Skepticism and "A message from mom"

Guest post on Prescott's blog: A message from mom

I received an interesting testimonial from commenter GregL, who previously contributed a post composed soon after his mother's passing. At the time, struggling with his own skepticism, he wrote, "Like a flame dancing in the wind I now move between despair and hope, a dichotomy of opposing beliefs. Probably never to be resolved until my own passing. I hope I see her there."

It appears he received some additional evidence that pushed the needle at least somewhat in the direction of belief. 

I don't know whether it is just me but the initial link in your post doesn't work. Nevertheless, I went to Prescott's blog and found it there easily enough.

There is a constant question in my mind when I read accounts like this and some of the comments below indicate the similar misgivings about skeptical reactions. What I ask myself is what, exactly, does a skeptic think when she or he reads it? I can outline my own thought process: I try to determine whether the person telling the story has any kind of motive or is perhaps the type to seek attention or even notoriety; I ask myself whether they had taken steps to explain what they are describing with mundane causes and, in general, is there any reason to suspect mendacity or gross exaggeration? I often come across stories which I dismiss for one or more of those reason but there are many that give me no reason to doubt the sincerity of the account.

So, in all seriousness, I would like to know - for this example - why skeptics (and I'm inviting the skeptics here to answer) would dismiss it? Is it automatic - as in "we know ghosts aren't real so it must be something else" or do you have a solid alternative explanation?  Or do you fall back on the old faithful: anecdote is not evidence? If so, how many such anecdotes would it take to make you wonder? Or is that all that is required to dismiss such phenomena?

I don't know whether it is just me but the initial link in your post doesn't work. Nevertheless, I went to Prescott's blog and found it there easily enough.

There is a constant question in my mind when I read accounts like this and some of the comments below indicate the similar misgivings about skeptical reactions. What I ask myself is what, exactly, does a skeptic think when she or he reads it? I can outline my own thought process: I try to determine whether the person telling the story has any kind of motive or is perhaps the type to seek attention or even notoriety; I ask myself whether they had taken steps to explain what they are describing with mundane causes and, in general, is there any reason to suspect mendacity or gross exaggeration? I often come across stories which I dismiss for one or more of those reason but there are many that give me no reason to doubt the sincerity of the account.

So, in all seriousness, I would like to know - for this example - why skeptics (and I'm inviting the skeptics here to answer) would dismiss it? Is it automatic - as in "we know ghosts aren't real so it must be something else" or do you have a solid alternative explanation?  Or do you fall back on the old faithful: anecdote is not evidence? If so, how many such anecdotes would it take to make you wonder? Or is that all that is required to dismiss such phenomena?

My skeptical reaction is generally the assumption the person's account is earnest unless there is evidence of ulterior motive, exaggeration, etc., but that there is likely a mundane explanation that escapes the teller's perception, mental state, etc.

There are so many examples of perception not matching reality.  Its not a question, for me at least, of giving the teller the benefit of the doubt in terms of their earnestness but rather the challenge in believing the teller has missed something.  Something that would explain the phenomena in more mundane terms.

Again, not casting doubt on all stories from all people.  Just why I find it hard to be compelled by these anecdotes.

My skeptical reaction is generally the assumption the person's account is earnest unless there is evidence of ulterior motive, exaggeration, etc., but that there is likely a mundane explanation that escapes the teller's perception, mental state, etc.

There are so many examples of perception not matching reality.  Its not a question, for me at least, of giving the teller the benefit of the doubt in terms of their earnestness but rather the challenge in believing the teller has missed something.  Something that would explain the phenomena in more mundane terms.

Again, not casting doubt on all stories from all people.  Just why I find it hard to be compelled by these anecdotes.

Yet, to the point of my question: what is it you think they missed or do you just assume they must have missed something? 

An example from my own life. My step-mother was not one for indulging in fantasy - a more down to earth, mundane, no-nonsense Yorkshire woman you couldn't find. When I talked about things psychic she would wave it away and change the subject. Yet we did get her to relate one story from her past. During WW2 her brother was in the Army fighting somewhere overseas. One night she woke up to see him standing at the foot of her bed. She was not frightened not shocked but happy to see him standing there in his uniform. He just said something like "I have to go now but I'm ok, don't worry, don't be sad." Two days later they got the dreaded telegram informing them of his death in action.

