Definitive Definitions of the Indefinable

the Skeptic, Vol 13 No 1

by Sir Jim R Wallaby

John Smyrk, computer consultant and former secretary of the NSW branch, has come up with an interesting idea which we pass to our readership for discussion. John would like us to compile an anthology of pseudoscientific and paranormal cliches, their accepted (by those who believe in such things) meanings together with definitions of what they really mean.

I will start the ball rolling with some of my favourites and invite our readers to contribute their own, which will be published in later issues. You can of course give your views on the ones included here. Let’s start with an old favourite.

Energies Unknown to Science (EUTS)

Accepted meaning:

Subtle forces which permeate the ether/astral plane/spiritual dimension and which are connected to the life-force/universal spirit, and which, because they are located in the spiritual/metaphysical/psychic universe, are undetectable by the gross means employed by science.

Real meaning:

That which is proposed by believers to account for occurrences which conflict with, or are forbidden by, what is really known to science. That there is no good evidence that these occurrences really occur is not considered to be relevant by believers. As these EUTS are only known about because of their effects on human beings, who are controlled by energies known to science, then there must logically be some interface between the mystical and mundane planes which should therefore allow these energies to be detected by scientific methods. So far, there is no sign of this.

There may well be energies unknown to science, but it is unlikely that they will have anything to do with spoon bending.

The shyness effect

Accepted meaning:

The seriously inhibiting effect exerted on psi phenomena by negative vibrations or thoughts emanating from sceptics.

Real Meaning:

The fact is that various paranormal phenomena do not appear to work when tested by rigorously controlled experiments and where the opportunities for cheating or self delusion are restricted.

A curious aspect of the shyness effect is that it only becomes apparent when the perpetrator of the paranormal phenomenon knows there is a sceptic present. As James Randi and others have shown, negative vibrations from covert or disguised sceptics do not seem to inhibit the performance.

They all laughed at Galileo

Accepted meaning:

‘They’ (the establishment) are closed minded to new ideas and will not consider anything that may interfere with their cosy self-image and power. Just look at how Galileo/Einstein/Wegener etc were treated by ‘them’ when they proposed their revolutionary concepts. My new theory/demonstration/invention is just as revolutionary, ‘they’ are persecuting me, therefore I must be right.

Real meaning:

Broadly, there are four categories of how new ideas are treated:

1. They are right and are accepted with little fuss after they have been confirmed. Most scientific discoveries fall into this category.
2. The are wrong, but are accepted. Usually this occurs when accepted theories, often reasonable ones in the light of current knowledge, are later overthrown by better evidence or more complete knowledge. The Biblical story of creation falls into this category, as does astrology. In some cases, factors other than evidence or knowledge are involved in this category, an obvious example being Trofim Lysenko, whose theories on plant genetics were politically correct (in the Stalinist USSR), but scientifically untenable. This is not at all unusual with ideas that are mainly adopted for their political correctness.
3. They are right but are ignored. Alfred Wegener’s theory of ‘continental drift’ is a good example of this. At first rejected, accumulating evidence over many years forced it to be accepted by other geologists. There are other examples, but it is not as commonplace as pseudoscientists would have us believe.
4. They are wrong and are ignored. This is by far the largest category - Australian Skeptics have files full of such ideas, as no doubt do many scientists. Sometimes, though rarely I would judge, the proposers are persecuted; more often they are ignored, which actually hurts the proponent more than persecution would.

Usually these ideas are postulated by people who have no particular skills in the fields into which they delve, though they may have expertise in others. Occasionally they attract bands of dedicated followers who frequently make even more dubious claims about the work than do the proposers. A prominent case of this type is Wilhelm Reich, who was indeed persecuted, and whose proposal of ‘orgone’ energy was a classic example of the EUTS mentioned above.

Most people who say "They all laughed at Galileo" fall into this category, though they would wish us to believe they fall into category 3.

To paraphrase the late Isaac Asimov, "to be a persecuted genius, you not only have to be persecuted, you also have to be right". In other words, the fact (or the perception) of persecution is no indication of the correctness of the idea. In the case of Galileo, he was not persecuted by other scientists (of whom there were few in his day), rather by the political and religious (in his case much the same thing) establishments. Galileo was right because he was right, not because he was persecuted. This is a counter example to that of Lysenko, where political correctness required Galileo to be wrong, regardless of the evidence. Other scientists soon took his ideas aboard and have continued to do so to this day and even the Catholic Church has seen fit, after 500 years, to forgive him. Incidentally, there is no historical evidence that anybody ever actually laughed at Galileo.

Not fully explained

Accepted meaning:

This is a serious mystery which science is unable or unwilling to explain, possibly through ignorance but more probably through malice or a conspiracy.

Real meaning:

1. This has been fully explained but the believers will not accept the explanation.
2. What on earth is there to explain?
3. There may be something here to explain but it is of such trivial moment as to not require much effort.

