The Miserable Skeptic

As a proponent of critical thinking it isn’t uncommon to be asked whether I would ever consider a paranormal explanation for an alleged haunting or other strange event. The answer is one you would find from many other sceptics: I do not consider one particular paranormal theory to be any worthier than another. You could argue that this is dressing up the word ‘no’ under a glossy sheen, and that just makes me a ‘closed minded shit’. However, it’s a position that makes a lot of logical sense.

Numerous claims of the weird and wonderful fill the lines of countless newspapers, magazines, books and web pages. Individuals claim to be visited by witches in their sleep, to have been abducted by aliens, come face to face with the Virgin Mary and have taken photographs of ghosts. It really is true that, within the scope of their own vocabulary, anybody can claim anything they want. Yes, I could say I believe I have seen a leprechaun. However, making a claim does not instantly render the information it contains to be correct. Just because I believe I have been met a leprechaun it does not mean I actually have, or that leprechauns even exist.

Some claims are testable, any any new or bold claim needs to be supported by compelling evidence that is tantamount to proof before it can be accepted. Claims which are supposed to stretch scientific understanding (for example, the existence of life after death and, of course, leprechauns) need, by necessity, to be demonstrated through scientific experimentation and adherence to the relevant scientific protocols. As the late astronomer Carl Sagan famously stated, ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’. This requirement is commonly known as the burden of proof.

Proponents of theories which lack solid evidence clearly face an issue in addressing this burden of proof [1]. I’m sure that leprechauns exist but I cannot prove it.

One of the most common retorts to this situation is for the supporter of a theory to simply state ‘well, you prove it doesn’t exist’. This is known as shifting the burden of proof. In other words, the argument is this: ‘you cannot prove leprechauns do not exist. Therefore they do exist!’ To some this sounds perfectly reasonable, yet the logic is not sound for two very good reasons:

1. A good way to see where the burden of proof lies is to regress the debate. When we are born we do not possess an inbuilt knowledge or awareness of the existence of leprechauns. This awareness can only be raised when we acquire this supposed knowledge from a third party or our own personal perception and thoughts. The onus of meeting the burden of proof lies with those making the claim to an otherwise unaware mind.

2. It is exceptionally difficult to prove a negative (and those who attempt to shift the burden of proof often know this). No matter how many people take up the challenge of looking for that leprechaun I can always claim that they are looking in the wrong place, he has gone on holiday to Mars or that he has the power to become invisible. In short, those nasty sceptics will never be able to prove that the leprechaun does not exist. However, in terms of logical reasoning, ‘x’ is not proven because ‘not x’ cannot be proven. Therefore, the existence of leprechauns is not proven because the non-existence of leprechauns cannot be proven.

If you are now hopelessly confused, look at it another way: failing to prove the non-existence of leprechauns adds nothing to the weight of the argument that leprechauns do exist. If you are still having difficulty understanding this logic then replace ‘leprechaun’ with a more outlandish claim. ‘Vampire pumpkins’ [2] or ‘intelligent, teleporting coathangers’ should suffice. In fact, the more outlandish a claim the easier it is to understand the logic. Just because you cannot disprove the existence of a six foot tall, invisible, heroin addicted, bisexual rabbit called Xargax inside the colon of the Pope, it doesn’t mean he does exist!

Despite the fallacious logic of shifting the burden of proof, there remain those who will not budge from this position. [3] Let us assume that we allow a particular claim to bypass the need to meet the burden of proof. We have accepted one claim that is factually worthless; it has nothing resembling compelling evidence to support it. To avoid the logical fallacy of inconsistency we must now open the door to a potentially infinite number of other factually worthless claims.

So, if we bypass the burden of of proof and accept that leprechauns are real, we must also accept the other claims which have as much factual evidence (i.e. none) to support them. Those coathangers, blood sucking pumpkins should be considered real and, clearly, there would be need for the Catholic pontiff to be very, very worried. Yes, anything that is factually worthless can be considered real, and facts will vary from individual to individual as they indulge their own fantasies.

Fortunately we do not live in a world where addressing the burden of proof has become redundant. Even the most ardent paranormal ‘true believer’ will likely consider equating belief in ghosts to intestinal rabbits to be ludicrous or even insulting. Yet both standard on equal footing in terms of factual worth. As previously examined, to accept one on the basis of supporting evidence is to open the door to the other and its potentially infinite cousins. This is why I will not support a paranormal explanation to an anomalous event:

One paranormal explanation is no worthier than another in terms of its factual grounding. Some may claim that the persistence of belief in spirits must add some weight to their cause, but this is merely another fallacy: the appeal to tradition. It does not follow that the longevity of a claim equates to its factual value.

Instead, it makes more sense to explore the rational explanations; and if these cannot provide a solution it is not a concession to proponents of paranormal theories to label the event as unexplained by my knowledge. Of course, this is not to say that there is nobody on the planet who can explain these unusual events. In the event that something really does expose a gap in human knowledge, it is again illogical to champion one cause above another without fulfilling the burden of proof. [4]

Notes

[1] At this point it seems to make the most sense to either give up on a claim, acknowledge that the evidence is lacking or, most constructive of all, go out and collect the compelling evidence. Unfortunately the internet is littered with discussions in which supporters of a claim attempt to squirm their way out of addressing the burden of proof. Fans of logical fallacies can easily discover numerous examples of red herrings, circular reasoning and arguments to and from ignorance alongside attempts to shift the burden of proof.

[2] Oddly enough these featured as a part of Romany folklore. More on them at another time…

[3] Arguably the most well known example is Victor Zammit who offers a prize to those who can disprove the existence of life after death.

[4] Stating x cannot currently be explained does not equate to saying that y must therefore be the cause.