Why I Don't Care What Skeptics Think or Also Your Mom Dresses You Funny

So when I started this article I meant to write about how important goals are to paranormal investigating but along the way I started to get sidetracked. So I decided to push back the goals piece and do this other thing. I mention it only because it still ties in with goals a bit so consider this a sort of tangential foreshadowing of things to come. Once I deal with this I will be able to focus better.

I have three main goals as an investigator. The first is that I want to help people who are scared and confused by strange things going on in their homes understand and cope with what is going on. I have found that often times these people just want someone to listen to them without feeling like they are being judged as crazy. Even if it turns out to be a loose water main making that spooky ghost noise, they are usually happy that it turned out to be nothing and that someone actually listened to them and took them seriously. I think this is important. My second goal and third goal are similar and connected. I want to help people starting out by giving them the focus, direction and tools to perform casual investigations on their own and to document and share my experiences and best practices with others. This last one is the springboard into what I really want to talk about: Skeptics.

You’ll notice that none of my goals include convincing people who do not believe in the paranormal that they should. Beyond the fact that I really don’t care what they think as long as they dismiss me out of hand and roll their eyes at anything I have to say, I find that the whole exercise of trying to convince someone of something they think is patently ridiculous to be as fruitless as it is aggravating. It is really not worth my time and does nothing to address my goals and desires as far as the paranormal is concerned. There are several reasons why this is but before I get to that I need to define what I mean by skeptic.

It is not necessarily bad to be a skeptic. Indeed, the best mindset for a paranormal investigator to be in is that of the ‘Open-minded Skeptic.’ This is a person who believes in possibilities but understands that most reported activity is of mundane and earthly origins. This is a person who looks at the evidence and draws conclusions from said evidence instead of shoe-horning that evidence to fit whatever it is that the investigator wants the conclusion to be. Everyone in the field should strive to be this way. This is not the sort of skepticism I am talking about. The skeptic that I am on about is the person who absolutely doesn’t believe there is any possibility at all that there is survival of consciousness or any sort of paranormal whatsoever and what’s more if you do then you are a deluded fool with an IQ in the low 60s.

So the first reason I don’t worry about proving the existence of ghosts and the paranormal is that I am not a scientist doing science and therefore have no legs to stand on with a hardcore skeptic. There is nothing I have to offer them and any conversation we might have wouldn’t even be in the same language. The skeptic and I are not on the same page at all. I have had many experiences which have lead me to conclude that the paranormal is real. Those experiences, and there are a lot of them, have no currency with the skeptic for the simple fact that they are my experiences. There is no common ground to be had in the experience because my anecdotal evidence is only as good as the value of my word and the skeptic has not had any experience to lead him or her to place any value in that word. I can tell them what I have experienced until I am blue in the face but they will merely dismiss those experiences as nothing more than delusional fantasy or decide I am lying. Either way, no matter how real it was to me I am never going to be able to convince them of anything. So why bother?

The second reason is related to the first in that even if I were a scientist doing the best science ever seen and managed to find proof, the skeptic is typically so dogmatic that they will dismiss it out of hand as bad data or insist there was fudging or fakery. I have read dozens of arguments online where the True Believer attempts to counter the ‘prove it’ position with saying ‘ you can’t disprove it’ only to be thoroughly repelled with the ‘the burden of proof falls to the claimant’ maneuver. This is true enough but what I find disingenuous about this exchange is that, while many claim that they would be swayed by proper evidence, they are never going to accept a photo or a recording or anything of the sort because it threatens their world view in which apparently science is out of things to discover and just because it has not been discovered yet it never will be. I have a very hard time with this and find myself irritated when skeptics counter this notion by saying that if it were going to be proven it would have been but there is not one shred of compelling evidence in its favor. I disagree strongly about that but it doesn’t matter. Because they think it is silly, then it is absolutely impossible that it could ever be real.

