The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.
—Miguel de Unamuno
Does the collection of innovative, exploratory evidence reported in this book present a compelling case for advocating the creation of a major program of research dedicated to answering this fundamental scientific question: is Spirit real and can Spirit play an important role in our personal and collective lives?
When viewed as a whole, do the pieces form a compelling case to take this work forward?
Have we established clear proof of possibility, if not proof of probability?
Your response to this political question will depend upon whether you are a convinced believer, an unsure agnostic, or an adamant disbeliever.
Readers please be warned—some of the language in this appendix is unpleasant when I discuss the phenomenon of super-skepticism. The reason is, to honor the spirit of us looking honestly and fairly in the mirror, I have attempted to portray superskeptics’ style of logic and language clearly and accurately.
The Case to a Convinced Believer
If you already are a believer, the collection of innovative, exploratory evidence reported in this book will seem validating for you, and you may be having feelings of relief as well as of excitement.
For you, the glass was half-full already, and it may seem much fuller now. You probably do not need more research for yourself, at least in terms of belief, but you might be excited about seeing more research conducted if it promised to help you and all of us to improve our capacity to effectively and safely connect with Spirit and benefit from the collaboration.
You might also want more definitive research so you can show your family and friends who were unsure or disbelieving that your core beliefs were ultimately correct. You have probably been teased, criticized, or ostracized for your beliefs, and this is often emotionally painful.
Some of you may already be exploring the role of Spirit in your own lives, and this book may inspire you to explore further.
The Case to an Unsure Agnostic
If you are an unsure agnostic, you may continue to feel baffled, but you see where the totality of the exploratory research is pointing, and your response is probably like mine: if we can get answers one way or the other, let’s do it!
Feeling unsure—especially about something as fundamental and big as the spirit-assistance question—is sometimes an unpleasant experience. Because you are not biased against the observations reported in this book, and because the thesis that Spirit may be real and beneficial is not distasteful to you (recalling the oyster metaphor), you can probably see past the inherent limitations of the current state of the science, which is essentially in its infancy, and you can see its great promise.
Since you are open to the possible positive outcomes of this research, you can understand and appreciate my concerted efforts to write this book in as organized yet simultaneously as playful a manner as possible, so that it could be read and understood by the widest possible audience.
You can understand and appreciate that I have purposely restricted presenting excessive details about specific experiments or data analysis procedures so that the forest does not get lost for the trees. You will not critique this book as if it were a formal scientific paper because you realize that this was not the book’s intent.
You can comprehend how the three overlapping areas of (1) afterlife research, (2) spirit-assisted healing research, and (3) spirit-guides research together speak strongly to the big questions of “Is Spirit real?” and “Can it play an important role in our individual and collective lives?”
You understand it is the combination of these three areas, with their respective individual questions, that illustrates how the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
If you are philosophically an orthodox agnostic, as I am, you will be the first to point out that although the work to date does not present a definitive case for the existence of Spirit or spirit-assistance, the totality of the available evidence presents a compelling case for substantially increasing our research efforts. In doing so, scientists will then be able to replicate and extend these intriguing observations and possibilities, and determine if they hold up as predicted.
If they do hold up—and I strongly anticipate that they will—you will have the evidence you require for shifting your position from agnosticism to belief.
And you may even be open to exploring the possibility of testing whether Spirit can play a role in your personal life, and become a self-scientist in the area yourself.
The Case to an Adamant Disbeliever
If you are a disbeliever, and an adamant one to boot, you may feel that the case I have presented is anything but compelling, and you may prefer to describe it as a ridiculous joke.
In fact, to the most ardent ultra-skeptics among you, even the idea of making a case for such work is absurd. (The language used here intentionally reflects the kind of intense and dogmatic style that ardent skeptics have typically employed against this type of work.)
If you are a serious disbeliever, and if you actually have read this book, your feelings may range from disbelief at the audacity of my presenting such weak and flimsy evidence based on flawed experiments and biased anecdotes, to suspicion about my motives, and even to incredulity and disgust toward my colleagues and me.
Some of you may even question the ethics and morals of my current employers—the University of Arizona and Canyon Ranch—for allowing such research to take place at all.
Moreover, you may question my sanity for entertaining the possibility that a deceased person like Susy Smith might wish to continue to speak with me and to do so within the framework of what I call self-science, which you would be quick to label as pseudoscience and/or quack science.
If you are not an ardent disbeliever—instead you are a believer or you are unsure—you may find such statements as these to be unfair. You’ll likely interpret them as being untrue.
Since the above hypothetical disbeliever’s statements have in reality been said about me, I will be more forthright in my response to them.
Such statements are indeed unfair and are so far from the truth as to border on the pathological.
