We recently received a comment on one of our Allison DuBois posts asking about our beliefs and our skeptical approach to life. The commenter, Cat, had the following to say:

I feel for you guys being so sceptical. I imagine that for you when we die there is no after life. I couldn't imagine how painful that would be to not believe in the life of souls. How do you believe in such a depressing and unhopeful existence. Please feel free to email me about this although I don't think you will. All I feel for you is the deepest sympathy. To believe in something greater than yourself leads to humility rather than arrogance.

Cat's inquiry was polite enough and it posed some interesting questions. We posted a reply (the original is on the Rant linked above), and also e-mailed her, but we felt that this thread deserved its own post as well. Since the conversation was (and is) still in progress, and since it is somewhat larger in scope than the Allison DuBois post where it began, we have moved the discussion here. (As a note, we had a lot of fun finding good links for our reply. Some of those images are absolutely awe inspiring!)

Basically, Cat brought up a topic that we had recently been considering posting about — the meaning of life, the nature of belief, and all that jazz. Cat's questions and comments were, in many ways, typical of how many others seem to envision those like us. As atheists and skeptics, people seem to think that our lives must be devoid of all meaning, but that just isn't the case. For our part, we have discovered profound meaning in many aspects of existence, as outlined in our response below. We're sure that other atheists have different opinions, and we'd love to hear about them as well.

Cat is certainly still welcome to participate, as is everyone else who wants to. We're sure that others have been on various sides of this debate before, so let us know what you think. Our first reply to Cat's comment is below.

According to Cat's next reply, it seemed that our arrogance had been confirmed in her eyes. We're not pointing any fingers at Cat here — as we said, we believe that this is just how a lot of people see atheists. For people who believe in supernatural forces, we imagine that it would be very difficult to understand how anything that is not magical could possibly be as impressive or important as their own mystical beliefs.

Cat's reply was as follows:

OK I'm impressed, I wasn't expecting a response. I am Buddhist and believe in reincarnation until we reach enlightenment, thats where I'm coming from. I believe we choose to live a physical life in order for our eternal souls to learn lessons that we cannot learn in spirit. But hey I'm open to all kinds of possibilities and don't get me wrong I relish this physical life and am not just waiting to die for any kind of serene heavenly afterlife. But really I am just guessing as to what happens when we die, but you don't seem to be guessing, your post indicates that you know what happens when we go...how do you KNOW that your belief is utterly the only one to have? How can you be so assured that your belief is correct? Has one of your posse died and come back with the ultimate truth? You see thats the real arrogance I see in your belief, you leave no other possibilities open for discussion what you believe is right and everyone else is on the wrong track. That smacks to me of right to lifers who refuse to allow individuals freedom to make their own choices as they are so utterly convinced that their convictions are the only ones to be held. Yes, you have indeed come out and slammed my post to you and let me put this to you, you guys DON'T know and as a friend of mine put it so well, we won't know until we die and then it's too late. So where do you guys stand on ghosts? What animates our bodies from the moment of birth? Are all psychics phonies in your eyes? I have had experiences in my life that suggest that we do exist in spirit, and that is what I base my response on. Obviously you have had experiences in your life that lead to your beliefs and thats cool. If it was in any way possible to prove my beliefs to you I would but alas no way is known. So we stand on opposite sides of an argument with no possible way of proving either sides correctness. I know what I'd rather be and thats a believer rather than a sceptic. I'd rather have my faith than your certainty, however happy it makes you.

The following is the reply we had worked up, which is posted below for the very first time.

Cat, let us start by saying that it wasn't at all our intention to "slam" your comments, and we're kind of disappointed that you saw our reply in that way. In fact, we started our last reply with a statement that we weren't being sarcastic or facetious — we were simply trying to illustrate our view so you could understand it.

That also leads us to the next important note — we never claimed to "know," in the definitive way to which you seem to refer, whether there is or is not an afterlife, a soul, or a god. We're not sure why you think that we did make such a claim. All we can guess is that the phrasing we used near the beginning of our reply misled you. Our statement was:

We feel for you believing that you do have an eternal soul. We imagine that for you, when we die, there is some mystical afterlife; and you wait your entire life to experience it. However, there is no such place, and that goes for you as much as it does for us.

However, this was just us re-using the phrasing that you used in your initial comment. It was not an attempt to say that we "know" that there is no afterlife. That said, while we don't claim to "know," we do claim to have a pretty good case for our position.

Here's why: it's all about evidence. The stronger the evidence we have for a specific viewpoint, the more likely it is to be true. There is absolutely zero established, confirmed evidence for any psychic, paranormal, supernatural or "spiritual" phenomena. No "medium" has ever conclusively proven contact with a dead person, no paranormal investigator has ever conclusively proven that dead people wander around as ghosts — and so on, and so on. And the thing is, all it would take is one instance where proof existed — just one — and we would have to adjust our view of the world. Yet to date, we haven't needed to do so. On the other hand, there is an extremely large amount of evidence that suggests that the scientific view of how the world works is accurate. So, we go with the scientific approach, the only approach that actually follows through on its hypotheses, either supporting or refuting them through empirical observation and evidence.

In a comment over on the Rant which sparked this discussion, Myrddin makes a wonderfully salient observation:

One of the main characteristics of mankind is that it has a huge drive to investigate and innovate. Mankind leaves no stone unturned in its drive to get further, faster, easier ... Why would there be such a blindspot, if the paranormal really worked?

Why, indeed? The fact that literally thousands of years have gone by without a single piece of evidence for supernatural phenomena, while in a mere few hundred years of intense scientific inquiry we have gathered mountains of evidence for the scientific worldview, should lead to the obvious conclusion: there is no evidence for the paranormal because the paranormal doesn't exist.

Despite what you may think, Cat, there is no arrogance inherent to our position. We certainly do leave "other possibilities open for discussion" — just give us a testable, falsifiable hypothesis on any subject or phenomenon, and we'd be very interested in the outcome of the subsequent experiments. In our experience, this approach tends to lead to a predictable outcome: none of the experiments support the paranormal hypothesis being tested, and the believers end up saying that the paranormal explanation is true anyway. That's fine, if that's all it takes for others; but we require a more rigorous test of accepted knowledge.

And Cat, we take exception to (and some offense at) your suggestion that we are anything like the right to life morons out there. You stated:

That smacks to me of right to lifers who refuse to allow individuals freedom to make their own choices as they are so utterly convinced that their convictions are the only ones to be held.

