Folklore and the Rise of Moderation
Among Organized Skeptics
A version of this paper was presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the
American Folkore Society in Memphis Tennessee.
Appended to this paper is a page of Selected Web Sites
Related to Organized Skepticism so that the reader may explore this
subject further.
At a spring 1998 workshop held by the National Capitol Area Skeptics at
Solomon's Island Maryland, the focus was on representing skepticism to the
public through lobbying, writing, and challenging scientifically
problematic claims. In one presentation, Chip Denman, a statistician at
the University of Maryland and a founding member of this Washington, DC
area Skeptics group, demonstrated a fascinating device with multicolored
flashing lights that purported to be capable of showing if someone is
telling the truth by detecting signs of stress in their voice. If the
lights flashed more on the green and yellow end of the series of flashing
lights, then the person was telling the truth, if more red lights flashed,
then the person was lying.
After Chip's presentation, the participants broke up into several groups
to discuss ways of testing the device to see if the product claims were
accurate. The group I was in was amused to find that the lights flashed
red when a man with a baritone voice read the specifications of the device
out loud, indicating that he was lying. We came up with several possible
ways to test the validity of those specifications, all of which would take
a good deal of time. But another group developed a plan for testing the
device that they could try immediately. Paul Jaffe, a recent graduate of
the University of Maryland, explained that their group had discussed ways
to induce stress to test whether the device registered vocal differences
between speech with and without a stressful stimulus. The problem was to
come up with a method of inducing stress in a subject ethically, and Paul
announced that the group had come up with just such a method. With no
further explanation, Paul went back to the back of the meeting room and
noisily filled a large pitcher with ice.
Suddenly one of the participants, Jamy Ian Swiss, stood up and shouted
"Run for your lives! It's science!" Everybody laughed and nobody ran.1
Paul called for volunteers, still without further explication of his plan,
and recruited three slightly reluctant subjects, and a panel of judges to
determine the results. He proceeded to ask some simple questions of each
subject, and then ask the same questions again while holding the ice-
filled pitcher over their heads. At the end of the experiment the judges
found that the device had shown a difference between the stressed and
unstressed speech, but only a very slight difference.2
The Research
I became interested in organized skepticism after becoming aware of some
encounters between folklorists and Skeptics, and I became more intrigued
as I saw the variety of lively debate among Skeptics about issues of
science and belief. But is a group formed to promote science and reason
and to challenge claims of the supernatural and the paranormal an
appropriate subject for folklore research? It was about the time that Paul
Jaffe was holding a pitcher of ice over a fellow Skeptic's head in order
to ethically induce stress that I decided that there is indeed a great
deal for folklorists to learn from the study of organized skepticism. At
the very least, perhaps, I can debunk the rumor that Skeptics lack a sense
of humor!
Another aspect of organized skepticism that interested me early in my
research was the analysis of skeptical expression by Skeptics themselves.
In particular, Mike Sofka of the Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York has
written an article on "The Myths of Skepticism" that examines and
critiques some of the underlying assumptions common among Skeptics,
demonstrating that there are Skeptics interested in asking questions like
"who are Skeptics?" and "what convictions or beliefs do Skeptics share?"
in much the same way as an ethnographer would ask these questions. 3
My ethnographic research is still in its early stages, but at this
point I feel it may be useful to gather feedback from my colleagues in
folklore and from Skeptics. During the past two years I have read widely
in Skeptic publications, visited lectures and events held by the National
Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS), a group with about 200 members that was
founded in 1987. I made one visit to the Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New
York (ISUNY), a smaller group in Albany founded in 1994. I have also
participated in the Skeptics Listserv and explored Web sites and online
presentations by Skeptic groups. I plan to focus on local groups, where
the grass-roots work of recruiting members of this movement takes place.
This fall I distributed a questionnaire to members of NCAS and ISUNY
focused on gathering information about occupational, educational, and
religious or philsophical background of members. In the future I hope to
survey and visit other local groups to learn more about the kinds of
people attracted to skeptic groups and variation between groups. Copies of
questionnaires collected for each group will be given to that group for
their use. I plan another paper that will discuss the findings of this
questionnaire.
