For the first two years that Skeptics spoke at Dragon*Con, there was a panel known as the "Skeptics vs. Believers Smackdown," which featured prominent skeptics and non-skeptics in a debate about the paranormal. I noticed that in both years, the believers were quick to apply the label "skeptic" to themselves, while calling the skeptics "cynics" instead.
And then an interesting thing happened. In year three of the debate, it was canceled due to the lack of people willing to sit on the believers' side. There were no lack of skeptics, in fact as many as ten volunteered, but there was only one person who would sit on the believers side. Why is this?
Last weekend, Alison Smith and I sat on a debate panel for the radio show The Paranormal View. This show discusses the paranormal like many shows of its kind, but they also have the occasional show where skeptics are invited to debate believers. This time... they showed up.
But rather than a debate, the two hour radio show (available for download here) turned into two hours of the skeptics and believers agreeing that most of what's on TV regarding the paranormal is at odds with reality, and that many of the phenomena observed have mundane explanations.
And this causes me to question: where are the believers? Where are the folks who are ready to put their evidence up for evaluation and discussion? I've never seen a self-identified skeptic back down from a discussion, but it seems the believers are wary of examination, and those that are brave enough to meet us quickly join our side. They may not agree with us entirely, but they will claim to use science to come to their conclusions. Thus when the skeptics cry for evidence and critical thought, the believers agree that these are necessary.
Why then do they believe in things such as ghosts, EVPs, and orbs?
I believe that in many cases, they have seen something unexplained. When you add that in with the strong desire to believe in the supernatural, the conclusion is reached before the proper evidence is collected. And therein lies the major difference between "us" and "them."
I like to look at the difference between belief and skepticism as a continuum. Everyone is a skeptic to some degree, but believers have a lower threshold of evidence before they believe in any given thing. Skeptics tend to want incontrovertible evidence before committing to belief. But there is another possibility.
If I saw an 8-foot tall, smelly hominid in the forest, I might believe in bigfoot. If I told skeptics this story, they might accuse me of mistaken identity, delusion, or outright fabrication. But for me, I'd know bigfoot was real because I'd seen it. And the fact of the matter is, I just may have seen a real bigfoot, even if I couldn't demonstrate incontrovertible proof of it. Perhaps the same is true of those who believe in ghosts and can't provide enough evidence. I don't think this is the parsimonious explanation, but I have to hold out that it's possible.
I don't think there's that much distance between honest ghost hunters and skeptics. I think both are searching for the truth; it's just that one side has a reason—justifiable or not—for belief, and the other does not. When you add in a desire to believe on behalf of the believers, the picture is clear.
My conclusion is that it might be best for skeptics to embrace believers as fellow seekers of the truth, and rather than castigate them for poor science or premature credulity. We should exchange ideas on how best to explain phenomena, whatever it may be. If any of these things are real, we all want to know about it. And of course I lean to the side of incontrovertible evidence, I'm just suggesting that a softer approach might be more productive.
And for those that foster belief for private gain through trickery, deception, and outright lying, the ire of both sides is deserved. Give a "believer" a chance, you'll see they're at least as angry about that behavior as we are.