There is a glaringly obvious difference: the problem with the right to life crowd isn't that they believe that abortions are unacceptable (they are welcome to that belief), but rather that they attempt to impose that belief on others via legislation, propaganda, and violence. You seem to agree that this is a problem, based on your statement above. However, that is not at all our position with regard to religion and/or the paranormal. While we believe it is important to get the facts about these things out in the open, ultimately it is up to each individual to decide what they want to believe. We have no desire at all to force you to stop believing in psychics, ghosts, or reincarnation. We actually wrote a post about this a little while back called "Believe What You Want to Believe." It states, in part, the following:

It is important to understand that we fully support your right to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of the supporting facts, or lack thereof. We firmly support your right to your own personal beliefs, and we would gladly argue for you to maintain that right. That said, it is equally important to understand that we maintain the right to not believe what you believe, and to think that what you believe is silly. Just because you believe something passionately, don't expect us to respect that belief. We will respect your right to hold that belief, but not necessarily the belief itself.

The main issue here is that we should all have the right to believe whatever we want to believe, as long as that belief doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

In a nutshell: believe what you want to believe, just don't expect universal respect for your beliefs, and don't try to force your beliefs on anyone else. From what we've read from you, we don't think you are asking for either of those things.

We also want to address some of the questions you posed:

So where do you guys stand on ghosts?

We believe that ghosts do not exist. There isn't a single shred of convincing evidence for ghosts. Every supposed piece of evidence that we've seen can be quite easily explained, if you know what to look for. Science can be a wonderful tool! We'll gladly look at any compelling evidence for the existence of ghosts — to date, we've seen nothing even remotely convincing. Of course, as usual, we have no problem if others want to believe in ghosts, as long as that belief doesn't infringe on our lives.

What animates our bodies from the moment of birth?

Our bodies are animated by the electrochemical impulses delivered throughout our nervous system to instruct our muscles to move. There's nothing at all mysterious about this process. Of course, you may have meant to ask the more meaningful question: "From where does our conscious self arise?" The answer to that is both complicated and incomplete, as yet, and would be better explained by a cognitive scientist.

Are all psychics phonies in your eyes?

Well, since we believe that psychic powers are not real, then by extension, we believe that self-proclaimed psychics do not really possess such powers. Are they all "phonies"? To be fair, we would say that some are frauds and con artists, while some actually delude themselves into believing that they really do have these powers. Neither scenario, however, makes them correct. Once again, we'll qualify this by stating that we would welcome evidence to the contrary — we've just never seen any that has stood up to scientific scrutiny. And as usual, anyone who wants to is free to believe in psychic powers, as long as it doesn't interfere with our lives. That means no admitting completely unverifiable (read: any) psychic revelations as evidence in court, or as a reason to issue a search warrant — but feel free to drop $300 on a personal reading about your financial future, if you're so inclined.

If it was in any way possible to prove my beliefs to you I would but alas no way is known. So we stand on opposite sides of an argument with no possible way of proving either sides correctness.

Well, there is no evidence at all for the beliefs that you hold, and that's okay. We just find it interesting when people who hold such beliefs try to assert them as factual with no real evidence to support their claims. From our perspective, we may not have definitive knowledge of the position we hold, but we can point to a lot of evidence in favor of our beliefs. We can also debunk much of the supposed evidence for beliefs like yours (though certainly not all of it since so much is merely anecdotal). Remember, we can't "prove" that the things you believe in do not exist — we can't prove a negative, we can only show that specific claims are false. In the end, you are correct in saying that we will likely not convince one another to change beliefs. In our experience, the anecdotal evidence that you lean on for your beliefs is enough for you, and will never be enough for us. So, it is a gap that usually cannot be closed.

I know what I'd rather be and thats a believer rather than a sceptic. I'd rather have my faith than your certainty, however happy it makes you.

In all sincerity, feel free to be a believer in whatever makes you happy. We would never try to stop you. You asked (and made assumptions) about our lives, our beliefs and our feelings, and we simply explained our actual point of view. Not only are we saying that you are welcome to your beliefs, we would gladly argue for your right to maintain them. This is a free country (at least until the Religious Right takes over — and trust us, you being a Buddhist, we're all on the same side in that battle), and no one can tell you what you can or cannot believe.

You do make a strange assertion here when you say that being a believer or a skeptic is about what you'd "rather" be. That's simply not true for us. All other factors aside, given the choice, we'd love to live in a world in which the supernatural is real, where wishing really does make it so; but throughout our lives we've experienced, observed, and learned, just like everybody else, and we've discovered that wishing does not make it so. In our experience, nobody can talk to ghosts, and nobody is verifiably reincarnated. So we are skeptics because it is an approach to knowledge that does not presume anything other than a logical, sensible (in every meaning of the word), consistent environment around us. From our perspective, we find it strange that more people don't take this approach. Shouldn't everyone prefer to live in such a world, where we have a definitive approach to learning rather than just a "hope" of learning through revelation? We know we would.

Cat, we are in no way trying to slam your comments, or make you give up your beliefs. From what we've read from you, we would guess that you have no desire to force your beliefs on others, which means that we wouldn't really have a bone to pick with you at all. We don't agree with your beliefs, and we think they are silly, but you would probably say the same about us and our beliefs. And that's okay. We can live together quite comfortably on this planet, our diverse beliefs intact, just as long as none of us follow the misguided lead of the Religious Right by trying to cram our personal beliefs down the throats of others. We probably won't be best friends, but we certainly don't need to be enemies.

So, hey: skeptics, true believers, anybody else (except the damn comment spammers) — what do you think of the topics we've touched on with Cat? What is your "something greater," and your approach to learning about the universe around us...and why? From what we've seen of the blogosphere and our readers, there is no shortage of opinions in this world; let us know what yours are.

I remember, as a teenager, I read a science book (for fun, because I was and still am a big geek) that brought up the way planetary systems are (believed to be) formed from particles of dust and debris and gasses left over from the formation of their parent star. And, of course, everything *on* those planets is necessarily formed from the same material. In other words ... we're all made of stardust. I can't begin to describe the awe and wonder I felt right then.

The size and complexity of the universe does indeed make me feel small and humble ... and extraordinarily lucky just to be here. My existence is nothing less than a win in a great cosmic lottery with unimaginable odds, and if there is nothing more beyond this life, that doesn't diminish its value one bit.