Based on ethnographic observation, organized skeptics are comprised of
adults of all ages, are mainly white, and tend to be well-educated. In
the past members of skeptic groups have expressed concern that most
skeptics tended to be men, and stratagized about how skeptic groups might
be made more attractive to women members. But the two groups I visited
have a good many actively participating women members, so perhaps skeptic
groups are becoming more successful in recruiting women. The preliminary
results of the survey of NCAS support these observations. With responses
representing over one-third of the group, the ages ranged from 27-87, the
average member had a Master's degree, and one quarter of the respondants
were women.
Brief History of the Skeptics Movement
Organized skepticism began in 1976 with the founding of the Committee for
the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP),
headquartered in Buffalo, New York. Several of the founders, including
philosopher Paul Kurtz were part of what was then a movement within
Humanism called Secular Humanism. Secular Humanism, which asserts that
atheism is secular and is a view that scientific evidence tends to
support, broke with the American Humanist Association in 1980 and formed
the Council for Secular Humanism.4 Because Paul Kurtz chairs both the Council for Secular
Humanism and CSICOP, many books and articles published about skepticism
have emphasized the relationship between these two movements. But from its
beginnings, organized skepticism has been influenced by members with
various philosophies and ideas, and this variety is still very much
apparent in the expressions of organized skepticism today.
CSICOP and it's journal Skeptical Inquirer have inspired the
creation of numerous local Skeptic and rationalist groups in many parts of
the United States, and in other countries. One local group, the Skeptics
Society in Pasadena, California, has launched a nationally distributed
magazine, The Skeptic, so currently there are two journals for
skepticism in the United States. Internationally, organized skepticism is
most prevalent in English-speaking countries, but the movement has spread
world-wide. One important point about all these groups is that there is no
formal affiliation between US local or other national Skeptic groups and
CSICOP. Affiliation between US local groups and CSICOP has been discussed
in the past, but never occured. Also, while CSICOP recruits scholars and
wealthy patrons as invited members, the local groups must build membership
in the same way as any small special interest groups: recruiting members
through interest in their events and publications. So individual groups
chart their own course.
Goals of the Skeptics Movement
The focus of organized skepticism is said to be challenging claims of the
supernatural and paranormal, exposing scams, frauds, and hoaxes, and
promoting critical thinking. Skeptic groups typically host eight to ten
lectures per year during the fall, winter, and spring, open to the public,
as well as informal events for members. Some larger groups, such as NCAS,
also host larger weekend meetings from time to time, designed to attract
skeptics from other areas. Skeptics write articles for Skeptic and popular
science publications and author books on a variety of subjects. Skeptics
may also lobby the government and the media on issues of importance to
them, and some Skeptics make television or radio appearances. As you may
see from the example I have just given, Skeptics may delve into many
topics in addition to those considered central. For some NCAS Skeptics,
actual product testing is an extension of skeptical interest in debunking
frauds. Issues related to the year-2000 bug have been a focus of interest
of both NCAS and the ISUNY in the past year (1999). General science topics
of interest also appear in Skeptic group's lecture series. This September,
NCAS hosted an entertaining presentation of Mathematical "magic," by math
whiz Arthur Benjamin, at the University of Maryland that attracted many
non-members including quite a few parents with children.
Variation and Change Among Skeptics
Skeptics have a variety of approaches to skepticism and describe
themselves in several ways. Skeptics that take a philosophical position of
strong disbelief in certain subjects sometimes call themselves "Hard
Skeptics." These Skeptics may best be described as coming from an "I'm
from Missouri" school that demands strong proof of claims in the
paranormal or supernatural. Hard Skeptics often cite magician James Randi,
philosopher Paul Kurtz, and/or mathematician Martin Gardner, all founders
of CSICOP, as examples of their stance on skepticism. Skeptics who
sometimes describe themselves as "Skeptics in the tradition of Carl Sagan"
take the view that agnosticism is the right approach to certain issues
when clear proof one way or the other is not available. Mike Sofka, of the
ISUNY skeptics has called this "scientific skepticism" because it presents
the scientifically neutral position to issues that are neither proved nor
disproved.5 Marcello Truzzi, a
sociologist who helped found CSICOP and edited its early journal, calls
this "true skepticism" because it adheres to the standard definition of
skepticism meaning "doubt." For Truzzi, this issue of skepticism as
disbelief vs. skepticism as doubt was one of the reasons he parted company
with CSICOP in its early years. 6
Although this description of "two kinds of Skeptics" may sound simple,
it is not. For some, what is being argued are issues of personal belief.
