Guest post: a capital idea

Roger Knights sent me this post. I think it's an interesting idea, though I'm not sure I'm sold on it. Here it is: 

====

Almost five years ago MP said (see below) that he was going to refer to professional skeptics (or "card-carrying skeptics") as "debunkers," because that word conveys their dismissive mission, while not being insulting like "scoffer" or "cynic." But that word still conveys a lot of disdain when our side uses it. I think we should reserve it for use in our angrier moments, and select a more neutral term for cool-blooded mentions such as were made in the recent "Monsters of Florence" thread.

That word, I suggest, is "Skeptics"--i.e., "skeptics" capitalized. It is polite, but everyone will intuitively grasp its subtext: that they are capital-S skeptics. IOW, that they are overdoing it.

I suggest that MP add a guideline to a masthead above each thread recommending this spelling.

[Excerpt from this post:]

Too many of the so-called skeptics–I mean professional skeptics, not laypeople–operate like defense attorneys who are determined to muddy the waters, confuse the jury, exploit technicalities, and game the system in order to win debating points at the expense of the truth. Their approach all too often consists of tendentious hairsplitting and obvious logical fallacies, like personal attacks, question-begging, and appeals to emotion.

As many people have pointed out, the term skeptic is not really appropriate for people who operate this way. Skepticism implies neutrality, a willingness to look at the evidence without prejudice and follow it wherever it may lead. A great many of the self-styled skeptics clearly have an agenda, usually rooted in materialism and secular humanism, and have made up their minds long before they began their “investigations,” which consist mainly of cherry picking the weakest examples or focusing on a few dubious details in an otherwise impeccable case. Like the defense team in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, they subject each drop of blood to endless analysis and speculation, creating a climate of doubt and a fog of confusion, without troubling to notice that there is a trail of blood leading directly from the murder victims to the suspect's car and from the suspect's car to his house. They pick apart each leaf on the branch of a particular tree, but never acknowledge the forest.

Though I've called them skeptics in the past, I think from now on I will call them debunkers. The word debunker is neutral, not insulting like other some options (denier, scoffer, etc.). The so-called skeptics themselves often describe themselves as engaged in debunking, so they can't reasonably object to the term. But unlike the word skeptic, the word debunker suggests an agenda; it suggests that the person is actively seeking to invalidate a certain claim. And this is true of most of the so-called skeptics most of the time.

I might add that debunkers are not always wrong. Far from it. Some of the cases really are weak and deserve criticism. I've played the role of debunker myself, particularly in regard to some (though not all) claims of materialization mediumship. Debunking can be a perfectly legitimate and useful activity, but it is an activity dictated by an agenda, and the word captures this connotation in a way that the word skeptic does not.

Comments

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

I think that Christopher Stillar has many 'dazzle shots'. Here is one of his sessions with "Chad", an unbeliever. If the videos haven't been manipulated I think this is quite impressive. Mr. Stillar lives in Canada and perhaps is not so well known in the U.S. I have not seen any criticism about him maybe because it is difficult to find evidence that he is a fraud. - AOD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g74znWzyRTU

[no one]

"I'm sure this is true in many cases. It doesn't match up with my own experience, however. In my case, I became interested in the paranormal because of some interesting personal experiences"

Same with me.

"...I'd also say that, in my case, "wanting to believe" is not necessarily the biggest factor. As I've written elsewhere, the idea of life after death appeals to me in some respects, but in other respects it seems scary and troubling. There are times when I think personal extinction would be preferable to entering some other dimension with unknown rules and unforeseeable challenges....."

That is an ambivalence I also feel from time to time. Also, though a 100% believer in the afterlife, I am not at all convinced that I will be reunited with loved ones or even that I or others will experience some unmitigated bliss or any of that other stuff that Skeptics think I have a psychological need for.

[no one]

AOD, Watched the vid at your link. Christopher Stillar isn't even close to my experience with Georgia O'Connor. With Georgia it was like I was having a conversation with the deceased. The medium wasn't getting impressions at some peak periods during the sitting. It was the deceased themselves making statements and Georgia even adopting facial expression and other mannerisms of the deceased (I sat with her in person at her house).

With Stillar there's too much "I'm getting the impression of something red". With Georgia there were no vague references or impressions. Rather detailed direct statements and facts that were true. Stillar is more like - though a little better than - the spiritualists that failed to convince me.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

No One,
Based on your recommendation I will schedule a telephone appointment with Georgia O'Connor. Her rates seem to be reasonable. I did think that Stiller's reference to 'pickles' and 'donkeydick' in the Chad reading was impressive. I have watched all of his YouTube videos and as a group I do think his readings are very good and not something he could come up with in a cold reading or through available research. They are videos however and they may have been manipulated to portray him in the best light. He seems to be a down-to-earth kind of guy and not one to inflate his own importance. I like him. - AOD

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

No One,
I was only able to find one video of Georgia O'Connor on the internet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhYkL72jcCo and I am sorry to say I was not impressed. She might as well have just asked the audience "is there anyone here studying for the bar" and then proceeded to cold read from there. e.g., ' You will have two children.' 'You need to get more sleep' 'You need to take your vitamins', 'Your grandmother is here.' (The woman's two grandmothers were still living but Georgia said then it is your great grandmother.)