Alas, as with so many other ideas, I can't express it nearly as well as Monty Python:
"So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth."

I don't believe that our lives are imbued with meaning and purpose by some Creator before we're born. I believe that meaning and purpose are things we find for ourselves ... and, to be honest, I find my own view -- that the meaning of life is ours to construct, and not something assigned to us by an outside force -- considerably more inspiring. Others will disagree, and that's fine. I know plenty of people who believe plenty of wacky things, and I don't think any less of them for it. But I do have a problem with people assuming I must see life as meaningless, just because I don't see blind faith as a great virtue.

Thanks for putting up such a thoughtful post on this. :)

We're glad to hear that we weren't the only ones reading science books for fun when we were kids! We definitely know that feeling of awe, Catherine...

Hello Again Folks,
Well it feels weird to have my comments dissected and commented on and then to be granted a whole page, thats like wow :)
When you made the comment in your post that "We imagine that for you, when we die, there is some mystical afterlife etc. However there is no such place & that goes for you as much as it does for us." That was the phrase I had objections to as that was written as a statement of fact, but such a statement cannot be verified unless someone dies and comes back with the ultimate truth. OK so its only a minor technicality on your behalf but thats what got me going.
The truth is, your comments are eloquent, rational and logical and apart from having different views on eternal souls and an afterlife, I find myself really liking you guys.
This may sound strange and maybe is the first sign of madness but I talk to the people I have lost & get a kick out of thinking that they hear me.
I topped my classes in High School for Science and know the wonder that is the voyage of discovery for science. Nerd alert!!
Take it easy folks & thanx for the argument as it really made me sit down and work out my beliefs. I look forward to knowing the truth one day as I believe the truth is much more magical and wondrous then the human mind can conceive.
Many blessings
Cat

Cat — all things considered, we like you, too. Though our beliefs may differ, we wish you nothing but the best. Thanks for the discussion! You're always welcome here.

Hi there,
I've just completed reading this thread and found it an interesting discussion. Thus, I decided that far be it for me to pass up a chance to ramble incessantly. I do believe in an afterlife, don't worry I have no intention of imposing my belief onto you, although from your rants it would seem like a near impossible task of converting you if I was so inclined. However, when it was mentioned that paranormal beliefs have circulated since cavemen, and in your opinion 'literally thousands of years have gone by without a single piece of evidence for supernatural phenomena' How has it come to be that in the era of technology and scientific advancement the belief in the paranormal is still prevalent?
How is it that you must continue to disprove theories of the existence of spiritual entities and the connection of those who claim to have connection to the other side such as Allison Dubios if their is 'mountainous' scientific evidence to prove otherwise?
Could there be a slight possibility in your mind, even the slightest, that the reason why the belief in the paranormal has continued from the cavemen to contemporary 21st century because there may be some slight truth in the possibility of a higher existence?
You understand as much as I do how rare 100% certainties are. Could some things be unexplainable by science and left up to faith?

Ceecee,

Actually, you are misreading what we said above. You ask:

How is it that you must continue to disprove theories of the existence of spiritual entities and the connection of those who claim to have connection to the other side such as Allison Dubios if their is 'mountainous' scientific evidence to prove otherwise?

What we actually said is:

The fact that literally thousands of years have gone by without a single piece of evidence for supernatural phenomena, while in a mere few hundred years of intense scientific inquiry we have gathered mountains of evidence for the scientific worldview, should lead to the obvious conclusion: there is no evidence for the paranormal because the paranormal doesn't exist.

What we are talking about is the mountain of evidence supporting the scientific view of the world, not the evidence "disproving" the paranormal. You can't "disprove" the paranormal, so no such evidence exists. Rather, what we are saying is that, over a few hundred years, the scientific method has produced mountains of evidence for scientific claims, yet after thousands of years, there is no evidence of paranormal claims.

You ask:

How has it come to be that in the era of technology and scientific advancement the belief in the paranormal is still prevalent?

Sadly, people have been ignoring science in favor of fantasy for a long time, and the practice shows no signs of going away. As far as why they ignore science, we can't say — we can only report that it happens far more often than we'd like it to happen. Check the statistics on how many Americans believe that the earth was created according to the Biblical account as opposed to via the means theorized by science and you'll see what we mean. People, for all their higher brain functions, are animals — we have evolved with specific behaviors and abilities which served us well before the advent of civilization, but which can serve as a hindrance to true scientific scrutiny of observed phenomena. (As an example, think pareidolia.)

Regarding our stance on faith-based beliefs, we cover that pretty thoroughly in another post called "Believe What You Want to Believe."

Do we admit the possibility of the paranormal? Of course. The same goes for just about any wild claim that we can think of — we admit the possibility, we just think that the possibility is so low as to make no odds. It's possible that there will be a massive power outage across the entire United States before we finish this sentence, it just isn't all that likely. (Nope...didn't happen.)

Could some things be taken on faith? Sure, everyone does this. Sometimes when we're sitting in traffic, not moving, and we need to be somewhere ten miles away in ten minutes, we have a faith-based belief that we can still make it on time. Call it optimism, positive thinking, or denial, we all do it. But we don't confuse our delusions of punctuality with actual fact. In the same way, lots of people believe in the paranormal, and that's okay. We just don't like it when these same people try to give the paranormal a false veneer of science and factuality.

And sure, some things may currently be unexplainable by science, but that's no reason for science not to try.

Hi there,
I agree, you're completely right. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. However, we appear to differ greatly in opinion when it comes to respecting that persons belief. You emphasise the respect you have for a person to hold a belief and yet do not feel the need to extend that respect to the belief itself. Thus when that belief differs from yours, you mock it...politely of course, but still mockingly (equating the faith I spoke of with that of the desire to be somewhere on time). Why then respect one and not the other?
If one subsequently leads directly to the other?
What you truly respect is a person's right to share your belief, which is why, and you will surely disagree, that your writing can sometimes take on the attitude of haughty schooboy trying to educate an extremely unenlightened group morons (maybe not the best analogy). Therefore, I guess in some way I needed you to acknowledge the fact that a possibility of 'another' exists, even though in your eyes it's the equivalent to nothing. Remember one in a hundred billion is still a chance regardless of how 'low' you may think it. I truly apologise if anything I said may have offended.

Ceecee,

No, you aren't offending us, you just don't seem to understand what we're saying.

