Skeptics, believers and finding explanations.

[Admin]

There is some research that is due to be released (no details yet I'm afraid) that shows a difference between how skeptics' and believers' (yes I know skeptics vs believers is a false dichotomy) ability to explain unusual events.

You've probably already second-guessed the results, but the findings show that those who are believers in the paranormal, or who have had experiences that they believe are paranormal, are very poor at coming up with rational explanations for such experiences. ???

I think they were shown things like magic tricks and asked to give a possible explanation. The skeptics were much better at formulating ideas on how the trick could have been done (not necessarily a correct explanation), whereas believers remained baffled and couldn't explain it.

This may be a one reason why some people accept paranormal explanations for things. They simply aren't very good at coming up with explanations for things they've seen or experienced.

[Aardvark]

There is some research that is due to be released (no details yet I'm afraid) that shows a difference between how skeptics' and believers' (yes I know skeptics vs believers is a false dichotomy) ability to explain unusual events.

You've probably already second-guessed the results, but the findings show that those who are believers in the paranormal, or who have had experiences that they believe are paranormal, are very poor at coming up with rational explanations for such experiences. ???

I think they were shown things like magic tricks and asked to give a possible explanation. The skeptics were much better at formulating ideas on how the trick could have been done (not necessarily a correct explanation), whereas believers remained baffled and couldn't explain it.

This may be a one reason why some people accept paranormal explanations for things. They simply aren't very good at coming up with explanations for things they've seen or experienced.


Silly chap, its either God's will or the work of the Devil through witchcraft or somesuch.

Science can only ask questions

'Only religion has the answers'

a quote from my born again Physics Master at my state Comp in the 1970's

[tkingdoll]

My experience is that many skeptics have learned the critical thinking method, they weren't born knowing it. Therefore, all the difference is is that the skeptics are applying a set of tools and the believers aren't. That would go for the card tricks too. A skeptic is self-trained to look for explanations where a believer is not. If you took a believer and taught them critical thinking skills, they too would be able to find explanations for the card trick.

What seems to be missing is the group that are neither believers nor skeptics.

[Nucular]

all the difference is is that the skeptics are applying a set of tools and the believers aren't. That would go for the card tricks too. A skeptic is self-trained to look for explanations where a believer is not. If you took a believer and taught them critical thinking skills, they too would be able to find explanations for the card trick.

Something vaguely contradictory here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8697037&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum) by Eugene Subbotsky: in his findings, people observing what is essentially a magic trick would actually seek explanations at the expense of accuracy - in this case, by distorting the temporal order of events to fit with what should have happened.

So in this case, it could be argued that the 'sceptics' (defined as those who don't believe an object really can appear or disappear inexplicably) are using the wrong set of tools?

Subbotsky isn't really comparing sceptics and believers, but has done quite a lot of really imaginative work investigating the developmental and cultural origins and nature of magical thinking. Worth a look.

Regarding finding explanations, though, I've noticed that people with a propensity to believe in paranormal phenomena are often more easily satisfied with certain types of explanation than sceptics - simplistically put, they tend to be satisfied more easily with "it's magic", whilst sceptics tend to carry on asking until they've figured out what else it might be. What is that? Anyone else noticed it? I'd quite like to unkindly label it 'intellectual laziness' (and have, many times), but is it simply this? Or a different 'world view' (as Subbotsky might suggest) which might make magical explanations more satisfying than mundane ones to some? Or a personality trait? Or my imagination?

[Jocky]

Thanks for the interesting reference, Nucular. A good example of why nobody should gather data by relying on their senses alone!

As far as believers go, my experience suggests that "people with a propensity to believe in paranormal phenomena" are not necessarily likely to believe in any sort of paranormal claim, only the kinds of claim which appeal to their own taste. To put it more simply, people who go for woo don't go for all woo, just their own favoured brand of it. Alt-med enthusiasts, say, might be just as likely to believe in Reiki as in homeopathy, but I'm not so sure that such people are any more or less likely to believe in ghosts or God than the population in general.

Only an opinion - I have no data to back up this impression! Perhaps a poll could be devised which would measure cross-belief between different flavours of woo-ery?

[Dr B]

all the difference is is that the skeptics are applying a set of tools and the believers aren't. That would go for the card tricks too. A skeptic is self-trained to look for explanations where a believer is not. If you took a believer and taught them critical thinking skills, they too would be able to find explanations for the card trick.

Something vaguely contradictory here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8697037&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum) by Eugene Subbotsky: in his findings, people observing what is essentially a magic trick would actually seek explanations at the expense of accuracy - in this case, by distorting the temporal order of events to fit with what should have happened.

So in this case, it could be argued that the 'sceptics' (defined as those who don't believe an object really can appear or disappear inexplicably) are using the wrong set of tools?

Subbotsky isn't really comparing sceptics and believers, but has done quite a lot of really imaginative work investigating the developmental and cultural origins and nature of magical thinking. Worth a look.

Regarding finding explanations, though, I've noticed that people with a propensity to believe in paranormal phenomena are often more easily satisfied with certain types of explanation than sceptics - simplistically put, they tend to be satisfied more easily with "it's magic", whilst sceptics tend to carry on asking until they've figured out what else it might be. What is that? Anyone else noticed it? I'd quite like to unkindly label it 'intellectual laziness' (and have, many times), but is it simply this? Or a different 'world view' (as Subbotsky might suggest) which might make magical explanations more satisfying than mundane ones to some? Or a personality trait? Or my imagination?


slightly OT here - but subbotsky was an ex-tutor of mine in my undergraduate days.....interesting stuff on magical thinking for children that reads like he is describing an adult woo

[Nicky]

Who's done the research, John?

[Admin]

That's a good question Nicky.

I can't remember where I read it now. It was on another website somewhere.

I should really reference these things. :(

[Dr B]

This stuff is really interesting. These ideas have been with use for a while now - but there is still much to learn

Track down the work of people like Houran & Lange - they have a model for believers / skeptics tolerance for ambiguity being different. Scientists and skeptics are not too bothered by something not having an immediate explanation - but believers try to hammer round pegs into square holes so to speak...

At least two factors are at work (i) tolerance for ambiguity and (ii) seeing meaning in noise. Other factors such as an ability to generate alternative explanations and the need to 'jump to a conclusion' have also been seen as critical. How all these factors interact is not clear.

Again - see the work of Houran & Lange, see also Peter Brugger and Joe Nickell, for where a good deal of this stuff has been developed O0