With the other woman Georgia said that it was her mother than was coming through but her mother was sitting next to her. Then the lady said it was her mother-in-law. 'She cooks with a lot of grease.' (The woman said she likes fried chicken.) For me these are not very accurate readings. If you look at all of Stillar's sessions (and he has many on YouTube while I could only find one of Georgia's) you will see that they are very accurate and he provides specific information e.g. 'pickles' and donkeydick'. Stillar is not 100% correct but he has a good track record. I am sure you will see some unbelievable 'hits' that he could not possibly have known by cold reading or researching the sitter.

I think I will re-think a session with Georgia O'Connor.- AOD

[ray]

@sleepers

Nothing in particular it is just the morning after skepticism after the emotions of the event subside and your logical side is sowing seeds of doubt about the experience. I cannot seem to shake it regardless of what I read or what I experience with psi

[ray]

That video is certainly not indicative of the 2 readings I had with her. However if that is the only piece of evidence you have to gauge off of I would understand. Darren Brown could have done better cold reading the audience

[Julie Baxter]

@Ray

"Nothing in particular it is just the morning after skepticism after the emotions of the event subside and your logical side is sowing seeds of doubt about the experience. I cannot seem to shake it regardless of what I read or what I experience with psi"

And it's exactly the same for me. Despite dozens of inexplicable psi experiences, I can't rest in any certainty. But then I suspect that, perhaps, we're not meant to.

Fort this reason I have no particular desire to visit mediums in the future. I've already had enough evidence to sink a ship. Asking for more seems like a form of spiritual alcoholism (for want of a better analogy).

[no one]

"That video is certainly not indicative of the 2 readings I had with her."

Agreed.

When I saw that video I just winced and felt terrible for Georgia. It must have been an "off" day for her and, being in the spotlight, she felt like she to wing it. It probably would have better if she had just stated that nothing was coming through; though that would have led to bad image as well.

[no one]

AOD, "I did think that Stiller's reference to 'pickles' and 'donkeydick' in the Chad reading was impressive."

Agreed. Those were good hits. I watched a few more of his videos and noticed that he used the "basement" image in more than one sitting. That worries me that he often tosses out "basement" - which, in the video you linked to was a "miss".

I ended up watching some videos of other mediums as well and there were a couple that were as remarkable as Georgia was to me with some sitters and then more like Stillar with others.

I suppose that we have to consider the possibility that even a good for real medium is only as good as the spirits that wish to communicate. I hypothesize that when a spirit has a strong desire to communicate and other conditions are right, then we have a good reading. Otherwise, simply having a reading with a spirit that is just around, but has no sense of urgency, may result in vagueness.

I wish that mediums would have the integrity to tell sitters when nothing is coming through or not coming through clearly. Based on what some people have described, even Georgia may cheat a little when the real thing isn't happening. Mores the pity.

Good luck with your sitting with Georgia. I hope you're not disappointed.

[Roger Knights]

I just came across this 2/22/2009 capitalization-suggestion that predates mine:

"There are "Skeptics" (please note the capitalization for this set of individuals closer to professional debunkers than traditional thoughtful skeptics . . . ."
--Lon Coleman, "Short-Sheeting by Skeptics," http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/short-sheeting/

[Roger Knights]

Oops--change "Lon" to "Loren"

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

No One,
Yes, I agree! I think all mediums have their 'on' days and their 'off' days. There are multiple roadblocks to getting a good reading. I think it is a false expectation to think that spirits will communicate 'on demand' from us---we are not talking about a telephone line here!

There is also a problem in interpretation by the medium, that is, what they may see as symbols e.g. George Anderson, may be misinterpreted by them and what they hear may be garbled. If more than one spirit wants to communicate perhaps the messages become mixed-up because two or more spirits are trying to get through and what is reported by the medium doesn't make sense when we are focusing on one particular spirit. (I remember the scene in "Ghost" where Whoopie Goldberg, acting as a medium, is having a session and the room is filled with spirits standing shoulder to shoulder in the room waiting to communicate. Perhaps it is like that.--- I know, it's just a movie.)

I think these problems especially may be true under the strain of time constraints, lights, camera etc. of a television program. I think that Chris Stillar gives his best readings when he is in his own office away from intrusions inherent in public meetings. I think his group programs before an audience are not as good as his private sittings. There just seems to be too much going on.

I would think that the strain of the camera and lights in the case of Georgia O'Connor were two of many factors causing her to produce a poor sitting. Here again, we are expecting communication on demand and that is just not going to happen all of the time and the medium will try to do the best she can under the circumstances, even cheating in some cases e.g. Eusapia Paladino. Perhaps in her own setting, Georgia is more likely to achieve a better 'connection', especially in a face-to-face sitting, such as the ones you had. - AOD