To us, respecting a person's right to hold a belief in no way leads to respecting the belief itself. We're not really sure why you think they go hand-in-hand, but we disagree.

You also say about us:

What you truly respect is a person's right to share your belief...

Not true at all. As we said, we fully respect a person's right to hold any belief at all, no matter how silly or misguided we think it is. As an extreme example, we respect a person's right to believe in white supremacy even though we find that belief itself abhorrent. Why does insulting a silly or misguided belief system mean to you that we don't really respect a person's right to hold that belief? Can you explain why you think this?

Keep in mind that, despite what you might think, we don't go out of our way to mock others' beliefs in our daily lives. When conversing with Ann, the "pagan" from a previous Rant, we keep our mouths shut about the many ludicrous beliefs she professes. The mistake that you seem to be making — and don't worry, it's a common mistake among internet surfers — is in assuming that our "personalities" on this website represent our daily actions and routines. They simply don't. This website is a vehicle for personal expression — a place where we can express our real opinions on such bullshit without offending the people with whom we interact on a day-to-day basis (who don't seem to read our site). This isn't to say that we never voice our opinions outside of this web site — we certainly do, when it is appropriate to do so (usually, when they are elicited by others). For us, this website is a place where it is always appropriate to voice our opinions since that's why we started it in the first place.

To us, respecting a person's right to hold a belief is a matter of freedom. Above all, we believe in civil liberties and the right to decide how we each live our own lives. That's why we respect the right to hold a belief. However, that doesn't stop us from calling bullshit "bullshit." Being able to do that is, to us, also a matter of freedom. Doing anything else when confronted with something that we think is crap would be useless "politically correct" angling, and we have no desire to engage in that kind of behavior. We also don't expect others to do so, and they are free to mock our beliefs.

Finally, there are beliefs that differ from ours that we respect. There are also beliefs that we do not hold that, though we don't respect them, we don't mock them either. However, when people make claims like those Allison DuBois has made, or when people demonstrate slack-jawed adherence to what people like Allison say, we feel absolutely no need to refrain from mocking them. Why do you?

Let's stay on this topic for a minute. How do you think that people who believe in psychics, homeopathy, alien abductions and the like should be treated? How about evolution deniers who are trying to remove science from public schools and replace it with religion? How about holocaust deniers who, in essence, are actually calling living people who survived the holocaust liars? How about the white supremacists we referred to above? Should we respect all of these beliefs as well? What does respecting them mean? Does it mean not telling our kids that they are bullshit? Does it mean not speaking out against them in the public arena? Does it mean teaching both sides in schools? Are some beliefs above mockery, and others not? Are some forms of showing respect expected and proper, but others not required? In your opinion, where is the line to be drawn? Keep in mind that there are generally as many beliefs as there are people to hold them — if you draw the line anywhere, you're going to be "excluding" some people, while including others. We've chosen to draw no line — any belief system, including our own, is open to mockery or scorn. We're extending that invitation to any person on the planet — the only codicil is that, if people are going to shit on somebody's beliefs, we would prefer that they use some logic or evidence (or preferably both) to back up their opinions. Of course, they're free not to, but then they won't have much of a case.

As a note, we weren't mocking you by using the example of believing that we'll be somewhere on time; we were just trying to show that even people who don't think that they have faith-based beliefs actually do engage in some, no matter how mundane they might be. Also, we were trying to show that admitting the possibility of something in no way means that we would or should behave in such a way as if it is actually true. As we suggested, to us the chances of that huge continental power outage are roughly the same (very roughly) as the chances of there being a god up in the sky. Based on these probabilities, we would no more start living our lives as if a god existed than we would immediately start lighting candles and testing flashlight batteries.

Please let us know what you think on the questions above. We would really like to understand your thoughts.

Hi there,

The mistake that you seem to be making — and don't worry, it's a common mistake among internet surfers — is in assuming that our "personalities" on this website represent our daily actions and routines.

If you are referring to the haughty schoolboy (or girl) comment made earlier. Then you misconstrue my intention, I was merely stating a trend I saw in your writing more so than actually commenting on the non-virtual aspect of your life. Rather, I would surely hope that these ‘personalities’ would be a reflection of your daily actions and routines. I now begin the back-peddling part of the section.

Ashamedly I admit I hadn’t actually factored in other views when I spoke of respect. I argued passionately and quite narrow-mindedly instead, of that respect towards my views and my beliefs, for that I erred terribly. Thank you for aiding one of the ‘misguided’.

CeeCee,

You're right, our writing on this site certainly does reflect our views accurately; and — when appropriate — we would offer the same opinions in our daily lives. However, the difference is that it isn't always appropriate to do so in real life. With Ann, the correct thing to do is to let her raise her child. It's not our place to tell her that what she is doing is wrong. Here on our site, though, we have a forum specifically designed to allow us to broach such a topic; or, for that matter, any topic.

Just so you know, we weren't implying that you were one of the people out there with misguided views. Frankly, we don't know what your views are, so we can't comment on them in any way (you didn't supply them, we won't infer them!). We were just explaining why we respect a person's right to hold a belief that we don't agree with, but don't necessarily respect the belief itself.

We do hope that you don't feel we were condescending to you. We freely admit that we sometimes take on a condescending tone, and that sometimes we're outright rude; but we try to do so only when we believe it is warranted. For example, when Patricia, who believes that water has a memory, told us how we can seem more "credible," we were certainly a bit condescending in our reply. And when HawkingS (a.k.a. Sniffles) threw half-assed psychoanalysis at us in order to build his own straw man argument, we were justifiably rude right back to him. You, on the other hand, had honest and valid questions. You didn't shovel crap at us, and you didn't try to hammer us with what we "really" believe. We have no intention of being rude or condescending towards you, and we hope that you didn't feel that we were.

Thanks for your comments.

I originally started out tonite in a search for information on Allison DuBois, this is where I ended up. I have been reading your website for more than an hour now and I find it all very facinating.
I find myself in a position where I don't know what I believe and indeed find myself in search of something to believe in. I guess it comes down to the hope that it will somehow make my life more meaningful. Alas I find myself as confused as ever, since you, and folks who have written to you, both make such convincing arguments. I will be back to this website, though i don't know if I will ever make up my mind one way or the other.

Well, Jodie, what you're doing is the best thing you can do — you are researching this stuff for yourself. We're happy to tell you what we believe and why, but at the end of the day, no one can tell you what you should believe.

