https://connerhabib.wordpress.com/2...onversation-with-skeptiko-host-alex-tsakiris/
Alex Tsakiris is author of Why Science Is Wrong…About Almost Everything and host of the Skeptiko podcast, where every week or so, he has a conversation with near-death experience researchers, skeptics, debunkers, neuroscientists, philosophers, conspiracy theorists, UFO investigators, and other people in the great cultural battle over the shape and worth of science. Almost everyone who comes onto Skeptiko is pushed on (sometimes pushed on quite hard)to confront their own assumptions, prejudices, and holes in their logic. It’s sort of like a how-much-can-you-endure reality show for thinkers.
Many critics of the show point out that Alex can misunderstand science, that he can be a bully, that he “sandbags” his guests. You can listen to the episodes and see for yourself whether or not you think that’s true. I certainly don’t agree with all of Alex’s positions, nor the thinkers he sometimes champions. Often, while listening to the show, I’ll be yelling out loud to no one like a crazy person – But why didn’t you say THIS, Alex? My disagreements inform my own thinking, but are irrelevant to my enjoyment of the show, or what I find so valuable about it.
The value of Skeptiko isn’t that Alex is correct all the time. Sometimes he is, sometimes he isn’t, and sometimes I don’t know how to tell which is which. What’s valuable is that, each week, Alex confronts his own assumptions and prejudices. To listen to Skeptiko is to hear Alex’s world view changing and his understanding of science refined, little by little. This display of personal growth is inspiring, particularly since he’s constantly talking with people who are deeply attached to and embedded in their own perspectives. A shift in world view, without some serious trauma, is a slow and grueling process. Alex exposes himself to this shift with every conversation, subjecting himself to the revealing and sometimes painful Skeptiko mission statement, “Follow the data… wherever it leads.”
***
Conner Habib: What are the red flags for you when you’re talking to people in paranormal/spiritual communities that you’re not getting a consistent story or rigorous investigation?
Alex Tsakiris: I think it’s challenging on so many levels because when you get into the paranormal there does get to be this degree of strangeness no matter where you start. You walk in and you wind up in this very strange spot. I guess I’m kind of an idealist in that I’ve always felt like I should get a straight answer. I’m upfront and I should get the same back.
I have to say, when I first encountered the skeptical crowd and found out the deception that was going on and how they’re not consistent in any kind of logical way, I really felt compelled to push on that because it directly contradicts the front that they’re putting up that they are interested in critical thinking, that they are interested in the scientific method.
Take Hazel Courteney (author of Countdown to Coherence on Skeptiko episode 136) for example – I love her message, and I think her topic is extremely important – this spiritually transformative experience that totally knocks someone on their butt. I think those things happen and I think they can be a real distressing moment – an extremely unsettling part of someone’s life. People right now are locked up in mental institutions in a very dark place all over the world because they’ve had some kind of amazing transformative spiritual experience and they’re unable to orient that with in a way that our culture can understand and accept. So I feel challenged when someone like Hazel goes through that experience. You better be on your game! Don’t go through that and start mixing it up with some other new age mumbo jumbo. You have an important story to tell and an important job to do, go do it!
I want to hear the message, but I want to hear it’s coming from someone who’s applying good critical thinking skills.
CH: How is that different from science proceeding from a series of wrong pathways and wrong alleys and having its foundation resting on something that’s not correct?
AT: My point is: There’s a standard that all of us that are seeking this higher degree of truth need to hold to. And it’s not some sort of impossible standard. It’s just common sense.
We all bring our personal credibility to the table, and we also bring our process to the table. I love being public in the way that I am. I love doing posts and putting my name on them, and then you (the audience) are my fact checkers.
CH: Skeptics do things the other way around – they investigate individuals under the shadow of dismissal. You’re saying, I talk to each person and try to get a feel for what they’re doing and how true what they’re saying is. I wonder if there are any phenomena where you think, “I don’t think so. This doesn’t seem to be true to me at all as a phenomena,” from the outset.”
AT: That’s a tough one because I feel like I’ve been proven wrong so many times. I’d say “no way that that’s true,” and then six months to a year later…
CH: In materialistic science it’s the same thing, where so much seems crazy and then I realize, whoa, that’s true!
But for me, it’s sort of backwards – I’d say a materialistic universe isn’t possible.
AT: I agree! That’s off the table.
CH: Interpretations can seem wrong to me. Retro-science UFO stuff, that UFOs built the pyramids, stuff like that.
AT: I’ve been digging into the UFO stuff and like you was pretty dismissive and really if you look at the evidence, it’s just overwhelmingly convincing that there’s a real phenomena there.
And the government cover up has been completely outed. You have thousands of documents from the FBI after saying for years they had no documents. CIA, army, navy – thousands of documents where you have lie after lie after lie.
What you really have to do then is step back with that as a base and say if the deception is that well-orchestrated and complete, then where do we draw the boundary on what’s really happening here?
On all this stuff, you have to consider the deception.
Without knowing the motives, you just have to look at the data.
The same is true with scientific-spiritual stuff. Like near-death experience (NDE). If you look at study after study, it’s backed up. But then these insignificant little studies that seem to refute NDE data, suddenly become hot topics. Why? It’s so easy to look at the refuting data and say it doesn’t amount to anything. How could that really stand up to any of the data in favor or NDEs?
CH: I think that’s something scientists and scholars of science have trouble seeing – power structures in the scientific community, and then beyond that power structures of intentional deception.
