Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Skeptic's Dictionary 1-10

    Uploaded by

    Cede
    159 views10 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    159 views10 pages

    The Skeptic's Dictionary 1-10

    Uploaded by

    Cede

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    A COLLECTION OF _ STRANGE BELIEFS, AMUSING DECEPTIONS The Skeptic’s Dictionary A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions Robert Todd Carroll wiLEY John Wiley & Sons, Inc. This book is printed on acid-free paper. @ Copyright © 2003 by Robert Todd Carroll. All rights reserved Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ine., Hoboken, New Jersey Published simultaneously in Canada Permission for “Angelina” by Bob Dylan © 1981, Special Rider Music. All rights reserved. Interna- tonal copyright secured. Reprinted by permission. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750- £8400, fax (978) 750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for per- mission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, email: permcoordinatoréwiley.com, Limit of Liabilty/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and the author have used thelr best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accu- racy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of ‘merchantability of fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suit- able for your situation, You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the pub- lisher nor the author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. For general information about our other products and services, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) $72-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002, Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print ‘may not be available in electronic books. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at wwwiley.com, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Dat Carroll, Robert Todd, date, ‘The skeptic’s dictionary : a collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delu- sions / Robert Todd Carrol pcm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0.471-27242-6 (cloth : acid-free paper) 1, Pseudoscience—Encyclopedias, 1. Title (Q172.5.P77C37 2003 001.9—ae21 2003007878 Printed in the United States of America 987654321 Contents Preface Acknowledgments Introduction Entries A to Z Bibliography Picture Credits Name Index Subject Index 415 435, 436 443 A non-Zoroastrian could think of Zarathustra as simply a mad- man who led millions of naive followers to adopt a cult of ritual fire worship. But without his “madness” Zarathustra would nec- essarily have been only another of the millions or billions of human individuals who have lived and then been forgotten. —John F. Nash Jr. ‘The most common of all follies is to bel palpably not true. It is the chief occup: -ve passionately in the mn of mankind. —H. L. Mencken Preface The Skeptic's Dictionary began on the Inter- net in 1994, It is with some trepidation that I put forth my work in book form. I am not talking about the criticism I am likely to receive for being an atheist, skep- tic, debunker, destroyer of hopes, and so on, [am used to that. Nor am I referring to a fear that somebody will actually levitate or prove to have the gift of prophecy or some other paranormal power after I have published my skeptical musings. No, what [fear is that one or more of the 750 sources [have used to write this book will not receive proper credit. I have tried my best to put into quotes whatever I have taken verbatim from another's work. I have tried my best to reference works in the standard fashion of the day. If I have failed to appro- priately cite anyone's work, I apologize and T assure you it was inadvertent. Let the publisher know, and should we be blessed to go to a second printing, we will rectify the matter. Finally, all of the references to URLs of web sites were current at the time of writing, vil Acknowledgments Many, many thanks to Tobias Budke, Leslie Carroll, Ronaldo Cordeiro, Leroy Ellen- berger, Jeff Golick, Antonio Ingles, Kim Jeanman, Joe Littrell, Vlado Luknar, Masa- taka Okubo, Rich Ownbey, Bob Steiner, ‘Ted Weinstein, and the many others who have inspired me, corrected me, guided me, and encouraged me in this mission. Tim Boettcher, Richard Herron, and John Renish deserve special thanks for their gen- erosity in serving as volunteer editors of iy web site, www.skepdic.com. Whatever my failings as a writer, they would be much more evident had it not been for their editorial assistance. Thave been motivated and encouraged by the writings of Stephen Barrett, Susan Blackmore, Arthur C. Clarke, Kenneth Feder, Thomas Gilovich, Terence Hines, Ray Hyman, Ivan Kelly, Janja Lalich, Eliza- beth Loftus, Joe Nickell, Robert Park, Oliver Sacks, Daniel Schacter, Al Seckel, Michael Shermer, Margaret Thaler Singer, Nicholas Spanos, Victor Stenger, Carol Tavris, and others of like mettle. But I probably would not have begun this work had it not been for the inspi- ration I got from reading the books of Stephen Jay Gould, Richard H. Popkin, James Randi, Carl Sagan, and especially the ‘many books of Martin Gardner, whose Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science—t have the 1957 Dover edition—got me started on this mission in the late 60s or early '70s. At the time, I was reading philosophers like Spinoza, Leibniz, and Malebranche, but Gardner introduced me to a world of alter- native realities that made the imaginations of these philosophers pale by comparison. Then there was Freud. His case studies fascinated me, especially his essay on a case of paranoia (1911), a. psychological analysis of the memoir of Daniel Paul Schreber (1842-1911), a respected judge and political figure until his. psychotic breakdown, Schreber's memoir gives an account of the delusions that landed him in the asylum for several years. What struck me at the time was that I had stud- Jed very similar musings in the writings of various mystics such as Plotinus and had even believed notions similar to Schreber's for many years—Virgin birth and impreg- nation of a human by a divinity, for exam- ple. Had Schreber lived in the 2nd century instead of the 19th, would he have taken his place at the same table with Zarathustra instead of with the other patients in the asylum? Had he put forth his fantasies and delusions as metaphysical speculations or scientific insights, would a cult have arisen around his ideas that would have led to an entry in The Skeptic's Dictionary? When 1 consider the list of subjects 1 still have in my “to investigate further” file, I can only say Yes, beyond a doubt. Introduction The Skeptic's Dictionary provides defini- tions, arguments, and essays on subjects supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. I use the term “occult” to refer to any and all of these subjects. The reader is forewarned that The Skeptic’s Dic- tionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects. If anything, this book is a Davidian counterbalance to the Goliath of occult