If you want to understand more about the arguments on both sides of the fence, just keep doing what you're doing. We could tell you lots of places to look for information, but you seem to be doing okay on your own.

One thing we'd suggest as it relates to psychics and mediums (like Allison DuBois); look into "cold reading" before you make up your mind. You can find a good write-up in the Skeptic's Dictionary (check out "hot reading" and "subjective validation" while you're there), and in lots of other places. You can also see examples of cold reading on Penn & Teller's Bullshit, season one. Once you see how cold reading works, our guess is that you'll never look at a so-called psychic the same way again.

Thanks for stopping by.

You folks are as dogmatic as any "fundamentalist" view, your "religion" being the "reductionist-materialist" stance being the well known populist view. You know what I mean. The "tenents" of this faith include the well worn adage that "conciousness and mentality are an epiphenomenon of the chemical and neurological processes in the brain" and "psychic phenomena are systems of belief, rather than actual demonstratable phenomena" etc etc etc.
Well, much of what I have read here seems to be in the same class as the defensive pronouncements of the most ardent of fundamentalist preachers, who will brook no serious consideration of any view of existence than the "unvarnished and unassailable truth"

That's a rather limiting way to approach things, and I am sure as life experience continues, you will be running into the walls of your "unassailable truth" no less than the frustrated preacher on the road to conversion of the Unwashed Masses.

I know, I know, that you will respond to this saying that "no one can know the absolute truth, but SO FAR" etc etc. Well, fine and dandy, but it is kind of obnoxious of you to dismiss out of hand the world view of others so readily. Why can't you be satisfied with "knowing the truth" as it were? Why must you spend so much energy trying to "enlighten" the "ignorant populace?

Your strident defense of your world view is going to get you a: people seeking answers, who will gladly accept your "tenents" and b: the dirision of intelligent people who have opinions different from yours. Now "a" will swell your head and make you think you are doing worthwhile work, but "b" will keep you longing for the wisdom and sincere respect from others you so desperately seek.

Have a great day. Thanks.

You know, this was actually one of the most polite and cordial threads on our entire site, until charles chimed in. We're sure our regular readers appreciate his "spicing things up" as he has.

charles,

It's hard to imagine a more misguided reading of our views than the one that you just described. In short, your take is completely inaccurate. In contrast to your comment, though, we'll actually provide support for our assertion.

First, thanks for explaining to us what our religion is — now that you've filled us in, all that's left is for us to explain that you are wrong. According to your definition, science is a religion. Sorry, no, that's not right. You talk about fact-based and faith-based beliefs as if there was no difference, and that's not at all correct. If you can't see the difference between the two, then there isn't much that we can do for you in the space of this comment.

For our part, the only "dogma" we've espoused in this Rant or in the comments was: no belief without evidence. Gee, what a horrible, terrible tenet to hold! How dare we get so dogmatic? C'mon, charles, spare us the usual nonsense about how lack of religion is really a religion. It's old and tired, and it was a crappy argument when it was new. We enjoy our hobby of not collecting stamps, too.

In addition, you seem convinced that we are unwilling or unable to hear about viewpoints that differ from our own. Sorry, no, that's also wrong. We are always willing to hear from others who disagree with us, as long as they have something logical and intelligent to say. Sadly, your contribution didn't meet those criteria, but we decided to reply to you anyway.

See, charles, if we had a belief in an "unassailable truth," then we would be like the religious folks, and our intractable beliefs would run us into walls as we grew older. However, since we embrace logic, reason, and science, and since this approach allows for changes in our point of view inspired by actual evidence, we can manage to avoid the walls you speak of.

You go on to ask why we can't be satisfied with "knowing the truth" as we see it. Why do we spend time writing what we write? Well, charles, there are so many people out there spouting off utter nonsense as if it was absolute fact that we feel it is important to counteract the bullshit. What you seem to regard as just another "world view," we see as dangerous, harmful misinformation.

We've talked about this before. It's nice to sit back and say that everyone's views should be respected and that no one should make fun of or denounce the views of others, but in the real world, that kind of politically correct approach just gets you into trouble. An example we've given before is just above, in the comments of this very post. Ceecee implied that because we mocked the beliefs of others, we didn't respect the right of others to hold beliefs other than our own. Our reply was, in part:

How do you think that people who believe in psychics, homeopathy, alien abductions and the like should be treated? How about evolution deniers who are trying to remove science from public schools and replace it with religion? How about holocaust deniers who, in essence, are actually calling living people who survived the holocaust liars? How about the white supremacists we referred to above? Should we respect all of these beliefs as well? What does respecting them mean? Does it mean not telling our kids that they are bullshit? Does it mean not speaking out against them in the public arena? Does it mean teaching both sides in schools? Are some beliefs above mockery, and others not? Are some forms of showing respect expected and proper, but others not required? In your opinion, where is the line to be drawn? Keep in mind that there are generally as many beliefs as there are people to hold them — if you draw the line anywhere, you're going to be "excluding" some people, while including others. We've chosen to draw no line — any belief system, including our own, is open to mockery or scorn. We're extending that invitation to any person on the planet — the only codicil is that, if people are going to shit on somebody's beliefs, we would prefer that they use some logic or evidence (or preferably both) to back up their opinions. Of course, they're free not to, but then they won't have much of a case.

We'll pose the same question to you. If we decide to respect all world views, then what's to say that any of the crazy shit above shouldn't be taught in schools, or promoted by the government? Help us to understand which of the above are worthy of speaking out against, and which are above reproach, according to you.

Since we've answered your question about why we created our site, we'll turn your own question back on you, charles. You came to our site, and formed an opinion about us. Then, you decided to write this comment so that, in addition to us, the whole world could read it. So our question is: why couldn't you be satisfied with "knowing the 'truth' about us" as you saw it? Why did you spend time and energy sharing your (for lack of a better word) view? We expect that if you honestly answer that question, you will understand why we do what we do here.

As far as what our site will get us, your psychoanalysis isn't worth the pixels we're viewing it on. We aren't looking for followers, and we aren't looking for respect. Our site is an outlet to write about what we want to write about. If others enjoy reading it, that's great. If others enjoy contributing to an intelligent discussion, that's even better. But if you think we're longing for any kind of acceptance, you're very much mistaken.

Finally, the word is "tenets," not "tenants" (which you didn't spell correctly either). Make that mistake once, and we'll call it a typo. Make it twice, quite prominently — you put freaking quotation marks around it both times — and we have to assume that you don't know the word. Dictionary.com is a wonderful resource.