There are power structures in science itself as well. I wanted to talk about one of those –
----
(continued below)
Alex Tsakiris is author of Why Science Is Wrong…About Almost Everything and host of the Skeptiko podcast, where every week or so, he has a conversation with near-death experience researchers, skeptics, debunkers, neuroscientists, philosophers, conspiracy theorists, UFO investigators, and other people in the great cultural battle over the shape and worth of science. Almost everyone who comes onto Skeptiko is pushed on (sometimes pushed on quite hard)to confront their own assumptions, prejudices, and holes in their logic. It’s sort of like a how-much-can-you-endure reality show for thinkers.
Many critics of the show point out that Alex can misunderstand science, that he can be a bully, that he “sandbags” his guests. You can listen to the episodes and see for yourself whether or not you think that’s true. I certainly don’t agree with all of Alex’s positions, nor the thinkers he sometimes champions. Often, while listening to the show, I’ll be yelling out loud to no one like a crazy person – But why didn’t you say THIS, Alex? My disagreements inform my own thinking, but are irrelevant to my enjoyment of the show, or what I find so valuable about it.
The value of Skeptiko isn’t that Alex is correct all the time. Sometimes he is, sometimes he isn’t, and sometimes I don’t know how to tell which is which. What’s valuable is that, each week, Alex confronts his own assumptions and prejudices. To listen to Skeptiko is to hear Alex’s world view changing and his understanding of science refined, little by little. This display of personal growth is inspiring, particularly since he’s constantly talking with people who are deeply attached to and embedded in their own perspectives. A shift in world view, without some serious trauma, is a slow and grueling process. Alex exposes himself to this shift with every conversation, subjecting himself to the revealing and sometimes painful Skeptiko mission statement, “Follow the data… wherever it leads.”
***
Conner Habib: What are the red flags for you when you’re talking to people in paranormal/spiritual communities that you’re not getting a consistent story or rigorous investigation?
Alex Tsakiris: I think it’s challenging on so many levels because when you get into the paranormal there does get to be this degree of strangeness no matter where you start. You walk in and you wind up in this very strange spot. I guess I’m kind of an idealist in that I’ve always felt like I should get a straight answer. I’m upfront and I should get the same back.
I have to say, when I first encountered the skeptical crowd and found out the deception that was going on and how they’re not consistent in any kind of logical way, I really felt compelled to push on that because it directly contradicts the front that they’re putting up that they are interested in critical thinking, that they are interested in the scientific method.
Take Hazel Courteney (author of Countdown to Coherence on Skeptiko episode 136) for example – I love her message, and I think her topic is extremely important – this spiritually transformative experience that totally knocks someone on their butt. I think those things happen and I think they can be a real distressing moment – an extremely unsettling part of someone’s life. People right now are locked up in mental institutions in a very dark place all over the world because they’ve had some kind of amazing transformative spiritual experience and they’re unable to orient that with in a way that our culture can understand and accept. So I feel challenged when someone like Hazel goes through that experience. You better be on your game! Don’t go through that and start mixing it up with some other new age mumbo jumbo. You have an important story to tell and an important job to do, go do it!
I want to hear the message, but I want to hear it’s coming from someone who’s applying good critical thinking skills.
CH: How is that different from science proceeding from a series of wrong pathways and wrong alleys and having its foundation resting on something that’s not correct?
AT: My point is: There’s a standard that all of us that are seeking this higher degree of truth need to hold to. And it’s not some sort of impossible standard. It’s just common sense.
We all bring our personal credibility to the table, and we also bring our process to the table. I love being public in the way that I am. I love doing posts and putting my name on them, and then you (the audience) are my fact checkers.
CH: Skeptics do things the other way around – they investigate individuals under the shadow of dismissal. You’re saying, I talk to each person and try to get a feel for what they’re doing and how true what they’re saying is. I wonder if there are any phenomena where you think, “I don’t think so. This doesn’t seem to be true to me at all as a phenomena,” from the outset.”
AT: That’s a tough one because I feel like I’ve been proven wrong so many times. I’d say “no way that that’s true,” and then six months to a year later…
CH: In materialistic science it’s the same thing, where so much seems crazy and then I realize, whoa, that’s true!
But for me, it’s sort of backwards – I’d say a materialistic universe isn’t possible.
AT: I agree! That’s off the table.
CH: Interpretations can seem wrong to me. Retro-science UFO stuff, that UFOs built the pyramids, stuff like that.
AT: I’ve been digging into the UFO stuff and like you was pretty dismissive and really if you look at the evidence, it’s just overwhelmingly convincing that there’s a real phenomena there.
And the government cover up has been completely outed. You have thousands of documents from the FBI after saying for years they had no documents. CIA, army, navy – thousands of documents where you have lie after lie after lie.
What you really have to do then is step back with that as a base and say if the deception is that well-orchestrated and complete, then where do we draw the boundary on what’s really happening here?
On all this stuff, you have to consider the deception.
Without knowing the motives, you just have to look at the data.
The same is true with scientific-spiritual stuff. Like near-death experience (NDE). If you look at study after study, it’s backed up. But then these insignificant little studies that seem to refute NDE data, suddenly become hot topics. Why? It’s so easy to look at the refuting data and say it doesn’t amount to anything. How could that really stand up to any of the data in favor or NDEs?
CH: I think that’s something scientists and scholars of science have trouble seeing – power structures in the scientific community, and then beyond that power structures of intentional deception.
There are power structures in science itself as well. I wanted to talk about one of those –
----
(continued below)