Filed under: Logical Fallacies, Skepticism | Tags: burden of proof, paranormal, skeptic, Skepticism
As a proponent of critical thinking it isn’t uncommon to be asked whether I would ever consider a paranormal explanation for an alleged haunting or other strange event. The answer is one you would find from many other sceptics: I do not consider one particular paranormal theory to be any worthier than another. You could argue that this is dressing up the word ‘no’ under a glossy sheen, and that just makes me a ‘closed minded shit’. However, it’s a position that makes a lot of logical sense.
Numerous claims of the weird and wonderful fill the lines of countless newspapers, magazines, books and web pages. Individuals claim to be visited by witches in their sleep, to have been abducted by aliens, come face to face with the Virgin Mary and have taken photographs of ghosts. It really is true that, within the scope of their own vocabulary, anybody can claim anything they want. Yes, I could say I believe I have seen a leprechaun. However, making a claim does not instantly render the information it contains to be correct. Just because I believe I have been met a leprechaun it does not mean I actually have, or that leprechauns even exist.
Some claims are testable, any any new or bold claim needs to be supported by compelling evidence that is tantamount to proof before it can be accepted. Claims which are supposed to stretch scientific understanding (for example, the existence of life after death and, of course, leprechauns) need, by necessity, to be demonstrated through scientific experimentation and adherence to the relevant scientific protocols. As the late astronomer Carl Sagan famously stated, ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’. This requirement is commonly known as the burden of proof.
Proponents of theories which lack solid evidence clearly face an issue in addressing this burden of proof [1]. I’m sure that leprechauns exist but I cannot prove it.
One of the most common retorts to this situation is for the supporter of a theory to simply state ‘well, you prove it doesn’t exist’. This is known as shifting the burden of proof. In other words, the argument is this: ‘you cannot prove leprechauns do not exist. Therefore they do exist!’ To some this sounds perfectly reasonable, yet the logic is not sound for two very good reasons:
1. A good way to see where the burden of proof lies is to regress the debate. When we are born we do not possess an inbuilt knowledge or awareness of the existence of leprechauns. This awareness can only be raised when we acquire this supposed knowledge from a third party or our own personal perception and thoughts. The onus of meeting the burden of proof lies with those making the claim to an otherwise unaware mind.
2. It is exceptionally difficult to prove a negative (and those who attempt to shift the burden of proof often know this). No matter how many people take up the challenge of looking for that leprechaun I can always claim that they are looking in the wrong place, he has gone on holiday to Mars or that he has the power to become invisible. In short, those nasty sceptics will never be able to prove that the leprechaun does not exist. However, in terms of logical reasoning, ‘x’ is not proven because ‘not x’ cannot be proven. Therefore, the existence of leprechauns is not proven because the non-existence of leprechauns cannot be proven.
If you are now hopelessly confused, look at it another way: failing to prove the non-existence of leprechauns adds nothing to the weight of the argument that leprechauns do exist. If you are still having difficulty understanding this logic then replace ‘leprechaun’ with a more outlandish claim. ‘Vampire pumpkins’ [2] or ‘intelligent, teleporting coathangers’ should suffice. In fact, the more outlandish a claim the easier it is to understand the logic. Just because you cannot disprove the existence of a six foot tall, invisible, heroin addicted, bisexual rabbit called Xargax inside the colon of the Pope, it doesn’t mean he does exist!
Despite the fallacious logic of shifting the burden of proof, there remain those who will not budge from this position. [3] Let us assume that we allow a particular claim to bypass the need to meet the burden of proof. We have accepted one claim that is factually worthless; it has nothing resembling compelling evidence to support it. To avoid the logical fallacy of inconsistency we must now open the door to a potentially infinite number of other factually worthless claims.
So, if we bypass the burden of of proof and accept that leprechauns are real, we must also accept the other claims which have as much factual evidence (i.e. none) to support them. Those coathangers, blood sucking pumpkins should be considered real and, clearly, there would be need for the Catholic pontiff to be very, very worried. Yes, anything that is factually worthless can be considered real, and facts will vary from individual to individual as they indulge their own fantasies.