Have a great day.

Ok. "Tenents" it is. I stand corrected. I am glad I could "spice things up." I remember from somewhere that "Discomfort is a necessary prelude to enlightenment." Well, if I have misconstrued your motivations, I will stand corrected, but the argument between us seems to be a little more distilled after your post.

I disagree with you that Science is not in the same class as Religion. There is a certain approach that proponents of either step off from, and that is that their system is "based upon a logical analysis of the Universe around us, the evidence of the Past, and the reasoned thinking of the greatest minds of the day." Religious proponents espouse this view as well as ardent Scientists.

I remember having an argument with a co-worker and friend. She voiced the view that the Sun would follow a course of stellar evolution that would eventually lead to it becoming a red giant in a few billion years. She voiced this with certainty, citing facts, figures, the histories of similar massed and composited stars. When I pointed out that we could not know for sure that the sun would be a red giant, as we and everyone we know would be long gone and unable to ascertain what had happened to the sun, she continued to vociferously press her point that "all available evidence backs up my point of view" and she continued to spout facts, figures and the observations of scientists throughout the centuries.

When I pointed out that not everything is known about the underpinnings of the Universe, and that science is an evolving discipline, and subject to revision, it washed past her as if water around a stone.

I pointed out that there is a higher probability that the sun would eventually turn into a red giant than not, based upon what we know, but the water still rushed past the stone. "There is no doubt," she said, "all evidence points to this scenario"

Well, at least we exchanged views.

Science has repeatedly been turned upon its head.
It's inevitable that this will happen again and again.

We know nothing of where we come from, why we exist, the nature of existence, where we are going.

In my opinion, to ascribe ANYTHING as certainty beyond the observable basics that we all need to breathe, that we all need to eat, that we all excrete waste, sweat, rest, reproduce and die and are inextricably part of this magnificent mystery called Universe is Religion.

Is there absolute proof that conciousness does not survive? I can demonstrate with certainty that there is gravity.
This can be demonstrated to anyone, easily, reproducibly.

I would ask whether the non-existence of soul or conciousness, separate from Body, be categorically demonstrated? Do we know enough about conciousness, where it comes from, why it is necessary, and where it goes (if it does go) when life ceases?

Why do we need to be conscious at all? Computers function perfectly well without it, as do other complex devices. Would it not be more advantagious evolutionarily to be complex, smoothly functioning automatons, without the hindrance of decision making, pondering, sense of self, and other variables that slow things up?

I say that until more is known about the nature of Mind, and Universe, no one viewpoint about the ultimate nature of things can be any more valid than any other.

Thanks for your time and sharing.

no one viewpoint about the ultimate nature of things can be any more valid than any other.

Translation:

I posted a bunch of bullshit ideas and got taken to task for them being stupid. So here's some woo-woo to make me feel better.

In short, Charles, your understanding of science and religion is highly flawed. For example:

I disagree with you that Science is not in the same class as Religion. There is a certain approach that proponents of either step off from, and that is that their system is "based upon a logical analysis of the Universe around us, the evidence of the Past, and the reasoned thinking of the greatest minds of the day." Religious proponents espouse this view as well as ardent Scientists.

It's hard to imagine how you could be more off base. Religion is not even remotely "based upon a logical analysis of the Universe around us, the evidence of the Past, and the reasoned thinking of the greatest minds of the day." How you can say that with a straight face is beyond us. And yes, some proponents of religion might say that this is their approach, but that doesn't make it true.

Regarding your conversation with your friend — well, remember way back in the previous paragraph when we said it's hard to imagine how you could be more off base? Now we don't have to tax our imaginations so much. You are painting your friend as having a dogmatic belief in a specific scientific theory. Assuming that you are correctly representing your friend's beliefs (and we have our doubts), all you have shown is that she doesn't understand science. In effect, you have shown that she views science as a dogmatic pursuit, much akin to religion. Why the Holy Hell would it follow that, just because she thinks this way, her view somehow represents an accurate description of scientific thought as a whole? Her lack of knowledge of the scientific method means nothing. Hell, she could have said that science taught her that she can fly by flapping her arms — that doesn't mean that science really makes that assertion, it just means that she's wrong.

Your next statements about the sun becoming a red giant illustrate some fundamental flaws in your understanding of science. You say:

When I pointed out that we could not know for sure that the sun would be a red giant, as we and everyone we know would be long gone and unable to ascertain what had happened to the sun, she continued to vociferously press her point that "all available evidence backs up my point of view" and she continued to spout facts, figures and the observations of scientists throughout the centuries.

First, the likelihood that our sun will evolve into a red giant is more massive than you can possibly imagine. Perhaps your friend, understanding the magnitude of her statement that "all evidence points to this scenario," simply stated her point as a fact, while still understanding that all science is subject to review. After all, if we all paused to place caveats on every statement we ever made, we'd never get through a conversation. For example, when we say that ghosts do not exist, do we mean that we've conducted extensive tests and "proven" that there are no ghosts? No, we mean that there has never been a single shred of evidence to support a belief in the existence of ghosts, and until such evidence is produced, we don't believe in them. We further mean that, to us, this lack of evidence is so damning, that the probability of there being ghosts is so low as to make no odds. Hence, in the interests of science, logic, and common sense, we say it as a firm certainty to save time. Your friend was likely doing the same thing.

Second, like any scientific theory (this one about star formation, development and collapse), it is called a theory (as opposed to a hypothesis) because it is supported by evidence. If evidence surfaces that refutes it, then scientists will examine that evidence and rework the theory.

Third, you, Charles, seem to be waiting to directly and personally observe something before you nod and agree that it's true. If that's your approach, then we suggest you steer clear of astrophysics — instead, you can spend your time pondering such heavy thoughts as "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?" In fact, you seem to take that one step further by asking "If a tree falls in the middle of New York City on a busy street and I am not around to hear it, does it make a noise?" There's a difference between having "an open mind" and being absurdly credulous. Douglas Adams' Ruler of the Universe is a humorous demonstration of an "open mind" taken to the absurd extreme you suggest — in real life, somebody who would behave that way is simply an idiot. There's no payoff, you see — there's literally no reason to try or do anything if you refuse to accept that there are internally consistent and symmetrical laws of physics.

You go on to say:

Science has repeatedly been turned upon its head. It's inevitable that this will happen again and again.

