I’ll admit, right from the start, that this article is a bit of a shot back at all of those who wish to debunk what they do not agree with. Often time’s so-called skeptics, who are really just pseudo-skeptics in disguise, will criticize what others believe in a brash and unabated manner. The pseudo-skeptic will cut down anything they do not agree with and burn the believer at the stake without allowing for any sort of response. Usually, at the expense of others, these pseudo-skeptics are more than willing to stand on the proverbial soap box ranting about how wrong everyone else is and sounding the trumpet of their opinion whenever and wherever they feel the need to insert it. This article is my answer to all of the unprovoked attacks by the self-proclaimed skeptics who run amok with their intensely critical opinions of others who hold beliefs that are different than their own.

            Fortunately, not all forms of skepticism are destructive and it should be noted that skepticism has always had a place in the work of the true paranormal researcher, as it is a necessary skill to have. From the inception of paranormal research in the late 1880s the ability to differentiate what we want to see from what is actually there has been understood as being paramount to our credibility as investigators. Although there are varying degrees of skepticism, any paranormal researcher will tell you that there are a number of pseudo-skeptics out there who are more than happy to let fly their caustic arrows of opinion. Before we get too far into the subject perhaps it would be best if we define what a skeptic is: someone who doubts or strongly questions the beliefs of a person or group of people, certain popular ideas, etc.

            Generally, skeptics question certain beliefs or ideas in an attempt to understand the subject better by researching the validity of the matter and coming to a logical conclusion based on the facts connected with the matter in question. Skepticism, as understood here, is a valid psychological process that would aid the researcher in determining the facts in a case…but what about pseudo-skepticism? Pseudo-skepticism can be easily summed up in the following phrase:

Great minds speak of ideas,

Average minds speak of events,

Small minds speak of people

            It is unfortunate that pseudo-skeptics, usually due to a self promoting personal agenda, make the latter of the three their choice. Often times many of these self proclaimed “professional skeptics” offer no insight to the matter at hand. Rather they will inundate the reader or listener with a barrage of personal opinions, ambiguous quotes of dubious origin, inane and meandering psychobabble and, of course, misinformation. Occasionally, the pseudo-skeptic will go so far as to actually be a bit creative and think out-of-the-box so to speak. They may then use what Norman Mailer termed “factoids,” little bits of information that may seem genuinely useful but are actually just cleverly disguised trinkets of trivial and useless common information.

            The pseudo-skeptic has a long and shameful history beginning around the time of the Renaissance where they propagated the belief that the Earth was flat and ships would sail off of the edge. Openly bashing science for centuries, many people of this type of mind set have been brought to a resounding head hanging silence as they are proved to be both arrogant and ignorant. This culture of blindly bashing whatever did not fit their personal beliefs or agenda did not end with the discovery that black cats were not the source of the Bubonic Plague. No, the pseudo-skeptic movement went underground creeping silently through the years, waiting for the appropriate time to reemerge from its cocoon of self superiority. Quietly it slept until the Spiritualist Movement in the late 1880s. There it awoke and found life anew, gaining momentum and taking on every form of self-serving agenda possible. Certainly, fraud was rampant in the Spiritualist movement, however the pseudo-skeptics made a game out of debunking subject after subject until there wasn’t much not to believe in. Essentially, it came down to whatever the five senses could validate as real, was real. Anything beyond the rather limited sensory perception of the five senses was not to be accepted as reality. According to this rationale radio waves, electricity, x-rays and other forms of intangible energies do not exist.

            More often than not pseudo-skeptics have no scientific proof or procedure to back up what they profess as reality. These are the same people who demand that paranormal investigators produce concrete proof of some sort of existence of life after death; however the burden of proof is equal on this playing field. Perhaps it is up to the pseudo-skeptic to produce some evidence that there is no existence after death. If that were the case it would seem that we have arrived at an impasse as neither side could produce the proof required by the other.

            Pseudo-skeptics will usually debunk by any means necessary and, in their passionate disbelief, they will don the proverbial tunnel vision blinders so that they may more freely ignore evidence, cover up information and go to otherwise great lengths to further their agenda. This refusal to validate information in lieu of any and all evidence turns the very rational pseudo-skeptics use against them and thusly causes the pseudo-skeptic to debunk their own system of reason and logic. The question to the pseudo-skeptic now is: Where is YOUR proof?