Fortunately we do not live in a world where addressing the burden of proof has become redundant. Even the most ardent paranormal ‘true believer’ will likely consider equating belief in ghosts to intestinal rabbits to be ludicrous or even insulting. Yet both standard on equal footing in terms of factual worth. As previously examined, to accept one on the basis of supporting evidence is to open the door to the other and its potentially infinite cousins. This is why I will not support a paranormal explanation to an anomalous event:
One paranormal explanation is no worthier than another in terms of its factual grounding. Some may claim that the persistence of belief in spirits must add some weight to their cause, but this is merely another fallacy: the appeal to tradition. It does not follow that the longevity of a claim equates to its factual value.
Instead, it makes more sense to explore the rational explanations; and if these cannot provide a solution it is not a concession to proponents of paranormal theories to label the event as unexplained by my knowledge. Of course, this is not to say that there is nobody on the planet who can explain these unusual events. In the event that something really does expose a gap in human knowledge, it is again illogical to champion one cause above another without fulfilling the burden of proof. [4]
Notes
[1] At this point it seems to make the most sense to either give up on a claim, acknowledge that the evidence is lacking or, most constructive of all, go out and collect the compelling evidence. Unfortunately the internet is littered with discussions in which supporters of a claim attempt to squirm their way out of addressing the burden of proof. Fans of logical fallacies can easily discover numerous examples of red herrings, circular reasoning and arguments to and from ignorance alongside attempts to shift the burden of proof.
[2] Oddly enough these featured as a part of Romany folklore. More on them at another time…
[3] Arguably the most well known example is Victor Zammit who offers a prize to those who can disprove the existence of life after death.
[4] Stating x cannot currently be explained does not equate to saying that y must therefore be the cause.
Filed under: Science, Skepticism | Tags: alternative medicine, placebo, Science, skeptic, Skepticism
I am fascinated by alternative medicine. For centuries people have claimed to be able to heal others by the power of touch alone, whilst the belief in prayer as a healer is just as long running. A lot of people say they have a friend or relative that suffered from some mystery ailment that was cured after a visit to the Reiki master, church, homeopathist or chiropractor. I often hear the friend of the healed then scoff at the notions of science and skepticism, suggesting they’re some way off the mark. Making fun of the men in white coats aside, claims of these miracle cures are certainly very interesting, even more so given there are methods of validating them.
Yet validation means different things to different people. Some proponents of alternative medicine will simply turn around and say ‘hey, it worked for him and that person’s word is all I need’. Many alternative praticioners’ websites abound with such testimonies, but the skeptic isn’t so readily convinced. The skeptic likes to look at all sides of the story and weigh up the evidence. After all, anybody can claim anything - it doesn’t necessarily mean its true.
Alternative medicine often states it can produce factually measurable effects - i.e. the killing of diseased cells, the healing of broken bones - on a patient. Clearly, this impedes upon the realm of science and medicine and therefore it becomes fair game to employ scientific scrutiny upon these claims. Generally speaking, good science (as opposed to pseudoscience - more on that soon!) will not reach a conclusion on any claim until it can produce, or fail to produce, repeatable results in fair experimental conditions (where what is normal is established [control condition] and factors [dependent variables] which could affect the results are accounted for and, if possible, removed).
Under such scientific scrutiny it can be established whether a treatment actually produces the outcome the alternative medicine practitioner claims. For example, taking Reiki as a possible cure for cancer, scientific studies have found no evidence to support this. Funnily enough there is well documented evidence to suggest that patients anticipating improvement following certain treatments will actually feel better in the short term. This is the placebo effect and is accounted for in medical trials by use of a control group given a fake, placebo treatment.
When it comes to viewing the resulyts many alternative practitioners may tend to cry foul, state they were having an ‘off day’ or claim their treatments don’t work on those of a skeptical persuasion. They deny the science rather than accepting it. At this point it would be easy to wander off down the route of answering accusations, but this piece is about the basics of the skeptic’s relationship to science. The side shows can wait.
So, on one hand we have the positive yet subjective, anecdotal claims of healers and patients. On the other we have the scientific study which produces measurable empirical data. Again, one is based upon personal interpretation, the other on hard results. Given that the skeptic is after reliable, empirical data to assess the worth of a treatment, it makes their decision a no-brainer.
I touched on it in my previous post, but an accusation commonly thrown at skeptics is that they are ‘closed minded’. When pressed to asking the accuser what this actually means, they typically respond that skeptics have shaped their own world view and will deny anything which runs contrary to it.