Well, you're wrong here, but we know what you're trying to say. Science — which is to say the scientific method and the scientific approach to learning about the universe — has never been turned on its head. We believe that what you mean to say is that various scientific theories have, over time, been proven wrong and, as a result, are no longer seen as accurate descriptions of the way the universe works. That is, of course, correct. And do you know what it is that has always turned these old scientific theories on their heads? That's right, Charles — science. It is the scientific method itself that is used to overturn old theories and replace them with new ones. In fact, that's the wonderful thing about science: it isn't immutable and intractable like religion; it is open to the possibility of new thoughts and ideas overturning the old ones so long as those new ideas can produce evidence in their favor. Since religion has no evidence in its favor, it can't turn "science" (or, as you should have said, an individual scientific theory) on its head. See the difference?

You then say:

Why do we need to be conscious at all? Computers function perfectly well without it, as do other complex devices. Would it not be more advantagious evolutionarily to be complex, smoothly functioning automatons, without the hindrance of decision making, pondering, sense of self, and other variables that slow things up?

Quite frankly, there are lots of tweaks we can think of that would have been more advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint. Would lacking consciousness be one of them? Not necessarily. Limb and organ regeneration would be, though, and we don't have that. Hell, we can even think of a more mundane one: it would be more advantageous if the retina was not constructed inside-out. The way it is now, the nerve fibers have to pass through the retina to make their way to the brain, resulting in a blind spot for which the brain has to pull some cognitive tricks to compensate. Surely, it would be more advantageous to not have such a blind spot, and yet, evolution has taken us down this less-than-perfect path. And...? What's your point?

You close with:

I say that until more is known about the nature of Mind, and Universe, no one viewpoint about the ultimate nature of things can be any more valid than any other.

No, Charles. The viewpoints with actual evidence backing them up get to be considered quite a bit more valid. That's how science works.

Why is it that when Cat disagrees with you, and manages to be quite brief and succinct, you write such long and, might i say, rambling replies? It sort of makes you look really defensive.

Your site actually reminds me of fundamentalist christian websites, where every minute detail of what people say is pored and agonised over before judgement is prounounced...

By the way, I'm not a religious person.

In general, smickers, we're thorough. We like to prevent misunderstandings or misinterpretations (which have come up unexpectedly in the past) before they occur. We have a lot to say on a variety of issues. And, quite simply, we like to write. Why the heck else would we have started a blog?

Specifically, Cat made some incorrect assumptions about us, and also asked us some direct questions. Our replies were designed to clear up those incorrect assumptions and to answer Cat's questions. Quite frankly, we were conversing with Cat at that time, and not with you. Cat seemed to be perfectly happy with our replies, based on her last response. She thanked us for the exchange as it made her sit down and work out her beliefs (her words). In fact, many of the other commenters echoed Cat's sentiments about this being a good thought-provoking discussion. So, if the person we were actually directing our replies to (as well as some others) found the exchange to be worthwhile, we're not sure why we would count your opinion above those others. If you don't care for the structure of an exchange that you weren't even a part of, our advice — in all sincerity — is to ignore it.

Oh, and as for your statement that we reminded you of a Christian fundamentalist web site — if you read above, Cat drew a parallel between us and the pro-lifers that we defended at some length. We could have just told Cat "nah-ah, we are not" and left it there, but we chose to explain why her comparison was inaccurate. For you, in the interests of brevity, we'll just stick with: "We are nothing like fundies — you should be able to see the vast differences on your own."

We have a question for you now, smickers: why did your comment "ramble" into a statement regarding your being "not a religious person"? We would guess that you added that because you wanted to clear that point up before we assumed otherwise. So...you're not religious. Potential confusion avoided. We got it. You get it?

I see that others are moved to describe your site as similar in tone to the detailed, defensive, long and rambling exhortations of the religious fervent, who seeks to verify to others and himself the veracity of the dogma his teachers laid on him. his dogma.

It's true that you folks sound very much like the students fresh out of the Sweeting World Evangelical Center here in Chicago.

The difference is that you have a lot more air masqurading as "unassailable facts" than any one of them ever had. But in the final analysis, it's still air, same style of "facts and figures" that those kids from Sweeting spout to demonstrate that the world is only several thousand years old, not billions, and that God created the Universe in six days. After all, the Evidence is There, if ONLY you would interpret events correctly.

As far as I can see, my analogy of science as religion still stands. If you don't believe me, hie thee hence to the nearest "creationism" website.

Hey, thanks for an interesting and stimulating webpage!

I see that others are moved to describe your site as similar in tone to the detailed, defensive, long and rambling exhortations of the religious fervent, who seeks to verify to others and himself the veracity of the dogma his teachers laid on him. his dogma.

It's true that you folks sound very much like the students fresh out of the Sweeting World Evangelical Center here in Chicago.

The difference is that you have a lot more air masqurading as "unassailable facts" than any one of them ever had. But in the final analysis, it's still air, same style of "facts and figures" that those kids from Sweeting spout to demonstrate that the world is only several thousand years old, not billions, and that God created the Universe in six days. After all, the Evidence is There, if ONLY you would interpret events correctly.

As far as I can see, my analogy of science as religion still stands. If you don't believe me, hie thee hence to the nearest "creationism" website.

Hey, thanks for an interesting and stimulating webpage!

As usual, charles, you have your facts ass-backwards. You didn't bother responding to a single one of the points made in our reply to you (or to smickers) — instead you stuck your fingers in your ears and said "Nuh uh! I'm right!" Well, bully for you. You can successfully avoid intelligent discourse by being an idiot. So, in point of fact, it seems like you are the one acting like a religious zealot, charles, since that's a tactic that they tend to lean on pretty heavily. Frankly, if you can't provide some logical, rational reasoning for your arguments — instead of just saying "No, no, no, no, I'm right, I'm right!" — then just fuck off.

