Bridging the Chasm

[Telos]

Okay. Thanks. :)

[catmeow]

Thank you, catmeow. I haven't expressed how much I value your viewpoint on such matters. (I really value it).

Aaaawwwww..... thanks!

Apparently the CSICOP investigation of Natasha Demkina ("the girl with the x-ray eyes") will be featured in the March/April 2005 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer and also in a future issue of The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. Here's where I found this info:

http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/

I saw the (UK) Channel 4 documentary about the CSICOP investigation and at first I thought the investigator, Richard Wiseman, seemed pretty reasonable and patient with her.  I didn't think they set out to discredit her at all.  But when the program finished I thought to myself "what happened? - she achieved a 50:1 result and this was a failure?".  The more I thought about it, the more I was puzzled that this was considered a failure. This view was confirmed by other engineering and scientific people I know who also saw the program.  I do believe it was a poor scientific test.

To be fair to CSICOP, the girl would make a difficult and emotional subject and would be difficult to test further.  But the result could hardly be considered a failure.  More of a "still don't know".  However, if you now do a google on "x-ray eyes" +CSICOP you will find a whole raft of articles gloating over this girls alleged "failure" when scientifically tested.  This I am sure is why many people hesitate to take Randi's $1 million challenge.

You're only looking on the surface. Of course, she's clearly praising the skeptical viewpoint and exposes what she believes are flaws in the new age movement. What's wrong with that?

It looks to me like she's evolved her methodology of knowing truth - from one of passive, blind-credulity to one of unchallengeable rigor. Again, what's wrong with that?

Actually, nothing wrong with either of those things. But she has in my opinion flipped "camps", without apparantly changing "cultures". To explain the last sentance, she now belongs to the skeptical camp, but her culture is firmly rooted in New Ageism.  She makes a great play of this, and really the whole point of this play is to win over other New Ageists to her way of thinking.  It's a little dishonest and it's definitely a psychological technique to "win friends and influence people".

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do this, in fact it's very good technique. But I'm a little suspicious, because now I'm not clear what her position really is?  Is she really open-minded or has she completely flipped?  She doesn't seem to say....  Maybe she does say and someone can point to this in her article.

Personally I think we need to have both camps.  It's healthy to have people with extreme viewpoints because this encourages discussion (argument!).  Hopefully the majority sits somewhere between these two extremes and listens to (and benefits from) arguments from both sides...?  This really is where most of my friends sit. But a problem occurs when one side (the "scientists") have too much power and can easily discredit the other side with a simple say-so.

catmeow

[Frank]

"Actually, nothing wrong with either of those things. But she has in my opinion flipped "camps", without apparantly changing "cultures"

Yep, good point. Took the words right out of my mouth.

Yours,
Frank

[Telos]

Maybe I'll find a way to capitalize on my culture's thirst for answers, and my people's capacity to work with conflicting information (metaphysical ideas change every six months or so and therefore people in my culture are very accustomed to switching mental gears). I have faith now that I didn't have before: faith in your culture's concern and integrity, and faith in my culture's curiosity and capacity to learn new things.

She wants to help bring foundation and integrity to New Age curiosity and quench our thirst for knowledge. She has "faith" that the two sides can ally and compliment one another. What's more, that they need each other.

Now, honestly, does that sound like switching camps or uniting camps?


In previous paragraphs:

I think I have found a way to speak across the chasm, to you. I am now learning to perform that same feat in reverse - to talk to people in my culture about your culture, but that's a lot harder...

Gee. I wonder why. Maybe it's because people think when you ally with a skeptic you've betrayed them and "switched camps."

... Watching people in the New Age has been as hard on me as it has been on you. Underneath all the magic, the wise ghosts, and the never-ending remedies lies a well of pain and loneliness that is immense and overwhelming. I always saw it - I always saw the excruciating truth of my culture, and I thought I could help. That I didn't help - not truly - is possibly the greatest devastation of my life. I need to heal from being a healer.

My voice was an important one in my culture; therefore, I've got to take responsibility for what I've done. I need to educate myself and come back into the fray in a healthy and respectful way. Maybe by the time I've organized my thoughts, a bridging culture will already exist. Maybe I'll find a way to be heard - or to translate the skeptical lexicon in such a way that people in my culture can access it without being insulted or shamed. One thing I'll be sure to stress is the fact that there is actually more beauty, wonder, brilliance, and mystery in science than there is in the mystical world.

