Why people believe weird things

On Saturday November 14th, we were treated to the thoughts of yet another philosophy professor, this time Ted Schick, from Muhlenberg College in Allentown. Ted is a coauthor of, Why people believe weird things, now a course text in over 300 colleges and universities.

Ted explained that if paranormal claims were true, philosophers would have a great interest in them. Many philosophers would find employment in picking up the epistemological pieces if our present seminal axioms were tossed; axioms such as, "No effect may precede its cause," and, "Information is only available to our consciousness via the established five senses."

Ted related colorful stories about his pro-paranormal predecessor at Brown University. After the latter's death the department considered discontinuing subscriptions to a number of paranormal periodicals. During the discussion a large bookshelf fell over in the unoccupied office of the deceased professor. Since he had stated his intention of making contact from the "other side" the subscriptions were continued.

Aside, from that, Ted provided examples to underscore the need for more critical thinking. Surveys show that 48% of people believe in ESP, 72% in angels, 30% in ghosts, 45% in ETs. 17% have consulted psychics. He quoted "Quackery kills more people than all violent crimes." He had even found a case where a dead candidate had run for office, his decisions to be made known by channeling. (For a campaign pledge that's not too outrageous.)

On a more somber political note, Ted reminded us "The more credulous a society becomes, the more open they are to crackpot politics." The occult-inspired Nazi scourge provided a chilling case in point. Ted quoted Asimov, "Inspect every pseudoscience and you will find a thumb to suck or a skirt to hold."

In his own field, Ted lamented the rise of Relativism, the self- contradictory notion that there is no objective truth or reality and that thus any position is equally valid.

He told us of the growing numbers of people who are just anti- science. They consider science to be a religion or an ideology. (This reviewer meets these people regularly in cyberspace.) Even Hitler had said, "There is no truth in the sciences." Related to that is the fundamental question, "Are scientific laws invented or discovered?"

Such questions ultimately lead to the "mother of all metaphysical questions," "When are we justified in believing something?" No one wants to be stupid and hence this question should be considered by those in all walks of life. Ted then went on to explain many sources of wrong conclusions. For example, there is the "available explanation" syndrome - - a sort of "cognitive miserliness" where one tries to explain something using the models readily at hand.

Ted pointed out that, given a set of points on graph paper, there is an infinite number of solutions which match them. Reasoning must be employed to home in on the best, and simplest, explanation. One test of "Simplicity" is to ask whether wielding Occam's razor would cut away unnecessary complexity. Ted gave creationism as an example. It resorts to ad hoc reasoning whenever one shows that it raises more questions than it answers.

Explanations should also be "Fruitful." That is, they should lead to correct predictions and to further ideas. Once more creationism was used as an example of an explanation which is not "fruitful." No geologic data have been predicted by creationists.

Ideas, Ted said, should also have "Scope." This is the quality of explaining a wide range of phenomenon.

During the question and answer part of his presentation, Ted said that all study must ask, "Is something to be believed?" Ted, admitted that 2000 years ago, there were adequate reasons to believe in a flat earth. There is always a possibility that our ideas could be wrong. He considers this the acceptable cost of adhering to the "realist" camp of philosophy. Ted also explained some limitations of the favorite skeptics' axiom concerning extraordinary claims and evidence.