For others, performance style may be the primary issue. For instance, some
Skeptics may advocate the emotional and confrontational rhetoric they call
"rants" or "tirades" while others prefer a more academic style of
presentation. Clearly there are more kinds of Skeptic than two. For
example, many "Hard Skeptics" may be atheist or agnostic. But some may
point to the example of Martin Gardner, a theist Skeptic, as evidence that
one can be a Hard Skeptic and still hold a belief in God. I have found
that an important principle to keep in mind is that free thinkers will
think freely. Although Skeptics sometimes joke about "The Skeptic's
Manual" and some may feel that there are certain works that all Skeptics
should read, there is no manual and no absolute agreement on what
"skepticism" means, or what ideas all Skeptics should believe or
disbelieve. Individuals are free to make up their own minds. 7
One ongoing debate within skepticism is the scope of the claims they
challenge. The example given by CSICOP and its publications is not clear
as to the boundaries of their inquiry. Articles and books on topics such
as divination, ghosts, UFOs, and psychic ability are the expected fare.
But at various times CSICOP publications have attacked feminism, religion,
the discipline of psychology excepting behaviorism, the discipline of
anthropology, and various works of fiction. These critical views on topics
outside the stated focus of skepticism have provoked debate among members
of Skeptic groups. The criticism of feminism, for example, came at a time
when Skeptic groups were trying to recruit more women members. Complaints
have been taken to heart, and now, if an article critical of feminist
philosophy appears in Skeptical Inquirer at all, it is likely to be
written by a woman. Skeptics have repeatedly criticized CSICOP's penchant
for debunking fiction. Its long-running attack on the X-Files is
particularly divisive, since many Skeptics are fans of the show. Because
some Skeptics watch the program, they are also aware of glaring mistakes
in some reviews published by CSICOP, and express the feeling that if
fiction is to be criticized at all, the criticism should at least be
accurate. Others express concern that shows such as the X-Files promote
negative views of science and perpetuate unscientific ideas. They argue
that science should be presented in a manner that promotes a positive view
of science and scientists, even in fictional television, since fictional
television may be a powerful medium for getting that message accross.
Skeptical attitudes towards religion are important as well. Most local
groups now state, informally or formally, that the belief or disbelief in
God is not an issue appropriate to their forum. In its literature, NCAS
specifies that it does not deal with topics that are beyond scientific
proof, such as the existence or non-existence of God. This makes it clear
that NCAS is not a Secular Humanist organization, though Secular Humanist
members are welcome. ISUNY makes no formal statement concerning religion,
but accepts people of all beliefs. It is an example of a Skeptic group
that had no Secular Humanists among its founding members, though again, if
they wish to join they are welcome.
In 1997 Paul Kurtz called a joint meeting of leaders of Skeptic and
Secular Humanist groups in Buffalo in order to discuss the creation of
"centers for inquiry" in several US cities. The proposal included shared
use of these educational centers by Skeptics and Secular Humanists, and
formal affiliation of Skeptic groups with CSICOP and Secular Humanism.
According to attendees at this event, all but two Skeptic groups present
declined this invitation. Skeptic group leaders felt that formal
affiliation with an atheist group would cause a decline in their
membership. Apparently this common feeling came as something of a surprise
to some of the leaders of local Skeptic groups. Each group was aware of
their own stance on issues of religion, but they were not aware that these
feelings were shared widely.
In the fall of 1998, in response to an article in the Skeptical
Inquirer that was anti-Christian in tone, leaders of twelve Skeptic
groups, eleven in the US and one in Taiwan, organized themselves by
Internet and wrote a letter protesting the inclusion of this article. The
letter was signed by members of both the National Capital Area Skeptics
and the Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York. 8
Another change advocated by many Skeptics is in the choice of language
used to represent skepticism to others. For instance, a phrase that has
commonly appeared in articles by Skeptics and in statements in the
brochures or Web sites of skeptic groups was an expression of concern
about "the rising tide of irrationality." But although this phrase became
an identity marker demonstrating alliance with organized skepticism and a
statement of shared concern, it has increasingly been criticized by
Skeptics themselves. At the NCAS Millennial Madness workshop in May 1999,
Chip Denman critiqued this phrase as, perhaps, skepticism's own bit of
Millennialism, asking questions such as, "What do we mean by
irrationality? How is it measured? How do we know it is rising?" It seems
that this phrase, as a marker of skeptical identity, may be going out of
fashion.
