Title: The Skeptic’s Dictionary
Author: Robert Todd Carroll
Editor: John Wiley and sons
Price: $14.
Robert Todd Carroll is one of a growing group of non-scientists (he teaches philosophy) who believe they are qualified to tell us what we should and shouldn’t believe, scientifically. The fact that he has no scientific qualifications, no training, and no professional experience does not deter Carroll from his belief that he is an authority on this subject and, in The Skeptic’s Dictionary, he sets out to tell ordinary people what we can and do. we cannot legitimately think.
This false guru stance should be warning enough of what is to come but, once he gets fired up on his subject, Carroll’s inhibitions completely melt away and he veers from the dogmatic to the absurd in a hilarious display of scientific ignorance and prejudice. From a mountain of mistakes and misunderstandings, here are some of his funniest mistakes.
Acupuncture Carroll says; “Scientific research…has failed to show that acupuncture is effective against any disease.” Except for scientific research that has shown acupuncture to be effective against some diseases and was published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a decade ago, such as Dundee, JW, 1988, in Journal of the Royal Society of MedicineDundee, JW, 1987, in British Journal of Anesthesia59, p 1322. And Fry, ENS, 1986, in Anesthesia, 41: 661-2. Had Carroll made even the slightest attempt to search the scientific literature, he would have found these and many other references to well-conducted double-blind trials in which patients experienced measurable benefits compared to the placebo group.
Cryptozoology The Skeptic’s Dictionary tells us that; “Since cryptozoologists spend most of their energy trying to establish the existence of creatures, rather than examining actual animals, they are more akin to PSI researchers than zoologists. However, it is claimed that expertise in zoology is a necessity to work in cryptozoology, according to Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans, who coined the term…” If he had read Dr. Heuvelmans’s book, Carroll would have learned that the discovery of new species is normal science and that many new species are discovered. every year. The new species are hundreds among insects and dozens among small mammals and reptiles. The discovery of unknown large mammals and reptiles is unusual, but certainly not unknown or even rare. In 2002, for example, respected primatologist Dr. Shelly Williams of the prestigious Jane Goodall Institute in Maryland tracked down and came face to face with a previously unknown species of great ape at Bili, in the Congo, deep in the African jungle. . The creatures are about 6 feet tall and weigh up to 225 pounds. Dr Williams reported in New Scientist: “Four suddenly came running out of the bush towards me. These guys were huge and they were coming for the kill. As soon as they saw my face they stopped and disappeared.”
Dermo-optic perception Carroll says; “Dermo-optic perception (DOP) is the purported ability to ‘see’ without using the eyes. PDO is a sleight-of-hand trick, often involving elaborate blindfolding rituals, but always leaving a path (usually by the side of the nose), which allows for unobstructed vision. The scientific view; Dr. Yvonne Duplessis was appointed head of a committee to investigate dermo-optic sensitivity. Her conclusion is: “Controlled studies indicate support for the theory of dermo-optic sensitivity and perception.” Dr. Duplessis’s experiments have even led to a possible perfectly natural explanation. In her conclusions, she says: “Thus, these different methods show that the thermal sensations induced by visible colors are not subjective, as is generally admitted, and that infrared radiations lie in the far infrared range. they are acting on every part of the body. This gives us possible grounds to conclude that also during ordinary visual perception of colored surfaces, the human eye reacts not only to the rays of the visible spectrum but also to the infrared radiation emitted by these surfaces. More simply, Dr. Duplessis’s experiments seem to show that colored surfaces reflect energy in the form of both heat and light, and that the eye (like other parts of the human body) is to some extent sensitive to both heat and light. ; simpler explanation than Carroll’s unsubstantiated inventions.
Aliens (UFOs, flying saucers) Carroll says that “Edward U. Condon was the head of a scientific research team that was hired by the University of Colorado to examine the UFO issue. Their report concluded that ‘nothing has come out of the study of UFOs in the last 21 years it has added to scientific knowledge…further study of UFOs probably cannot be justified with the expectation that science will advance in that way.'” Carroll adds: “Until now…nothing has been positively identified as an alien craft in the manner required by common sense and science. That is, there has been no recurring identical UFO experience and no physical evidence to support a flyby.” or UFO landing.” Had Carroll bothered to read Condon’s report, he would have found this conclusion from Dr. Condon regarding the photographs identified by the report as ‘Case 46’; This is one of the few UFO reports in which all investigated geometric, psychological, and physical factors appear to be consistent with the claim that an extraordinary silvery, metallic, disc-shaped flying object tens of meters in diameter and evidently artificial, it flew in full view of two witnesses. It is perfectly true that Edward Condon concluded that “more extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified,” but the reason he gave is that it is not possible to fruitfully study a randomly occurring phenomenon. He and his team emphatically did NOT conclude that “there is no physical evidence to support a UFO flyby or landing”; that is Carroll’s conclusion alone, and is based purely on ignorance of the actual facts as stated in Dr. Condon. report.