Of course you realize that since I am writing this book, and am now purposely playing the role of the disbeliever, I have just written all these unfair and untrue things about myself!
Believe it or not, I understand and appreciate the mind of the disbeliever.
I was trained to be highly skeptical. I can readily put myself in his or her shoes and can even play the superskeptic’s game—to be bluntly honest, the fact is that for some of them it is both a game as well as a paid profession.
I have come to know a number of professional superskeptics, and I even received one of their infamous yearly awards. In 2001 I learned that I was named as a winner of something called the Pigasus or Flying Pig award (sarcastically adopted from the Pegasus Award), supposedly for being the scientist “who said or did the silliest thing related to the supernatural” for “testing” mediums, “despite pleading by embarrassed friends and colleagues at the U of A.” These quotes were taken from the actual statement of the award.
The “award” was partially an attempt at humor; however, the pleading comment, as well as many other statements, were actually gross exaggerations, if not patently false.
If we are to listen to the true disbelievers, The Sacred Promise is worse than a forgery; it is actually dangerous because it encourages naive people to believe in the equivalent of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. The Sacred Promise inspires people to hold on to scientifically debunked myths and superstitions; it is a disgrace to the responsible methods and discoveries of science, and it should be crushed.
If these comments sound extreme and fiery, it is because I am attempting to mimic the ardent disbeliever’s language and style as expressed elsewhere.
Though it is not my preference, it is sometimes the case—as experienced firefighters know—that to contain a dangerous fire, you need to respond to it with fire. We will fight fire with fire shortly.
What many disbelievers would have us believe is that they are not disbelievers. Instead they profess, often belligerently, that they are true skeptics. They loudly proclaim they have truth on their side and our best interests at heart.
I once believed that their proclamation was genuine. I have since learned otherwise.
It is essential that we address the skeptic question in this book, because there exists a serious problem in discriminating true skeptics from pseudoskeptics, and genuine explorers from dogmatists, for these two groups of people will view the evidence and the case very differently.
The questioning mind is a remarkable thing, and I believe it should be celebrated. In fact, the questioning mind may be one of our greatest and most important gifts, and ultimately may even be sacred.
Nonetheless, I am reminded of a prudent statement: “Moderation in everything, including moderation,” as well as my extension of it to questioning: “Question everything, including the questioning of everything.”
Let us briefly look at the light and dark sides of what is called “skepticism,” and become crystal clear about when skepticism is true and healthy, and when it is pseudo and becomes dangerously pathological.
There is such a thing as honest and healthy skepticism—meaning responsible questioning and criticizing—which is essential for distinguishing fact from fiction and understanding from fantasy. Being an orthodox agnostic philosophically, I have a passion for skepticism as an expression of wholesome questioning.
I agree with Einstein, who said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” However, we should add an important caveat.
Laboratory scientists, as compared with theoreticians like Einstein, have the responsibility to discern the difference between imaginative explorations that are ultimately connected to the real world and fantasies that are not.
Theoreticians focus more on imagination, and researchers focus more on evidence. Though Einstein focused on the former, he deeply cared about the latter as well.
Is Spirit real, or is it a fantasy?
Theories and speculations about the spirit hypothesis—either pro or con—are only meaningful to the extent that they help us discover scientifically whether Spirit is real or not. And while I enjoy the process of imagining and theorizing, it is my nature to do experiments.
Though I love ideas, I adore evidence more.
For me, designing experiments and analyzing data can be an exhilarating experience, especially when the data is surprising.
The challenge of considering all possible explanations without prejudice, and figuring out ways of determining which one (or ones) of them actually account(s) for the greatest amount of the data, is for me as much fun as reading great mysteries.
If someone is going to raise questions and criticisms about scientific research, they should do their homework and know the details of the exploratory investigations as well as the formal experiments and findings. The phrase “not seeing the forest for the trees” is especially important when a veritable forest of innovative exploratory experiments and observations exist, as is the case in this book.
In fact, we cannot accurately evaluate the emerging evidence consistent with the reality of the spirit hypothesis unless we examine all of it and attempt to see the big picture.
We do not want to find ourselves in the shoes of George Seurat’s mistress, as portrayed in Steven Sondheim’s musical Sunday in the Park with George, who saw “all of the parts, but none of the whole.”
At the same time, as someone who also appreciates and enjoys trees and their components, including branches, twigs, leaves, trunks, bark, and roots, I try not to lose the trees—and their component parts—for the forest.
In other words, honest and responsible skepticism requires that we (1) not lose the whole for the parts and (2) not lose the parts for the whole.
Honest and responsible skepticism requires that we learn to analyze data as a skilled artist creates a painting. Let me explain.