Now I can force myself into skeptical mode but I know how my step-mother looked at life. I know that she would not invent such a story and how uncomfortable it made her to talk about it. Unless you adhere to absolute denial - it can't happen so it didn't - I cannot explain her vision away in mundane terms. A skeptic can read what I have just written and dismiss it as second-hand with the probably faulty memory of two people involved. That might satisfy the skeptic but not me. I can't dismiss it so easily.

I don't know whether it is just me but the initial link in your post doesn't work. Nevertheless, I went to Prescott's blog and found it there easily enough.

There is a constant question in my mind when I read accounts like this and some of the comments below indicate the similar misgivings about skeptical reactions. What I ask myself is what, exactly, does a skeptic think when she or he reads it? I can outline my own thought process: I try to determine whether the person telling the story has any kind of motive or is perhaps the type to seek attention or even notoriety; I ask myself whether they had taken steps to explain what they are describing with mundane causes and, in general, is there any reason to suspect mendacity or gross exaggeration? I often come across stories which I dismiss for one or more of those reason but there are many that give me no reason to doubt the sincerity of the account.

So, in all seriousness, I would like to know - for this example - why skeptics (and I'm inviting the skeptics here to answer) would dismiss it? Is it automatic - as in "we know ghosts aren't real so it must be something else" or do you have a solid alternative explanation?  Or do you fall back on the old faithful: anecdote is not evidence? If so, how many such anecdotes would it take to make you wonder? Or is that all that is required to dismiss such phenomena?

 
Silence gave an accurate response. Distilliing that further it can be said like this.
Anecdote make skeptics wonder. Anecdote does not make a skeptic draw a conclusion.  I read his "Mom" blog post. My reaction is a shoulder shrug. What he wrote cannot be verified or denied.

Yet, to the point of my question: what is it you think they missed or do you just assume they must have missed something? 

An example from my own life. My step-mother was not one for indulging in fantasy - a more down to earth, mundane, no-nonsense Yorkshire woman you couldn't find. When I talked about things psychic she would wave it away and change the subject. Yet we did get her to relate one story from her past. During WW2 her brother was in the Army fighting somewhere overseas. One night she woke up to see him standing at the foot of her bed. She was not frightened not shocked but happy to see him standing there in his uniform. He just said something like "I have to go now but I'm ok, don't worry, don't be sad." Two days later they got the dreaded telegram informing them of his death in action.

Now I can force myself into skeptical mode but I know how my step-mother looked at life. I know that she would not invent such a story and how uncomfortable it made her to talk about it. Unless you adhere to absolute denial - it can't happen so it didn't - I cannot explain her vision away in mundane terms. A skeptic can read what I have just written and dismiss it as second-hand with the probably faulty memory of two people involved. That might satisfy the skeptic but not me. I can't dismiss it so easily.

That’s a better example to ask a sceptic about imho (and very interesting)
I’ve opened the popcorn....

A shrug is about what I'd expect from Steve but I guess that real skeptical input is a little scarce on this forum anyway. Perhaps Vortex could put his contacts to work arranging an interview with someone like Shermer? I know that coincidence is the one mundane explanation that skeptics seem to revert to when all else fails (or indeed, often as first choice). For example, my step-mother would have dreamed her brother at her bedside and this dream just happened to coincide with the timing of his death in action. A bit of a stretch but they would say that, statistically, just that kind of coincidence was inevitable.

I don't buy that at all for various reasons: 

a) she had never had a dream about him or any other family member coming to give her a message either before or since
b) she was absolutely certain that she was fully awake at the time
c) this is a well known phenomenon, not an isolated case. It is similar to other cases known collectively as "Peak in Darien" experiences.

https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/mich...arien.html

A shrug is about what I'd expect from Steve but I guess that real skeptical input is a little scarce on this forum anyway. Perhaps Vortex could put his contacts to work arranging an interview with someone like Shermer? I know that coincidence is the one mundane explanation that skeptics seem to revert to when all else fails (or indeed, often as first choice). For example, my step-mother would have dreamed her brother at her bedside and this dream just happened to coincide with the timing of his death in action. A bit of a stretch but they would say that, statistically, just that kind of coincidence was inevitable.