This phrase is frequently used by UFOnuts who like to cite the fact that, while some 97% of UFO sightings are accounted for by planets, aircraft, natural phenomena, hoaxes and misperceptions, there remain some 3% which are ‘not fully explained’. This use of statistics can often be misleading, as many of the alleged 3% are covered by answers 2 and 3 above, or cannot be explained because there is insufficient evidence on which to base any explanation, while many of the ‘best cases’ presented by UFO believers actually fall within the 97% covered by answer 1. In some of these cases, especially where the overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to fraud, they cannot be ‘fully’ explained short of a confession by the perpetrator.

Sceptical UFO investigator Bob Sheaffer, who visited Australia some years ago, put this in perspective with the statement, "A lot of robberies in the USA remain unsolved but that doesn’t mean that aliens committed them".

PSI missing

Accepted meaning:

A staple of the parapsychologists. Psychic or paranormal forces are subtle and difficult to pin down. When testing for an individual’s ability to predict at a level better than chance, we also find some who consistently predict at a level worse than chance. This is significant.

Real meaning:

Psychic and paranormal forces, for which there is very little compelling evidence outside of the wishful thinking of parapsychologists, are tested for by large batteries of tests. Occasionally these seem to give marginally statistically significant results which are difficult to sort out from the noise around the chance level. If, however, we also add the cases where people are more consistently right to the cases where they are more consistently wrong, the significance looks to be greater. We can further refine this by rechecking the data after the event and add in all the cases where the subject missed by a small amount eg one either side of the correct answer, cases where the subject gave the correct answer to this test in another test and any other post facto pattern that we can find in the results, the level of significance can be made to appear much greater.

Even if we were to accept that someone has demonstrated, in tightly controlled laboratory experiments, an ability to predict consistently at a level greater than chance, it would not support the claims of the various psychics who offer their services for a fee.

The levels of significance claimed by many parapsychologists do not differ from chance by all that much in the real world and one could hardly imagine a psychic advertising his skills as being slightly above chance levels. For example, if chance dictated a 20% correct response and if a psychic demonstrated a consistent 22% success rate, he might be demonstrating a very interesting ability, but you would still go broke very quickly by following his racing tips. And that is in the order of the success often claimed by parapsychologists.

There is a government conspiracy

Accepted meaning:

The government (any government) is controlled by powerful (satanic; extraterrestrial; occult; secret; Jewish; socialist; fascist; capitalist;

[add you favourite here]) individuals who conspire to keep the truth about (UFOs, water fluoridation; the New World Order; the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the Holocaust; free energy; [add your favourite here]) from the people. They will do anything to prevent this secret conspiracy from leaking out.

Real meaning:

The government (any government) is controlled by ordinary, fallible individuals like you and me. They particularly conspire to keep this knowledge from us. They also conspire to keep from us the fact that they have no idea how the country/state/municipality got into the mess it is in and even less idea how to get it out of it; how they have managed to squander the vast sums they are entrusted with on hare-brained projects with no lasting value; that governments (and most other large organisations) are hopelessly incompetent; and all manner of other things they would prefer the electorate not to know about.

This is not really a conspiracy, it is really politics. I suspect that governments are actually quite happy to have people focus on the more fanciful conspiracy theories as it distracts our attention from their real failings. When you think about it, if they really are as powerful and sinister as the conspiracy theorists would have us believe, how come they allow so many people to propagate so many fantastic claims in books and the mass media?

"I used to be a sceptic"

Accepted meaning:

"I too was an unenlightened, closed-minded and negative individual like you. Then I underwent an experience/revelation that convinced me of the undoubted validity of (add your own paranormal category here). My life has been transformed for the better by the experience."

Real meaning:

"I was an empty vessel, just waiting around for some crackpot idea to fill the vessel and to bring meaning to my boring existence."

This is the universal claim of the chronic believer. It rarely varies, except in the case of the creationists who use the version, "I used to be an evolutionist". Real scientists do not refer to themselves as evolutionists any more than they refer to themselves as relativitists or quantumites.

A true sceptic is always open to the possibility that any given paranormal or pseudoscientific speculation might be shown, by good evidence, to be an accurate picture of the world. Should this occur and should, say, the evidence for astrology become compelling, the sceptic will accept that, while remaining sceptical about other unbelievable things until such time as the evidence dictates otherwise.

The believer, on the other hand, is disposed to believe in any case. Prevailing circumstances are what cause one individual to become a creationist and another a UFOlogist. It is only the dogma associated with some beliefs which precludes the believer in one irrational hypothesis from believing in many others. The reason why the average creationist does not normally believe in new age claims is because he has been told they are evil, not because he has rationally determined that they are rubbish. And vice, of course, versa.

Now you have my thoughts on some of the more common statements or claims made by believers in irrational hypotheses. There are lots more that you will strike in your daily intercourse with the credulous and you are invited to submit them for publication.

There is just one final point I would like to commend to the attention of my fellow Skeptics. Be not afraid to confront your own prejudices.