These events are an indication to me as a researcher that Skepticism is
going through changes as it grows, as we might expect in any social
movement, and that local groups are beginning to discover the things they
have in common. Perhaps because the movement has steadily grown and this
may inspire confidence and stability, Skeptics also seem increasingly
willing to critique themselves and express strong views on the ways they
do and do not want skepticism to be presented to the public. This
self-analysis is, of course, a good thing, for any rational endeavor
should be willing to critique itself.
Creative Expression and the Rise of Moderation
Skeptics who advocate more moderate views, or more moderate language,
or clearer boundaries for skeptical inquiry often must face the problem
that the louder voices of confrontational Skeptics will be heard above
theirs, especially when those confrontational Skeptics represent the
movement at a national level in the nationally distributed journals or on
television and radio. The issues are similar to the common debate about
political rhetoric: mud-slinging gets attention and media coverage, so
many political handlers recommend it. But, the counter argument goes,
mud-slinging can backfire and besides, center-of-the-road candidates are
more likely to win; providing they can make themselves heard. For
Skeptics, how do those who wish to critique skepticism's more extreme
expressions and have a voice in charting its future course make themselves
heard? For some the answer is to turn the same kind of critiques used on
the beliefs of others towards their own movement.
The ISUNY Skeptics have several members with a particular talent for
satire, and they often turn that satire on skepticism itself. They are not
the only Skeptics who satire skepticism, but they are especially prolific
writers. Often these satires are presented by characters the group calls
their "sock puppets," an Internet term for a fictional persona. For
example, David Quinne, the skeptical psychic and graduate of Maharishi
International University, writes an "Ask the Psychic" column in the ISUNY
newsletter The Why Files. Why would a psychic become a Skeptic?
David Quinne writes:
Personally, I like the uniforms best. They're jet-black
with red insignia and berets. Only the officers wear them to most
meetings, but we always dress up for investigations. When you show up at a
haunted house in uniform, with night sticks and jackboots, people take
notice! The ID is also handy when there is a long line at the store. I
like flashing it and saying ``Step aside, step aside, official skeptic
business here,'Ô and then buy a loaf of bread, or a stick of gum or
something. You can feel the eyes burning holes in your back, but it don't
bother me. We're skeptics, and you can see the jealousy. 9
Another character is Nick Cooper, an investigator for CSICAAP, the
Committee for the Sensationalized Instigation of Clowns Arguing Against
the Paranormal, and a skeptic who takes no prisoners. He has debunked such
gullible practices as Ground Hog's Day and Swing Dancing. Cooper manages
to offend just about everyone and is proud of it. Several of Nick Cooper's
articles are examples of "mock rants," a genre of humor among Skeptics
that frequently shows up on skeptical Internet Listservs. The antics
of David Quinne and Nick Cooper were once confined to the internal
communications of the Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York. In 1997 the
two posted a jointly written article to the Skeptics Listserv debunking
the a haunted house scam in Lowville, NY. To their dismay, a child in
sheets faked a ghost and peeled grapes were passed off as eyeballs by the
shameless perpetrators of this hoax. The article, of course, was posted on
Halloween.
Since then, David Quinne, Nick Cooper, and other "sock puppet"
characters have posted articles to listservs that rib Skeptics about their
more extreme expressions, challenge the definition of the boundaries of
skepticism, and occasionally parody skeptical rhetoric so well that it is
difficult to tell from the real thing. I remember having to re-read a
scathing review of the children's book "The Little Engine that Could"
several times before I realized it was by Nick Cooper, and therefore a
parody. It does make life for an ethnographer especially interesting when
some members of a group turn out to be fictional!
