Having been a little mean to the skeptics in my last post, I have something to confess in the sequel: Sometimes I’m one of them. On certain issues I’m as closed-minded as any skeptic, displaying exactly the same psychology and the same set of responses.
This became clear to me recently when, by coincidence, two different people happened to be in touch with me via e-mail, both trying to convince me that Barack Obama’s 1961 birth certificate is, or could be, a fake. In both cases I dismissed the idea out of hand, and even when one correspondent sent me numerous links to videos and blog posts and begged me to look at the evidence with an open mind, I complied in only the most halfhearted way.
I did look at about half the videos, but I was more interested in the rebuttal videos displayed on the YouTube sidebar. I found that any seemingly plausible explanation of the alleged anomalies in the birth certificate was acceptable to me, even if the explanation did not address all the issues.
After an hour or so, I felt I’d given the issue more than a fair shake. In fact, I felt rather proud of myself for being so “open-minded.”
Or at least I did, until the same correspondent pointed out that it would take far longer than an hour to properly analyze, or even understand, these complicated technical claims and counterclaims. He added, “I get the feeling you’re not really too interested in this,” which was true. I just don’t think claims of a conspiracy involving Obama’s birth certificate are credible, so I’m not interested in spending more than a token amount of time and energy learning about them, and I’m perfectly content to accept the first more-or-less satisfactory evidence that makes the whole issue go away.
And I can’t even blame myself for feeling this way, because life is short, I have higher priorities, and I really do believe it’s a waste of time and effort to look into every fringe conspiracy scenario.
But … isn’t this exactly what skeptics of the paranormal say to justify their own lack of interest in the details of paranormal cases?
Skeptics find the idea of the paranormal so unlikely that they don’t want to waste much time on it. In fact, not only does it strike them as unlikely, but it’s also personally distasteful to them, just as conspiracy theories are to me.
Like me, skeptics are not interested in delving deeply into the evidence because they’ve already concluded that nothing valuable will be obtained.
Like me, they seize on the first apparently acceptable “conventional” explanation for any anomalous findings, even if the explanation doesn’t cover all the facts or has been questioned by knowledgeable people.
Like me, they regard the whole controversy as silly, childish, and irrational.
I’m not trying to beat myself up about this. I still think Obama’s birth certificate is genuine, and I still think conspiracy theories are mostly stupid. (The main reason I find them stupid is that they are not disprovable; any evidence that casts doubt on the conspiracy is reinterpreted by the conspiracy theorists as part of the cover-up.) But I can’t say, in all honesty, that there is some unbridgeable gulf between me and the paranormal skeptics, since I’ve already demonstrated that I’m perfectly capable of committing all the same errors and relying on all the same psychological defense mechanisms that I’ve ascribed (I think correctly) to them.
The only real difference between us lies in what we choose to take seriously, and what we choose to shrug off. Everybody has a different “boggle threshold,” and what is plausible or at least possible to one person may seem absurd and unthinkable to someone else.
In fact, one of my correspondents unwittingly highlighted this very point. In an effort to show me how sensible and reasonable he is, he wrote: “You know me. I don’t believe in mind reading … I don’t believe in ghosts …”
Possibly not the ideal tack for him to take!
🙂