify, classify, and measure these causes. The skeptic also believes that, while every event does have a explanation, that doesn’t mean the investigator is forced to come up with one. Admitting you don’t know how something works at this time is acceptable. In the case of Jane Roberts, from what I’ve gleaned on this board, there are several explanations for her behavior.
-
She made up being contacted by “Seth” in an attempt to make money.
-
She suffered from some mental condition, such as schizophrenia, which caused her to believe that a supernatural being contacted her
or
3. She actually was contacted by a supernatural being.
There might be other explanations, but those are the three that I came up with off the top of my head. However, while all of these explanations are possible, they are not equally likely. 3 seems able to be rejected out of hand, because we don’t have evidence that supernatural beings exist, or that they contact people.
Most people seem to consider 1 the most likely explanation. This is inferred from the fact that she drew attention to this ability, and made money off it, but both 1 and 2 are answers that skeptics might give. Both answers posit rational explanations to the phenomenon.
Hello, room.
I’m not going to respond to the naysayers…how easy it is to point the finger and say “fraud”…
Captain Amazing, your post is a little more unbiased. Of course, there’s a 4th explanation, or maybe a 5th…maybe it’s a combination of two factors–maybe she really IS in contact with other spirits AND wanted to make money off it…or maybe she really IS deluded AND wanted to make money off it…it’s hard to say…
the Ryan,
I know she had no prior history of mental illness because I saw her chart. It had been her first admission. She had had no prior history of mental illness…I had already told you I worked as a technician at a mental ward…
One other point:
Supposing using the Ouija Board really CAN bring out psychotic episodes…don’t you think you guys are ignoring this possibility?
I think it’s something that the medical profession should investigate.
Benetoir–I’m referring to the parallels with the Ouija Board, and the possibility that Jane Roberts, like Mrs S.A.,
could have been suffering from some kind of delusion. In that respect, it’s VERY parallel.
Or maybe there’s a 6th explanation; Maybe she was abducted by aliens and implanted with a transmitter that enables them to speak to her as SETH. Or a 7th; Maybe she is neither delusional or a fraud, but someone was hiding behind her couch right and whispering in her ear. Or an 8th . . . etc., etc., etc.
See, the thing is, there are all kinds of possible explanations for everything. However, if I were to tell you that the Invisible-Book-Thieves were trying to pull my books through the floor and THAT was the reason they fell when I let go of them, it would probably be fair for you to reject that explanation out of hand.
All claims are not equal. It is not the job of science to investigate EVERY claim. The claim made must be consistent, in some way, with what we already know or what can be observed and tested.
One final point…will you guys reread my original post?
There was a steady progression in Mrs S.A.'s case…from no results, to poor results, to phonetic spelling, to complex ideas, and finally, to where she didn’t need the Ouija Board.
Doesn’t this progression suggest anything to you?
Yeah, skepticism is terribly dangerous…after all, it was skepticism which led people (and still leads people in some parts of the world) to denounce their neighbors as witches or sorcerers, with frequently fatal results. It was skepticism which led people to believe that Jews adbucted Christian children to get their blood for obscene, Satanic rituals, leading to pogroms and anti-Semitic persecutions. It’s skepticism which causes people to give their life savings to scam artists.
Oh wait a minute. That’s not skepticism, that’s credulity.
I realize that’s fairly snide for Great Debates, but the title of this thread bugs me. In fact, the thread seems to be more focused on this specific case of this woman who developed schizophrenia after (i.e., subsequent in time to) messing around with a Ouija board than on some kind of sweeping philosophical indictment of, well, not believing everything you hear and wanting to see evidence for stuff and so forth.
Ummm…some kind of progressively worsening serious mental illness, like schizophrenia?
Of course, IANA psychiatrist, and even if I were, I’ve never even seen this woman.
Jeremytt said:
When, specifically, have you “seen skeptics” do these things?
You have a tendency, as has been pointed out by The Ryan, to make these vague attacks and references, but have yet to give specifics. Please provide specific examples of skeptics “flat-out dismissing things as fraudulent, or being simplistic about things.” That is – dismissing them without looking at the evidence.
As has already been pointed out – her husband was indeed a skeptic. He figured there was a medical problem (rather than an occult one) and sought out scientific answers to solve it. That is the work of a skeptic, Jeremy.
So it might be right, but you’re upset because the right answer might be too simple? Not really a very legitimate argument, is it?
(Incidentally, you need to distinguish between the Staff Reports/Mailbags and the columns Cecil writes. As was already noted in regard to your original attack on the Ganzfeld column, Cecil only writes the ones that have Cecil’s name on them.)
But you haven’t described skepticism.
You think it’s irresponsible to seek out the correct answer to questions? What a strange attitude…
We’re also “ignoring the possibility” that you are actually a leprechaun who has come here to the SDMB just to taunt us into looking for your lucky charms. Why are we “ignoring” it? Because there is no evidence for it. When you provide some actual evidence, then we’ll consider it. So far, you don’t have any.
Then I suggest you fund the research.
Well, that would make things a lot easier for you. You can say anything you want, and then when people point out that you’re wrong, you can just ignore them and merrily go on your way.
It suggests that you’re taking the coincidence of her Ouija Board use and her schizophrenia and imagining a connection. She never needed the Ouija board.
There’s a perfectly reasonable (and skeptically acceptable) explanation for what happened to her: late onset schizophrenia. No symptoms for 50 years, followed by a progression of symptoms, followed by the successful treatment of schizophrenia and relief from the symptoms. You’ve stipulated all these points, Jeremy, and now you’re trying to shoehorn a Ouija board into the story where nothing else is needed to explain what happened.