Sometimes a few participants in the Skeptics listserv complain about the
views expressed by these fictional Skeptics. But others seem to enjoy the
humor, and may even help to keep the fiction going. Once, when one Skeptic
on the list asserted that the true identity of Nick Cooper was ISUNY
Skeptic and author Peter Huston, list participant David Bloomberg was
quick to challenge this claim, "I've met Nick Cooper. I know Nick Cooper.
Peter Huston is NO Nick Cooper!" (Skeptics Listserv, Sept. 9, 1998. Quoted
with permission.). 10
Conclusion
In this short paper, I cannot possibly do justice to all the interesting
adventures of these and other ISUNY fictional Skeptics. But you can
explore some of them for yourself. Many of the writings of these and other
characters created by members of ISUNY are available through the Web sites listed in the appendix. Please note that views
expressed by investigator Nick Cooper do not represent those of the
Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York.
In his discussions of science and belief David Hufford has suggested that
folklorists should examine groups that organize themselves around shared
disbeliefs, as well as groups that organize themselves around beliefs. 11 In my own studies I
have been frustrated by the scarcity of scholarly research on grass-roots
expression of scientific enthusiasm and of disbelief in the supernatural
or of cultural expressions of atheism and agnosticism. If folklorists who
study belief often take up areas of belief not studied by other
disciplines, than traditions of disbelief should surely be among the
things we study.
Skeptics, as a group with diverse interests, have a good deal to offer
folklorists as well. For those of you who may be interested in UFO's, the
Condon Report, an analysis of UFOs by the University of Colorado done
between 1966-1968, has been made available online by the National Capitol
Area Skeptics. In addition to the article on skepticism I mentioned, the
text of Mike Sofka's lecture on UFOs that examines the experiences that
may lead to certain types of sightings is available on the ISUNY Web site.
A resource I think many folklorists already use is the San Fernando
Valley Folklore Society's Urban Legend Reference Web site at
www.snopes.com which provides an extensive database of rumors and legends
compiled by David and Barbara Mikkelson. There are a number of other
resources available produced by Skeptics that may be of interest to
folklorists working in a variety of areas. The links listed below will
provide a starting point. Especially for folklorists working in areas
such as folk medicine, belief, and legends, I encourage you to get to know
your local Skeptics.
Notes
1. Jamy Ian Swiss is a
professional magician and a founding member of NCAS.
2. Paul Jaffe was elected
president of NCAS shortly after this event, and is the currently
president.
3. Mike Sofka, "Myths of
Skepticism," 1996. Published on the ISUNY website listed
in the appendix.(Mike Sofka
is currently the president of ISUNY).
4. Kurtz's views on Secular
Humanism and many of the ideas that influenced the founding of the
Comittiee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal may
be found in his book, In Defense of Secular Humanism, Prometheus
Books, 1983.
5. Mike Sofka discusses this
in "The UFOs of October: Part I," The Why Files, vol 5 #3, 1999.
This article may be found on the ISUNY website listed in the appendix.
6. Marcello Truzzi, "On
Pseudo-Skepticism," in the E-journal The Anomalist, reprinted from
the Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987 (link listed in the appendix).
7. See for example, Paul
Bernhardt, "A Brief Essay on Perfect Skepticism," 1997 (link listed
in the appendix).
8. The article was "Why Would
People Not Believe Weird Things?" by Wayne R. Anderson, Skeptical
Inquirer, vol. 22 #5 October-November 1998, pp. 42-45. The letter to
the editor was published in Skeptical Inquirer vol. 23 #1, January-
February 1999, p. 64.
9.
Excerpted from David Quinne's "Ask the Psychic" Column in The Why
Files, vol. 5, #2, 1999 (available from the link to the ISUNY Web site
listed in the appendix).
10. The
ISUNY "sock puppets," Nick Cooper and David Quinne, are operated by more
than one "puppeteer." Peter Huston has placed some of his contibutions to
the Nick Cooper cannon on his Web site, listed in the appendix.
11. See David Hufford, "The
Supernatural and the Sociology of Knowledge: Explaining Academic Belief,"
New York Folklore, vol. 9 no. 3-4, Summer 1983, 21-29; and
"Traditions of Disbelief," New York Folklore, vol. 8 no. 3-4,
Winter 1982, 47-55.
Newfolk :: NDiF :: Archive :: Issue 4.1 :: Page 1 :: Appendix
|