From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Faq List for skeptics, 2
Date: 1 Sep 92 10:48:53 GMT

[...cont'd from part 1 of 2]

6.  What do skeptics do that's constructive?   Isn't skepticism a
negative concept?

First, skeptics have fun looking at fringe claims to see if they might
have merit, and often actually hope they do.  At worst, that's harmless.
Second, when skeptics do a good job, they help people avoid wasting
their time on notions that don't pan out.  I'm grateful for being
steered away from wild-goose chases, aren't you?   Sounds constructive
to me! Third, on rare occasions, we've confirmed that we've actually
saved lives. [Describe helping Randi with faith-healing
investigations....]
 
7.  Shouldn't people have a right to believe whatever they want?  Who
elected YOU thought police?

Of course people should believe what they want, and skeptics wouldn't
want it any other way.  Also, they _can't_ be thought police, even if
they wanted to, since all they do is give out information -- usually
information most people haven't seen or thought about.  If anything is
thought-control, it would have to be _depriving_ people of skeptics'
work and ideas.  Skeptics want to give ALL explanations a fair chance on
their merits, while many less critical paranormal fans don't.  Who's the
thought police, then?

8.  What do you get out of being a skeptic?

Entertainment.  An excellent chance to make a fool of myself in public.
On rare occasions, a suspicion that I might be doing someone some good.

9.  Isn't skepticism a closed-minded, dogmatic position?  How can you
pretend to do impartial inquiry when you are logical positivists /
fundamentalist materialists / secular humanists / ... ?

Look, if I partook of ALL the highly varied ideologies I've been accused
of mindlessly following as a skeptic, I'd be one horribly confused
little guy.  However, this misses the point:  Skeptics _don't ask_ to be
trusted on faith based on their personal impeccableness:  Things they
say either have merit or don't, and you can judge that for yourself.
They AIM for impartial inquiry, but it's the _results'_ merit, not
_their_ merit, that either stands on its own or doesn't.  You be the
judge.
 
10.  Have you ever has what you considered a genuine psychic experience?
What would convince you that a particular claim is genuine?

More than once, I've had experiences I _fooled myself_ into thinking
were genuinely paranormal -- specifically "deja vu" sensations.  I've
also seen eerie lights in the sky.  The former are well-known quirks of
brain function (but not to me at the time), and the latter I never did
chase down, and no longer remember enough details to expect to do so.
The point is that I fool myself and jump to conclusions like anyone
else, which is why magicians love people like me as audiences.  The
point is NOT to claim that people don't have anomalous experiences (they
do), but rather to find the best INTERPRETATION for them, instead of
jumping for a psychic one.  [Tell story about Randi being amazed by
Arthur G. Lintgen successfully "reading" classical records' grooves.]

As far as a particular claim being genuine, I'd do my best on my own,
investigating it.  Then, if it still looks interesting, I'd bow to real
expertise and find out what a VARIETY of people who _really_ know the
subject think. (That's where "skeptical" experts help, by adding to the
variety of views to consider.)  I'd try to figure out how preliminary
the results are.  I'd consider alternative interpretations.  In the end,
I'd either say "yes", "no", or "I don't think we know yet" -- judging
each case uniquely.

11.  What about [cases of skeptics making intolerant statements;
lawsuits against skeptics -- Gareth Pendragon, Geller/Byrd, Doreen
Rainier; Mars Effect so-called controversy]?

Well, first, skeptics aren't perfect:  They lose patience, they lose
tempers, they make mistakes.  They're also perceived as a threat to some
very lucrative businesses that don't appreciate critical scrutiny.  So,
they must be extremely careful, and expect to pay dearly if they mess
up.  Second, unfortunately, any crank or zealot can call himself a
skeptic, and some do.  Therefore, _some_ statements by self-described
skeptics I absolutely disavow.  However, respectable skeptics' GROUPS
make every effort to get rid of people like that, make amends for their
misdeeds, and distance themselves from them.  This is far more than you
see from uncritical fringe-science groups, and what more can one do?

Best Regards,        "When I was younger, I could remember everything,
Rick Moen             whether it had happened or not."  -- Mark Twain
Speaking for himself alone.
Best reached at Rick_Moen@blyth.com

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)