literature. I hope that an occasional missile hits its mark. Unlike David, however, I have little faith, and do not believe Goliath can be slain. Skeptics can give him a few bumps and bruises, but ‘our words will never be lethal. Goliath can- not be taken down by evidence and argu- ments, However, many of the spectators may be swayed by our performance and recognize Goliath for what he often is: a false messiah. It is especially for the younger spectators that this book is writ- ten. [hope to expose Goliath’s weaknesses so that the reader will question his strength and doubt his promises. Another purpose of The Skeptic’ Dictio- nary isto provide references to the best skep- tical materials on whatever topic is covered. So, for example, if that pesky psychology teacher won’t let up about “auras” or “chi” being inexplicable occult phenomena, you can consult your Skeptic’ Dictionary and become pesky yourself with more than a general skepticism. You may not change your teacher’s mind, but you may take away Some of his or her power over you. The Skeptic’ Dictionary is aimed at four distinct audiences: the open-minded seeker, who makes no commitment to or disavowal of occult claims; the soft skeptic, who is more prone to doubt than to believe; the hardened skeptic, who has strong disbelief about all things occult; and the believing doubter, who is prone to believe but has some doubts. The one group this book is not aimed at is the “true believer” in the occult. If you have no skepticism in you, this book is not for you. The open-minded seeker has not had much experience with occult phenomena beyond some religious training but does not dismiss out of hand reports of aura readings, alien abductions, FSP, channel- ing, ghosts, miracle cures, and so on. The soft skeptic suspends judgment on occult issues and appeals to inexperience, as well as to epistemological skepticism, as reasons for deferring judgment. The hardened skeptic is a disbeliever in all or most occult claims. The believing doubter is attracted to the occult and isa strong believer in one or more (usually more) occult areas but is having some doubts about the validity of occult claims. My beliefs are clearly that of a hard- ened skeptic. I don’t pretend that I have no experience or knowledge of these matters. For me, the evidence is overwhelming that it is highly probable that any given occult claim is erroneous or fraudulent. Earlier in iy life I was a seeker. Looking back, I wish 2. Introduction Thad had a book like The Skeptic’ Dictio- nary, a book that provides the seeker with arguments and references to the best skep- tical literature on occult claims. Though clearly it is my hope that the seeker will become skeptical, | also hope the seeker will investigate these matters before com- ing to a decision. The Skeptic’s Dictionary will provide the soft skeptic with evidence and arguments, as well as references to more evidence and arguments, on occult issues. In my view, there is sufficient evidence available to convince most reasonable soft skeptics that most occult claims are more probably false than true. However, the soft skeptic recognizes that it does not follow from that fact (if it isa fact) that one should commit ‘oneself to what seems most probable to the rational mind. The soft skeptic often holds that rationality isa value and that the idea that the rational life is the best one for human beings cannot be proven logically, scientifically, or any other way. By way of argument, all one can do is appeal to the consequences of choosing the rational over the irrational life. Also, it seems to be true that belief in the irrational is as appealing to the true believer as belief in the rational is to the hardened skeptic. According to many soft skeptics, whether one chooses a life devoted to rationality or irrationality is a matter of faith. For a good period of my adult life, I was a soft skeptic who believed that my commitment to rationality was as much an act of faith as my earlier commitment to Catholicism had been. For years I remained open to the possibility of all sorts of occult phenom- ena. My studies and reflections in recent years have led me to the conclusion that there is a preponderance of evidence against the reasonableness of belief in any occult phenomena. I have also concluded that choosing rationality over irrationality is not an act of faith at all. To even pose the question as one requiring thought to answer demonstrates the futility of claim- ing that everything can be reduced to faith. ‘One must use reason to argue for faith. While I do not deny that the consequences of believing in the occult are often beneficial, Ido deny that such consequences have anything to do with establishing the reality of occult phenomena. A soft skeptic would have to agree that there is a monumental difference between a believed entity and a real entity. I would agree with the soft skep- tic that it is impossible to know anything empirical with absolute certainty. How- ever, | think it is obvious that probabilities serve us well in this life. We have plenty of Ways in many, many cases to distinguish among empirical claims that ate of differ- ing degrees of probability. ‘The hardened skeptic doesn’t need ‘much more in the way of evidence or argu- ment to be convinced that any given occult claim is probably based on error or fraud. Still, The Skeptic's Dictionary has something for the hardened skeptic, too: i will provide ammunition against the incessant arguments of true. believers. Most hardened skeptics don't feel it is worth their time to investigate every bizarre Idea that comes their way. They dismiss them out of hand. Under most conditions, simply rejecting quackery is intelligent and justified. Often, however is better to provide a seeker, soft skeptic, or doubting believer with arguments, both specific and general. But if one’s antago- nists are true believers, it is probably a waste of time to provide evidence and arguments in response. Finally, The Skeptic's Dictionary will provide the doubting believer with infor- mation and sources to consult that will provide, if not a balanced picture, at least a ‘multifaceted one, of a concern about the power of crystals or color therapy or levita- tion, or other phenomena. It will help the Introduction 3 doubter resolve his or her doubts. There may be a few skeptics who can go through all this literature and come out doubting everything, including the skeptical claims, but i think the vast majority will emerge as hardened skeptics. They will not think they must suspend judgment on every- thing, but will realize that some claims are ‘more probable than others. As already stated, the one group that this book is not designed for is that of the true believers. My studies have convinced ‘me that arguments or data critical of their beliefs are always considered by true be- lievers to be insignificant, irrelevant, ma- nipulative, deceptive, not authoritative, ‘unscientific, unfair, biased, closed-minded, irrational, and/or diabolical. (It is perhaps worth noting that except for the term “

    You might also like