This limiting of what can be is a problem for me. I understand that there are laws of physics like gravity and the laws of thermodynamics, but there was a time when each of those were not known or accepted. Throughout history discoveries have been made to invalidate a previous way of thinking. The sun revolving around the earth or that the earth is flat, or that Full House was a good show, all of these things were widely held beliefs at one time and all have been disproven. Discovery and investigation into the unknown is obviously the only way to make it known unless you are content to slap yourself on the back for the cell phone or space travel and assume that because we have flat screen TVs and airplanes we know all there is to know about the universe. That seems very arrogant to me and also very wrong headed. Sure, it is possible that no one has proved the existence of the paranormal because it isn’t real but it is also possible that the right technique or tool has not been invented yet. I am not asking for people to believe out of hand but to at least accept there are possibilities beyond our current knowledge and understanding. The hardcore skeptic refuses to do this and therefore meaningful dialogue is difficult.

The third reason is that I don’t care for taking abuse from people and being called an idiot because I feel differently about something than they do. I have yet to see a civil debate take place between skeptics and believers. This door swings both ways as some of us have a tendency to invite criticism given false claims of science and lacking evidence, but the arrogance and dismissive attitudes I have seen from many skeptics makes me not want to talk to them at all. My writing partner Katie, you may have heard of her, wrote an article about the Ghost Hunters a while back and for over a year it generated, and still generates, an active comments section that has featured all sorts of people. Many have been cool but just as many have been profane, antagonistic and vile. I mean really vile. So vile I am not going to include a link. Nothing is ever going to be accomplished in that sort of climate. No minds will be changed that way. This flavor of skeptic is not interested at all in changing minds or having meaningful dialogue but rather is only interested in proving their own intellectual superiority in order to make themselves feel better about whatever it is in their lives that is lacking. I feel sorry for the sort of person who’s life is so empty that trolling internet comment sections to call people you don’t know idiots because you disagree with them on something that you then proceed to demonstrate no knowledge of any kind and regurgitate the Randi challenge or some other thing you read about on Wikipedia. Sure, I am not being particularly kind towards them myself but there are some very nasty people out there who would seem to be solely preoccupied with making sure that strangers know just how much smarter they are and how bad said strangers should feel that they are not up to snuff. That they spew such invectives with spelling and grammar that would barely allow them to pass grade three makes it a tiny bit funnier if not at all less depressing.

The fourth reason is just that I would rather spend time doing something I enjoy than something I don’t. Given the aforementioned futility of it all and the added hostility, there is nothing on the offing that makes trying to argue with the skeptics a worthwhile use of my time. I would much rather investigate and write books about it and then have a discussion with someone like minded. A skeptic may then point to this as being a dodge maneuver betraying my failure to prove anything and further prove that there is nothing to the paranormal but it means nothing of the sort. My disinterest in a pointless argument with someone insulting me has nothing to do with my beliefs having a soft foundation and has everything to do with a real desire not to waste my time.

The fifth reason follows from four in that I am not a spokesman for the entire field. Beating me in an argument or, more accurately, listing off points I’ve made and dismissing them by suggesting that I am a word which rhymes with 'bunt' is not proving to the world that the paranormal is false. If I say that I believe in ghosts because my house was haunted and I have subsequently had many, many paranormal experiences and encounters and you say ‘liar liar pants on fire’ you have not struck a blow against the field. You have not proven the people doing real scientific work in the field wrong because you don’t believe I saw some guy who wasn’t there go into my parents’ bedroom for years. Also, if I say upfront I don’t want to debate and I am just relating stories of mine based on my own personal experiences don’t ask for proof or taunt me that I have no proof. I have already said right up front that I don’t have any proof. I am not concerned with proof. Why? Experiences.

Maybe at the end of the day I am crazy and wrong and there is nothing else out there but based on the experiences I have had and the experiences many other people have had it is a subject worth studying and discussing in whatever capacity you are comfortable with. If you want to attack it scientifically and you are willing to put in the time, training and discipline to do that then that is great but if you want to do it in a more casual way that is great too. The skeptics will always be there waiting to try to discourage and discount but I think it is high time for those of us uninterested in fighting with these people to ignore them and go about our business. If you are interested in getting into the fray then please be armed with something of substance otherwise it will perpetuate the cycle. I look at many of these antagonists like school yard bullies. If they don’t get the attention they want they will go troll somewhere else. If they can find no one in our community to pick on then they will go bitch about Avatar or argue about which video game system is the best or something like that. When we engage them, my friends, then the trolls truly have won.
~Patrick