Carl Jung Carroll says; “[Jung’s] The notion of synchronicity is that there is an acausal principle that links events that have similar meaning by coincidence in time rather than sequentially… What evidence is there for synchronicity? None.” Carroll carefully neglects to mention that the theory of synchronicity was not proposed by Jung alone, but together with Wolfgang Pauli, who was a professor of theoretical physics at Princeton, a member of Niels Bohr’s team that laid the foundations for quantum theory, and who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1945. Therefore, there is a reasonable probability that the originator of the theory of synchronicity knew a little more about science than Carroll.Asking “what evidence is there?” because an explanatory theory that has been proposed specifically to account for previously unexplained evidence is a question even Homer Simpson would blush to ask.
hidden statistics Carroll says; “Legs of parapsychologists, led by such generals as Charles Tart and Dean Radin, have also appealed to statistical anomalies as proof of ESP.” But, “skeptics are not impressed with the hidden statistics that affirm the improbability of what has already happened.” Carroll’s scientific illiteracy finally comes to light here. Even his fellow ‘skeptics’ at CSICOP would be hesitant to claim that science can only cite statistics on probability in relation to events that have not yet happened! Probability theory deals with the mathematical calculation of the chances of an event occurring, regardless of whether or not the event has occurred. The probability of a flipped coin landing heads is 50-50 or P=0.5. This is as true for a coin that has already been launched as for one that has not yet been launched. If someone were to throw 100 heads in a row having declared in advance their intention to make this happen, then the odds of such a series happening normally are high enough to warrant scientific investigation to try to determine a cause other than chance. In the case of experiments reported by Dean Radin in the respected physics journal Foundations of Physicsthe odds against the results obtained at the Princeton Engineering Laboratory occurring by chance are one in 10 to the power of 35. For Carroll, to ignore improbabilities of this magnitude is not to be “skeptical,” it is to deny it.
Remote view Carroll says; “The CIA and the US Army thought enough about remote viewing to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on research in a program called ‘Stargate.'” Carroll dismisses such trials due to the inaccuracy of some statements made by the subjects but, scientifically, the question is not how consistently accurate remote viewing is, but whether it exists at all. There is unequivocal evidence that it is. A recently declassified CIA document details a remarkably accurate example, under controlled conditions, of Pat Price’s remote viewing of a top-secret Russian base in 1974. Although Price made many incorrect guesses about the target he was able to produce, with surprising drawings precision engineering grade of a unique 150-foot-tall gantry crane with six-foot-high wheels running into an underground driveway. The existence of this massive structure, exactly as described, was later confirmed through satellite photography.
spontaneous human combustion Carroll says; “While no one has ever witnessed SHC, several fire-related deaths have been attributed to SHC by investigators and storytellers.” The slightest investigation would have revealed to Carroll that many cases of possible CHS were independently witnessed by trusted individuals. In some cases, the victims themselves survived to tell of their experiences. Cases include London Fire Brigade Commander John Stacey and his fire team, who arrived at the scene of a man on fire within 5 minutes of receiving an emergency call, and the case of Agnes Phillips, who caught fire in a parked car in a Sydney suburb in 1998 and was pulled out by a passerby. Many more similar examples of ignorance and prejudice could be cited from The Skeptic’s Dictionary, but they would do little good. It is already very clear that Carroll’s book is not a dictionary but a private agenda, and that he himself is not a skeptic but an instinctive reactionary to the new, the unexpected, the ambiguous and the anomalous.
Robert Todd Carroll is a perfect example of the phenomenon of pseudo-skepticism. Some academic professionals who are meticulously careful about the facts in their normal professional lives suddenly throw off all reasoned restraint when it comes to the so-called “debunking” of what they consider to be new-age nonsense and feel justified in making so many comments. careless and inaccurate. statements as they please because they mistakenly imagine they are defending science against weirdos. The reality is that his irrational reaction stems from his own inability to deal scientifically with the new and ambivalent, even when (as in the case of dermo-optical perception) there is probably a simple natural explanation, or when (as in the case of the new primate from Congo) is simply unexpected and previously unknown to science.
This book is a clear warning to all students of science, logic, and philosophy of what can happen when an otherwise rational person embarks on a personal crusade motivated by their own self-deluded prejudices.