Point by point, since (as we've mentioned) we believe in being thorough:

1. So because some other random person shares your misguided and mistaken view that we sound like the religious idiots, that means you're right? Nope, sorry. If that were true, we would've thrown up our hands in victory the moment Rockstar commented above, supporting our view of you. But we didn't. Perhaps this mistaken sense of what constitutes "proof" helps to explain your complete lack of scientific understanding.
2. Our teachers didn't "lay some dogma" on us...in fact, we challenged nearly every teacher we ever had on pretty much any topic. Our current outlook is a result of personal experience and analysis, rather than listening to what somebody else told us. Our advice is to lay off the half-assed psychoanalysis, because it makes you sound like an arrogant ignoramus (which is the worst kind of ignoramus).
3. Name one piece of solid evidence for the religious viewpoint. You can't — there isn't any. It's not a question of interpretation, it's a question of massive amounts of evidence versus a complete lack of evidence. We're not sure how we could make it any more clear than that.
4. You say: "As far as I can see, my analogy of science as religion still stands." Well then, you must be fucking blind, because we clearly outlined the differences above. Let's spell it out in black and white for you: with science, one comes to conclusions based on observed evidence; with religion, one tries to come up with evidence for one's chosen conclusion. If you can't grasp that massive difference between the two approaches, then you're a completely lost cause.
5. What, you think we haven't visited creationist websites? Why the hell else would we be so annoyed by them?
6. You know, centrist secular rationalists are finally coming out of their shells in the blogosphere, and it's about time that they exhibited the well-deserved outrage they feel at all the bullshit going on in the world. We will continue to exhibit this outrage, because it is a valuable tool for change. You, on the other hand, can continue with your useless, pseudo-academic "We can't prove anything beyond all doubt, so why believe anything?" line of shit. Enjoy.

Thanks for the double post — we always enjoy getting useless comments in duplicate. As we said above, if you don't plan on actually addressing any of our points in your reply, then please refrain from replying. We're getting tired of explaining your flawed arguments to you over and over again.

People, I don't tell you to "f off" or "get the f out" . Please extend the same courtesy to your respondants.

Anyway, I don't have all the time you floks have to craft statements supporting my point of view.

Simply, how can you be absolutely sure that "with science, one comes to conclusions based on observed evidence; with religion, one tries to come up with evidence for one's chosen conclusion".

Unless you have interviewed everyone involved with religious explorations or scientific research, which I don't think is possible, stating something like the above as " fact" won't convince me or any other dicerning individual that you know what you are talking about!

Please, bear with me, I don't want to devolve into name calling.

Do you ever notice that it's always "all in the mind" whenever the "paranormal" comes up? Same thing with "alien abductions" "ghosts" "religious experience" "contact with the departed" "near death experience" ? It's all "all in the mind".

This tired "explanation" is overused by adherents to the "scientific" paradigm of the day because one of the basic tenents of said paradigm is that "conciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain function"

This is leaned on so heavily, verily as much or more so than the most ardent of religious devotees leans on certain passages of Scripture!

I must remind you that the best "scientific" minds of Wilbur and Orville Wright's day proclaimed that the Wright brothers were engaged in the most fantastic of fantasies. "Based on the soundest of observations, and of the most concrete scientific and engineering principles, the idea that a craft that is heavier than air can fly is no less a fantasy than the children's book's descriptions of castles in the clouds"

I might also remind you that people are conditioned to think of research as what takes place in universities and institutions funded by various monies. Wilber and Orville (and many, many others) show that research is what takes place in basements and barns with people's own money.

"Established" thinking is a BENCHMARK, not a TRUTH.

I hope you can come to understand the "massive" difference.

Thanks again.

Sweet Jesus with pickles and relish, charles, you still don't get it. We'll try one last time, then we'll commence ignoring you (and any further rehashing of your same old tired arguments will be relegated to our Urinal).

First, we extend courtesy to those who earn it, not to just anybody who comments on our site. We aren't the fucking Welcome Wagon, and we're not interested in pleasing everyone. You, charles, have not earned any courtesy or respect from us. Why? You came here and, in your very first post, performed a half-assed psychoanalysis of us which was totally incorrect, making baseless assumptions and assigning both knowledge and motivation to us without any actual information to back it up. We find that annoying and incredibly cliché. In addition, you have thus far failed to address any of the points we've made or any of the questions that we have asked; instead, you've been sitting tight with your fingers in your ears, saying "I'm right, I'm right!" over and over again. If you think we should extend you some courtesy based on that type of behavior, then you have an extremely skewed sense of social interaction. We also use cuss words here — they are words, like any other, and they often express our feelings about a particular topic much better than any "socially acceptable" word ever could. Deal with it.

Second, we'll address this statement:

Simply, how can you be absolutely sure that "with science, one comes to conclusions based on observed evidence; with religion, one tries to come up with evidence for one's chosen conclusion".

Unless you have interviewed everyone involved with religious explorations or scientific research, which I don't think is possible, stating something like the above as " fact" won't convince me or any other dicerning individual that you know what you are talking about!

Let's start with the obvious point here, with a mistake that you've made over and over again, and which we've pointed out every time you've made it: stop equating the actions of individual people with the methodology they purportedly utilize — in this case, stop confusing people who say they're "scientific" with science itself. You started your comments by telling us that since your friend has a dogmatic belief in science, therefore science is a dogma. We patiently pointed out why that was wrong (just scroll up to read it). Now you are just doing the exact same thing all over again by stating that, in order to understand science, we must interview all scientists.

You were wrong when you first made this point, you were wrong when you kept harping on it, and you're still wrong now. The scientific method is a specific approach to observing and measuring whatever it is one wants to observe and measure. Using science, one comes to conclusions based on observed evidence. That is a fact. Period. End of fucking story. If you find a dozen scientists who aren't following this approach, that does not mean that the definition of the scientific method changes to encompass their approach. Instead, it means that those people are not following the scientific method. One more time for the cheap seats: it doesn't mean that science itself is wrong just because some yahoo isn't following the rules; it means that said yahoo isn't doing good science.

It's the same thing with the incredibly trite and overused Wright Brothers parable that you regurgitated above. The idea that "Person A was laughed at, and later proven correct" logically leads to "Person B is laughed at, so he must be correct" is one of the worst examples of rational thinking, and one we come across repeatedly from the same tiresome claimants (like you). Your version has a slight tweak to it; you're saying "Person A was laughed at by Person B, who was supposed to be a scientist, therefore science is wrong." Yes, people laughed at the Wright Brothers. Yes, some of them were, by profession, scientists. But someone who is truly applying the scientific method (a skeptic, or basically a critical thinker) doesn't laugh at something because "it seems silly." They laugh at something because it lacks any hypothesis to test (like creationism), or because in all previous tests, it has completely failed to produce any valid evidence (like psychic powers). So, if these scientists were laughing at the Wright Brothers because they thought their ideas were silly, without ever applying the scientific method to their analysis, then they were not practicing good s