Most skeptics will eventually get into a discussion with a “true believer” or proponent of the paranormal. The experience is often highly frustrating, because, in my experience, either one or both sides fall into the trap of dismissing the conclusions of the other based upon self-serving assumptions. There is a wide gulf between skeptics and believers, and more often than not the gulf is too wide to make a connection.

What I find most frustrating is that both sides are looking at the same body of evidence, and have access to the same fund of accumulated scientific knowledge (sometimes), and yet they come to opposite conclusions. There therefore must be one or more critical differences between the methods of skeptics and those of believers. Discussions should therefore focus on identifying those differences, rather than the psychology of why someone believes or does not believe. Psychological speculations may be interesting, but they are completely counterproductive to finding common ground.

In my experience the two sides are not equal in this flaw. I freely admit my bias as a skeptic, but even taking this into account I find that the vast majority of believers make no or little attempt to truly understand the position of the skeptic, while skeptics (at least those who are experienced and mature) have gone to great lengths to identify in detail the flaws in the methodology of the believers. But let me explore the manner of dismissiveness on both sides.

Skeptics sometimes explain the belief of the paranormal proponent as being due to gullibility, scientific ignorance, or an overwhelming desire to believe. While all of these may often be true, they are not always true, and pointing them out does not accomplish anything (assuming, of course, that one’s goal is to close the gulf between skeptics and believers). Skeptics are better served by taking a reductionist approach – identifying exactly why, for example, the body of evidence for homeopathy is not compelling, or is compatible with a world in which homeopathy has no effect.

Believers have their standard dismissals as well. They often accuse skeptics of being closed minded, of not being familiar enough with the large body of evidence for their belief, of lacking imagination, and of being intellectually fearful in the face of the highly unconventional. Once a believer offers up one of these canards the conversation is usually over, for skeptics do not recognize themselves in these tired cardboard clichés.

The gulf is comprised not of the difference between an open and closed mind, of fear vs courage, or even of simple knowledge of the evidence. Rather it is comprised of a difference in method and emphasis.
Often there is some evidence that paranormal phenomenon A is real, but A defies established scientific knowledge. This creates a contradiction. Believers tend to resolve the contradiction by saying that established scientific knowledge is either wrong or incomplete, while skeptics resolve the conflict by saying that the evidence must be flawed. Both resolutions are conceptually reasonable. Science advances partly by finding evidence that cannot be accounted for in our current scientific model and thereby forcing a change of our models. But it is also true that sometimes the data seems wrong because it is wrong – doing reliable research is difficult, it all contains some flaws, and often those flaws are fatal.

There are two ways to more objectively resolve the contradiction – one theoretical the other empirical. The theoretical method is to properly apply Occam’s razor – make a comparison: how much and how solid is the evidence for paranormal phenomenon A, and how much evidence is there in the existing scientific knowledge that says that A is impossible? In practical terms this means that skeptics cannot only talk about why A is impossible, and believers cannot talk only about the evidence for A. Both sides should explore and discuss both side and make a fair comparison.

Now of course I feel that the skeptics largely do this and the paranormal proponents largely do not. Homeopathy is quite simply impossible, as much as science can say that anything is impossible. And the evidence for it is extremely weak. So we have a pebble on the homeopathy side of the evidence scale and a mountain on the skeptical side of the scale.

Believers will also try to diminish the implication of existing scientific knowledge by invoking what is unknown. They are compelled by this argument, skeptics are not. Often the believers invoke new scientific knowledge, at the very cusp of our understanding (like quantum mechanics). But they fail to adjust the weight of such new theories in proportion to the degree to which it is new and poorly understood. They basically are trying to use a feather to push the mountain off the skeptical side of the scale.

The other way to resolve the contradiction is by looking closely at the evidence for A to see how reliable it is. This gets us into other main reasons for the gulf – believers are compelled by the evidence itself (regardless of plausibility) and skeptics are not.

Sometimes skeptics are too quick to dismiss the evidence just on the basis that the implications are implausible. While this is sound on theoretical grounds, opinions about the evidence itself should be reserved until after it has been properly examined. This often puts skeptics in the uncomfortable position of just saying “I don’t know” when confronted with new evidence by believers (and here I fault the believers for using evidence that has not been put through proper peer-review and the full scientific ringer).

In my experience believers are typically far more compelled by the evidence than they should be. The reasons for this are numerous but mostly relate to an insufficient understanding and respect for the various mechanisms of self-deception (and at times other-deception). They are simply far too confident in the reliability of their research methods. They have also largely failed to learn the lessons of history – the history of science is littered with false beliefs that had equal or greater evidence to the paranormal beliefs of today – X-ray therapy for all sorts of ailments, N-rays, and Abram’s osciliclast to name just a few.

As skepticism has matured it has, in fact, turned into a subspecialty of science that deals with all the ways in which science can go awry. In this manner organized skepticism can serve a critical role. Activist skeptics increasingly have a solid understanding of scientific methodology, principles of logic, mechanisms of deception, philosophy of science, use and abuse of statistics, conspiracy thinking, and the pitfalls of pathological science. This is an essential set of knowledge in today’s world. Mainstream scientists often lack some of this knowledge and therefore are not equipped to deal with paranormal claims, and therefore at times get duped.

The challenge for skeptics is threefold. First we must be vigilant as to the quality of our own skepticism by avoiding the pitfalls of easy dismissiveness. Second, it would help our cause to change our public perception as naysayers to experts in both pathological science and the public understanding of science. “Science pathologist?” Hmm…

The biggest challenge is to get the paranormal community to understand the basis of our skepticism, to get beyond their a-priori dismissiveness and to engage in a discussion of the real scientific issues. But the gulf is wide and I fear there will always be people on the other side.