It’s important to remember that skepticism is not a ‘world view’; it is a method of evaluating a claim based on the best available evidence. The skeptic (i.e. someone who utilises skepticism) remains agnostic until they have weighed up the pros and cons of a claim and have decided which presents the most compelling evidence. Hardly the actions of a closed mind.
By contrast to the skeptic occupying an informed middle ground, those who ‘have shaped their own world view and will deny anything which runs contrary to it’ can arise on both sides of a claim. They may either agree or disagree with it, because of their world view. They ‘just know’ that something is right or wrong. Unflinching believers tend to be labelled as ‘true believers’, ‘a priori believers’ or, when dealing with claims of the supernatural, ‘woo-woos’. Their polar opposites are the ‘denialists’, otherwise known as ‘a priori skeptics’, ‘hardline disbelievers’ or ‘bullying bastards’. I should point out that a priori essentially means knowledge possessed by an individual, independent of their experience; hence the a priori skeptic just knows something doesn’t exist, whereas the (true) skeptic weighs up the evidence.
Problems can arise when a proponent of a claim accuses the true skeptic of a priori skepticism based upon the speed by which they may reach a decision. They fail to take into consideration that the skeptic may have encountered an identical claim, based upon identical evidence in the past and did the work back then. Therefore this is not hardline disbelief; the skeptic has already covered the issue under discussion and has no need to reinvent the wheel. The door may be shut, but only to what it has seen before. Open it by coming up with something new.
I’ve started other skepticism related blogs in the not too distant past, but have always binned them relatively quickly. They focussed upon news stories deserved of skeptical insight, as opposed to the philosophy of skepticism itself. As this is the sister website of Gloucestershire Paranormal and Fortean Investigations (which employs skeptical reasoning to analyse claims of anomalous and allegedly paranormal events), I think it makes sense to try to get to the bare bones of what skepticism is and why it is a useful tool…
I consider myself to live in a society where I am being constantly bombarded by claims that I should buy certain products, wear certain clothes, give money to certain charities, believe in certain religions, watch a certain film or put my faith in certain treatments that will help ease the stresses of life. Likewise, many claimants entice by highlighting the benefits they offer, as opposed to any drawbacks or weaknesses in the underlying product, treatment or philosophy. How can I really be sure everything is as good as it is made out to be? How do I know I am being told the truth? I guess I could always try to sample all of the wines, religions and treatments, but I have neither the time or money to do so. I could also go with what I feel sounds or looks ‘right’, take a ‘lucky dip’, or go with the advice and testimony of someone else.
But, on the whole, I don’t do that. I’ve become too wary of getting stuck with a metaphorical turkey and the financial loss that often goes with it. If I make a decision, I’d rather make one that is rational, balanced and informed.
So, I employ skepticism as a means of reaching a decision. This entails putting personal beliefs and prejudices to one side before weighing up all sides of an issue. I will choose the side which has reliable, compelling, objectively collected and factual evidence behind it. If I still can’t reach a decision then I’ll go off and find some factually based sources which can provide me with more information. Should any new evidence crop up then, or at a later date, I’ll reassess the issue accordingly (skepticism and knowledge go hand in hand, the former entailing a constant search for the latter).
My previous paragraph makes skepticism seem as balanced and rational as it should be. It doesn’t portray skepticism as the evil, closed-minded system of denialism that some mistakenly present it as. Let’s address that one here and now. Yes, there are people who claim to be skeptics who are nothing of the sort. Some of these are the ones who will deny any claim of the weird and wonderful without any consideration. These people are closed-minded denialists. They represent skepticism no more than the pope represents Buddhism!
The bottom line is that people pushing weak products, policies, beliefs and religions have an all too clear interest in giving skepticism a bad name. Skepticism allows the individual to see through all of the glossy marketing and enticing packaging to uncover what’s really underneath.
The ironic thing is that the people who dislike skepticism will almost certainly apply it in other areas of their life. For example, it is usually skepticism that makes us delete the email from a Nigerian magnate who has access to a hidden gold reserve but needs money to mine it. It is usually skepticism that makes us decide not to have our windows replaced by the tradesman who has just knocked on the door. It is also skepticism that makes us know that photograph shows a speck of out of focus dust, and not the wandering soul of a dead relative. It is skepticism that allows us to make rational, informed decisions throughout our daily lives. And is that such a bad thing?
