PhACT members and, I suspect,
members of all skeptical organizations, have an obvious and well-known bias
toward disbelief. As a result, they seem to be far more comfortable on the trailing
edge of scientific progress than on the leading edge. Why?
I may have detected the reason, but only because I have continuously and
closely observed and engaged so many of PhACT’s members. Sometimes that
engagement has been adversarial and, thankfully, sometimes collegial, but
mostly neutral. The theme that has emerged time after time, as I become closely
acquainted with individual PhACT members is this: Each one who has disclosed
personal details of their formative years, say up until their early 20’s,
has had an unfortunate experience with a faith-based philosophy, most often a
conventional major religion.
Very often, their family or community has (almost forcibly) imposed this
philosophy on them from a very early age; but then as they matured, they
threw off this philosophy with a vengeance, vowing at a soul level never to be
so victimized again. Less often, it appears that they have instead voluntarily
and enthusiastically embraced, for example, a New Age cult, or have become
say, a born-again Christian. Then after a few years, they become convinced of
the folly of that infatuation with the same basic result. They throw off this philosophy
with a vengeance, vowing at a soul level never to be so victimized
again.
A person who has been duped frequently in everyday life might learn by bitter
experience to be cautious and wary. The reaction of those who have joined
PhACT is however more dysfunctional. They have been wounded at a deeper
level, to the extent that what was purported to be a valid philosophy of life,
and in which they were heavily involved, turns out to be empty and useless,
even damaging, in their eyes. Thus, they gravitate to what appears to them to
be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy, Science. Unfortunately, while
they loudly proclaim their righteousness, based on their professed adherence
to “hard science”, they do so with the one thing no true scientist can afford to
possess, a closed mind. Instead of becoming scientifically minded, they become
adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science
has all the answers to everything. This regrettable condition acts to preclude
their unbiased consideration of phenomena on the cutting edge of
science, which is not how a true scientist should behave. In fact, many “Skeptics”
will not even read significantly into the literature on the subjects about
which they are most skeptical. I have direct experience with this specific behavior
on the part of a number of PhACT members. Initially, I attributed that
behavior to just plain laziness, but lately I’ve begun to suspect that those individuals
may actually have a phobia about reading material that is contrary to
their own views. It seems entirely possible that they fear “contamination”
from that exposure will eventually lead to (Gasp!) acceptance of the opposition’s
position. Such scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred people
tend to join Skeptics’ organizations much as one might join any other support
group, say, Alcoholics Anonymous. There they find comfort, consolation,
and support amongst their own kind.
Anyone who has spent much time engaging members of Skeptics’ organizations
knows about their strong inclination toward ridicule and ad hominem
criticism of those with differing viewpoints. Therefore, it should come as no
surprise that many members of PhACT have been rather offended by my position
as someone who is skeptical of Skeptics. As the old adage states, “They
can dish it out, but they can’t take it.”