One of the biggest falsehoods I've encountered is that skeptics can't tolerate mystery, while New Age people can. This is completely wrong, because it is actually the people in my culture who can't handle mystery - not even a tiny bit of it. Everything in my New Age culture comes complete with an answer, a reason, and a source. Every action, emotion, health symptom, dream, accident, birth, death, or idea here has a direct link to the influence of the stars, chi, past lives, ancestors, energy fields, interdimensional beings, enneagrams, devas, fairies, spirit guides, angels, aliens, karma, God, or the Goddess.

We love to say that we embrace mystery in the New Age culture, but that's a cultural conceit and it's utterly wrong...

So far, I have been able to sum up her goals as follows (in no particular order):

1) Speak both ways across the chasm.
2) Form a bridging culture.
3) Introduce integrity to new age ideas.
4) Encourage new age curiosity.
5) Encourage healthy and respectful dialogue from skeptics.
6) Help new agers to critically handle mystery.
7) Take responsibility for problems she may have exacerbated.
8) Educate her self and others.
9) Remove the stigma of advocating a skeptical viewpoint, which denies the intellect.
10) To persuade others that there is actually more beauty, wonder, brilliance, and mystery in science than there is in the mystical world.
11) Empower new age people's quest to satisfy their thirst for knowledge.
12) Truly help people.


Still think she's not on our side?


She has made quite a bit of sacrifice. Obviously she did not "switch camps" for prestige or financial gain.

It is possible that our two warring cultures will never build a bridge across the deep rift that divides us. I know that in my own case, the transition from my culture to yours was long, arduous, and deeply painful. It was not an easy traipse across a well-constructed bridge. In essence, I had to throw myself off a cliff. I had to leave behind my career, my income, my culture, my family, my friends, my health care practitioners, most of my business contacts, my past, and my future. I say this not to garner sympathy but to show what the leap truly entails. The New Age is a complete culture with its own rules, ideals, infrastructure, and social life. When I finally realized that my cultural training had me teetering on a foundation of candyfloss and dreams - and worse, that my work had encouraged others to teeter alongside me, I was inconsolable, yet I had absolutely no one to turn to.

I've made it, I think, through my rage and horror at my own complicity in helping people remain susceptible - and perhaps through my grief and despair (though that's more cyclical) about my own miseducation. Now I'm considering what to do from here. I've discovered in just the few (less than ten) conversations I've had with faith-based people that skeptical information is absolutely threatening and unwanted. What I didn't understand until recently is that when you start questioning these beliefs, there's a domino effect that eventually smacks into your whole house of cards - and nothing remains standing. Opening the questioning process is a very dangerous thing, and people in my culture seem to understand that on a subconscious level. In response to their extreme discomfort, I've become completely silent around believers - which is hard, because they make up most of my friends, family, and correspondents.

Frank, you have responded to "skepetics" by saying that they are only showing how little experience they have with AP. This is a reasonable decree, and I tend to subscribe to it as well. However, you arrived where you are now through years of study and critical examination of your experience. How is this woman not acting in accordance with your methodology?

catmeow, you have a Ph.D. and have no doubt gained your experience through critical examination. Will you answer a similar question? How is she not on your side?

She's not even a member of CSICOP.

[catmeow]

Hi Telos

How is she not on your side?

I really don't have many issues with the article other than a gradually increasing feeling of unease as I read it.  It's just the style of writing that makes me suspicious!  That's all.  She even admits it:

When I wrote my books and recorded my audio programs, I had to write and speak so carefully that it took most people two or three readings to figure out that I was directly challenging many of the foundations upon which the New Age is built. Actually, my culturally sensitive capacity to attack without attacking and criticize without criticizing was so effective that some avid readers still don't know what I was saying.

I actually believe that the author is genuinely trying to get a message across to New Agers, namely to be a bit more critical about things, but she does this in a subtle language which makes me doubt her.  Which is a shame.  The style of her writing makes me suspicious about her. Does she still believe in the possibility of the paranormal, but now applies healthy skepticism, or has she now decided it's all a load of baloney and wants her New Age friends to wake up to this fact?

She makes this statement:

I started out in my youth, knowing (through direct experience) that the things I learned in the New Age and metaphysics were true, and that naysayers were just that

Is this what she used to believe or does she still believe this? Does this statement mean that she has had her own directly verifiable experiences which "prove" the paranormal, or has she now decided she was mistaken about these?  It's impossible to tell.

So the only issue I have with the article is the writing style, which makes the author's position unclear.  So to answer your question, if she falls into the "possible believer but skeptic" category then she is absolutely on my side.  But if she falls into the "paranormal does not exist" position, then she is absolutely not on my side....

Good thread...

catmeow

[Flannery]

I just read this article, and I found it so interesting - as well as this thread.

I am bumping it.