I don't buy that at all for various reasons: 

a) she had never had a dream about him or any other family member coming to give her a message either before or since
b) she was absolutely certain that she was fully awake at the time
c) this is a well known phenomenon, not an isolated case. It is similar to other cases known collectively as "Peek in Darien" experiences.

https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/mich...arien.html

Amazing. I said the same as Silence. I'm also flabbergasted though i should not be, you ask for answers only to reject the one that does not give affirmation. I wonder why you even asked? Can you understand why the skeptics that once participated routinely have for the most part stopped? Apparently what we say goes in one ear and out the other.

On an individual case basis I am much like Karmaling, I check previous patterns of behavior and if there's mean, motive and opportunity for the person to want to make up such a story, which there almost always isn't. I check to see if this person is someone who has had perceptual slips in the past or any contextual reason why they'd have one now, if that all comes out clean then I have no reasonable reason to doubt that their description of the events are accurate.

But even moreso when you try to apply the generic "Well it can't be verified so it stays in limbo" logic to a wide range of cases the statistics kind blow that away. in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of stories like this the chances that every single one of them involves some combination of perceptual error or fraud is staggeringly low. Meaning that, probably, there's at least one case that is accurate to it's description. It doesn't matter if you can't verify exactly which one it is at the moment. It also doesn't guarantee it but it makes a lot more sense to go with the assumption that one of them is true and thus some component of the phenomenon is true as described until proven otherwise.

Furthermore, the unverified defense is only ever applied in cases where the thing being true goes against the persons worldview. it's not like skeptics pull that card when someone comes back from a walk and claims they saw a bird. But if they were real skeptics they would say that they can't believe it either way because the claim of seeing a bird is unverified. Although a psuedoskeptic would likely try the defense that it's statistically more likely that they actually saw a bird because birds are common animals, except that doesn't verify the claim so it's just a double standard.

If the best reasoning why someone doesn't believe it is that "well they might've missed something" the  oweness is then on the skeptic to come up with what they could've missed and why it's more convincing. Otherwise, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I.e, the evidence of a person's known patterns of behavior and historical perceptual fortitude vs "I don't believe it".

On an individual case basis I am much like Karmaling, I check previous patterns of behavior and if there's mean, motive and opportunity for the person to want to make up such a story, which there almost always isn't. I check to see if this person is someone who has had perceptual slips in the past or any contextual reason why they'd have one now, if that all comes out clean then I have no reasonable reason to doubt that their description of the events are accurate.

But even moreso when you try to apply the generic "Well it can't be verified so it stays in limbo" logic to a wide range of cases the statistics kind blow that away. in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of stories like this the chances that every single one of them involves some combination of perceptual error or fraud is staggeringly low. Meaning that, probably, there's at least one case that is accurate to it's description. It doesn't matter if you can't verify exactly which one it is at the moment. It also doesn't guarantee it but it makes a lot more sense to go with the assumption that one of them is true and thus some component of the phenomenon is true as described until proven otherwise.

Furthermore, the unverified defense is only ever applied in cases where the thing being true goes against the persons worldview. it's not like skeptics pull that card when someone comes back from a walk and claims they saw a bird. But if they were real skeptics they would say that they can't believe it either way because the claim of seeing a bird is unverified. Although a psuedoskeptic would likely try the defense that it's statistically more likely that they actually saw a bird because birds are common animals, except that doesn't verify the claim so it's just a double standard.

If the best reasoning why someone doesn't believe it is that "well they might've missed something" the  oweness is then on the skeptic to come up with what they could've missed and why it's more convincing. Otherwise, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I.e, the evidence of a person's known patterns of behavior and historical perceptual fortitude vs "I don't believe it".

As a genuine skeptic I have a similar view...though part of it for me is the philosophical examination suggest[ing] that reality is, at the least, more than [mundane conceptions of] matter.

At the same time, I do wonder how much I would take these cases seriously if it wasn't for my own suggestive experiences. I wouldn't begrudge someone who feels seeing a bird is within their expectation of experience, whereas seeing a ghost is not. OTOH someone who says there just cannot be ghosts and no one should research it, etc is no longer a true skeptic.