I once tried an Ouija board.
It told me to “go look in the mailbox”.
I did; there was nothing there.
Good sense of humor there…
the skeptics may just be believers in science.
quite unscientific.
just because the word schizophrenia has been invented doesn’t mean they know what it is.
what if it’s just their description of possesion by “evil spirits” but they are too SCIENTIFIC to believe in “evil spirits.”
see: HOSTAGE TO THE DEVIL by Malachi Martin
just because religion is full of corrupted stupidity doesn’t mean it is NOTHING BUT STUPIDITY.
Dal Timgar
I would point out that anti-psychotic drugs probably work better in alleviating the symptoms of schizophrenia than saying “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I command these foul demons to COME OUT!” Similarly, it seems more likely that we will be able to develop a diagnosis for schizophrenia based on EEG patterns or some biochemical marker of brain chemistry than one based on the patient’s reaction to being doused with holy water. (:splash: “Aaagh! It burns!” “Yep–schizophrenia all right.”)
Good golly Miss Molly.
J, you cite your own interpretation of anecdotal events to prove a very questionable claim. As others have said, your claim is possible, but very unlikely. Attempts to get you to specify more details about your evidence and how it relates to your claim have gotten nowhere.
You also have a view of the Skeptic community that is incorrect. Straw man fallacy of thinking.
From this, you have decided that since <specific claim 1>, <specific claim 2>, and <specific claim 3, mebbe SHC> can have different interpretations that skepticism is dangerous.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming Oujia board usage cause mental disorders is pretty extraordinary. (Most of us would feel that mental disorders cause Oujia boards usage! 
)
J, you’ve been polite, and have admirably not let this thread degrade into a flame war. But you just aren’t going to get the answer you want. Unless you show (a) a real logical argument that connects these specific claims to your general statements, and (b) provide real evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny for your specific claims – well, you’re just going to get nowhere.
You won’t respond to “nay-sayers”? Um, then why in YHWH’s name are you posting here? If you didn’t want to listen to nay-sayers, you should have stayed home.
No, you posted here to attempt to convince others that skepticism is dangerous. So, in order to do that, you have to convince people not to be skeptical. So, in order to do that, you have to answer the objections of skeptics who feel their attitude is not dangerous and convice them that it is dangerous.
If you won’t listen to the skeptics, then how are you going to do that?
And you still haven’t answered the question: Why are skeptics responsible for diagnosing a channeller’s medical problems? Shouldn’t her doctor or loved ones do that? Suppose you are schizophrenic (as an example). What responsiblity do I have to make sure that you get medical help? No, I have no such responsiblility, and I can decide that you are a fraud without any ethical problems.
And, I would say most skeptics believe that at least some “psychics” honestly believe in their abilities. Sure there are frauds, but the best frauds believe they are telling the truth.
So, is Uri Geller a fraud, or is he schizophrenic? Or do you have some other theory? And what is our ethical obligation once we diagnose Uri Geller? Should we try to get him admitted to a hospital? Call the cops? Send him a letter saying that we think he’s crazy? How should one act if one believes that another person suffers from mental illness? Under our laws, it is impossible to involuntarily commit someone unless they are deemed a threat to themselves or others. So, if we decide that Uri Geller is mentally ill rather than a fraud, what should we do about it? He is not violent, he is not suicidal or self-destructive. What is our ethical obligation?
My suggestion is that our ethical obligation is to point out that Uri Geller uses ordinary magic tricks to accomplish his feats, not psychic powers, and that anyone who gives him money is foolish. This holds whether Uri Geller is a conscious fraud, or schizophrenic.
At this point I’m just piling on, but I wanted to get my licks in on the post hoc fallacy.
Replace “Ouija board” with “dog” in the woman’s case. Your 50 year old woman notices that her dog’s barks sound a little like English. The dog’s “speech” becomes clearer and clearer, until it’s speaking full English sentences. One day, the woman realizes she can hear what the dog is thinking, just when it looks at her.
Now – did the dog cause the woman’s schizophrenia?
And, now I’ll probably to stretch my analogy past the breaking point. I’ve noticed that a number of the mentally ill have had incidents where they believe their pets are communicating with them. Didn’t Son of Sam believe he was getting instructions from his dog? Yet, skeptics would say he was a fraud. I beleive that we should really look into this pet-mental illness connection.
Now, Jeremy, upon reading that, were you a little… skeptical?
Great analogy!
I find it actually more credible. At least dogs have been shown since domestication that they can understand some human speech (“Fetch, sit, go potty…”). Seems more likely than communicating through a block of wood. My $.02
That’s not skepticism. Skepticism is just the refusal to believe anything that cannot be proven.
Hmm… we haven’t defined skepticism, have we? Does The Skeptical Inquirer (remember where this thread started!) have any kind of manifesto or statement that would shed light on it’s definition?
I would say Screwtape’s definition goes too far. After all, the nature of proof is very slippery, there is little if anything that can be proven. We skeptical folk just believe stuff less when there is less evidence for it.
True, inventing a word doesn’t automatically increase someone’s knowledge. However, spending millions of dollars and man hours researching and treating schizophrenia has given the medical establishment a pretty good idea that what was happening in Mrs. S.A.s brain was a biochemical disorder, and not evil spirits.
Turns out they were right, at least by Jeremy’s account of the details.