DEBUNKING DEBUNKING OR TRYING TO CONVINCE VIRGINIA THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS By Joel A. Moskowitz As science accelerates to astrotechnological speed, adherents of antiscientific skepticism not only keep pace but seem to be in the lead. Paradoxically, neither cognitive intelligence nor first or second world sophistication assures that people know what is true and what is bunk about ghosts, goblins and other manifestations of extra scientific reports. Some time ago, I wrote the article, "Science and the Age of Unreason" in which I postulated that people had to believe in the unbelievable, the unproved and that they feared the hard reality of science. Groups of "rational thinkers" band together to bring the word to the misled masses. Learned expositions refuting Bermuda triangles, UFOs, extrasensory perception, and astrology are sermons for the choir. It doesn't persuade those who are inclined to assert that science doesn't know everything. Why is this so? As a forensic psychiatrist for over a quarter of a century, with a particular interest in the interface between faith and fraud, I have had occasion to study the dilemma of the fixed belief. I am not highlighting a specific diagnostic group but rather pointing out the ubiquity of the trait of believing that not all is known, or knowable, and that the professionals, experts, doctors are not to be wholly trusted. This trait appears largely impervious to cognitive argument. I have learned that a head-on debate with a person (who is not psychotic) that she was not visited by aliens is doomed to yield one frustrated psychiatrist with one less patient. The reality for each of us is not one of intellect or intelligence, of education or experience. For some cultures, not to think as the majority do is proof, at least, that you are different, if not unwell. Voodoo belief systems are an example. In fact, I have learned that it is folly to challenge or debate astrology-driven persons, or anyone who declares defiantly that they have a belief system or extra terrestrial contacts which are valid and which scientifically-minded people jealously fear or have some other venal motivation for disparaging them. As a psychiatrist I have found myself in situations not unlike that in which Houdini found himself with respect to his friend, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Houdini told Doyle that it was not supernatural powers that permitted his magnificent effects. Doyle, eminently logical in other spheres, excused Houdini's modesty and explained that Houdini just didn't know what extraordinary abilities he was tapping when he performed his wondrous effects. In the course of psychiatric treatment, I told a woman who held a high rank in the circle of astrologers that I was a congenital skeptic. She forgave my birth inclination and deemed me a 'sensitive.' She continued to see me for three years, with considerable benefit. Our opposite opinions about the validity of astrology remained dormant. My treatment goal might have included that she abandon her astrological convictions. Indeed, she offered to prove their value by computing my exact astrological profile. I hoped to test her by offering the incorrect time of my birth (I was there but wasn't wearing a watch). Somehow, she didn't pursue this inquiry and I felt that it was wisest not to press it. In psychotherapy, the exploration of a belief system, whether religious, e.g., the weeping stone Madonna, or ominous, e.g., the Bermuda triangle, would be for the therapist to ask the client to ponder what the belief did for him/her. The client would first have to be open to entertaining such a question. To most, any inquiry is seen as attack and rejected out of hand. These might be called fundamentalist paranormalists. In a therapeutic treatment relationship, the therapist says, "What do you think having this belief/idea/opinion does for you?" The client might then say, "It gives me comfort. I don't like to think that all there is is some blunt finite predictable end to life. I like the mystery." The issue is sealed, and is not further discussible. I have found that it is not necessary to convince clients that their ideas are fallacious. Healthy growth may occur while sidestepping the conflicting opinions held by the therapist and client. Above all, we must strive not to erase hope. Hope is likely the strongest medicine in the doctor's pharmacy. If we seek to remove hope, we are certainly going to encounter enormous resistance. This may be the dynamic of the mechanism fueling belief in paranormal phenomena apace with the expansion of scientific achievement. Hard cold science is seen as aspiritual. Skeptics, disbelievers, debunkers are likely to fail in their quest to educate and enlighten the mistaken and misled. They are speaking analog to a digital audience. Cognitive proof is what makes us rationalists comfortable. Emotional satisfaction works best for others. If we are to reach understanding of our common unspoken fears, we must respect the differences in what truly motivates our certainties and convictions. We are, I believe, likely to find that we share the same anxieties, but defend against them differently. Some like logic. Others psycho-logic. Still others the seeming absence of logic itself. ---------------- Joel Moskowitz is a Forensic Psychiatrist and a Vice President of the San Diego Association for Rational Inquiry. He can be reached in care of SDARI.