Some of the time she focuses her attention on individual brush strokes; other times she steps back to see the larger context of what she is trying to paint. One cannot be achieved without the other; it is a dynamic and creative dance between seeing up close and farther back that creates great paintings. Our challenge is to switch between levels, from wholes to parts and back again, and make sure that we are seeing the whole picture, which includes seeing the holes.
It is also my philosophy, partly owing to my training in clinical psychology and my focus on healthcare, to prefer to treat research questions like people: with kindness, respect, and caring.
Scientists are not necessarily people oriented. It is understandable that we may not be as emotionally and spiritually sensitive as those trained in the healing professions. This becomes critical in afterlife research, where we are dealing with people with feelings and intelligence and who happen to be deceased.
One of the mottoes in our laboratory is “If it is real, it will be revealed; if it is a fake, we’ll find the mistake.” For open-minded questioners, the journey of discovery is more important than where the journey actually takes us.
If the journey of discovery takes us to Spirit because Spirit is really there, then that is where we will go.
If the journey of discovery takes us away from Spirit because there really is no Spirit, then that is where we will go.
At the present time, the exploratory evidence is pointing to the possible (if not probable) reality of Spirit. The presumption, however, is that you can see the big picture of what this book has presented, and that you are willing to entertain the possibility that not only is the data real but that the implications may be verified in future research.
But what if you can’t accept the exploratory data—you are convinced it is impossible—and you find the implications both inconceivable and potentially distasteful? In other words, what if you are an ardent disbeliever?
What you are about to read is somewhat unpleasant and sadly true. Though I would have preferred not to have included a detailed discussion along this line, the fact is that this book has the potential to evoke significant negativity in a group of vocal critics, and for the sake of the work and its integrity, we need to address it more thoroughly.
The discussion will get a bit fiery. We are about to fight fire with fire.
What Is Pseudo- and Pathological Skepticism?
As Warren McCulloch, PhD, said, “Don’t bite my finger, look where I’m pointing.”
Unfortunately, there are some people who not only wish to “bite my finger” but in some cases would choose to bite off my head as well.
Given their strong biases against the possibility of the spirit hypothesis being true, there is a high probability that they may have a conniption as well as a field day as they read this book.
Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, has created a comprehensive website devoted to exploring the science of healthy and unhealthy skepticism. It is www.skepticalinvestigations.org, and I strongly recommend that you explore it. Sheldrake draws the distinction between inquiry/ discovery and dogmatism-doubt. Those who focus on inquiry and discovery are true skeptics; those who maintain dogmatism and denial are said to practice pseudoskepticism. They often show certain characteristics, including:
♦ Expressing hostility, if not downright meanness, toward certain ideas as well as researchers who investigate them
♦ Using extreme statements such as “that’s impossible” or “it’s all fake”
♦ Ignoring or rejecting important information that does not support their biases
♦ Searching for the weak or broken twigs, and using them to conclude that there is no forest—in other words, overgeneralizing using tiny or insignificant experimental details or evidence as a means of dismissing the research as a whole
♦ Attacking the personality and values of the investigator as a means of discrediting the findings
♦ Making false statements unconsciously or consciously about the research or the investigators
♦ Engaging in unethical actions to distort or destroy an investigator’s laboratory or reputation
Over the years, I have endured repeated instances of the above tactics. A small number of professional skeptics, as well as some virulent members of skeptical organizations, have previously accused me of being:
♦ Gullible
♦ Sloppy
♦ Biased
♦ Irrational
♦ Dishonest
♦ Fraudulent
♦ Unethical
♦ Crazy
Some of their specific comments have been malicious, patently false, and potentially worthy of legal action. For example, one well-known science journalist and pseudoskeptic once summarily dismissed all of the research in The Afterlife Experiments book, as well as my laboratory and me when my name was brought up on a television program.
I quote from the transcript of the television show (at the time this appendix was written, the full transcript was available from CNN at http://transcripts.cnn.com):
Dr. Gary Schwartz believes in the Tooth Fairy, he believes in UFOs, he believes in levitation, he believes in, as I say, the Tooth Fairy. So he is not a credible scientist.
This pronouncement was made on Larry King Live and was probably witnessed by millions of viewers. I was not on the show to defend myself.
Even if I did believe in the Tooth Fairy—which I do not—is this a reason to summarily reject a series of increasingly controlled scientific experiments under blind conditions?
Make note that this supercritic attacked me and my supposed beliefs, and not my experimental evidence.
Let’s briefly consider what a sample of pseudoskeptics might say about The Sacred Promise and how an objective third person who actually knows the facts might respond to them.
Though some of you might suggest that I am giving such claims more weight by stooping to defend myself, the sad truth is that if I do not illustrate the nature of the arguments and provide sample rebuttals, the pseudoskeptics’ fallacious antics go unchallenged and are often presumed to be valid when they are not.
I warn you, what I have written below, which is a fictional portrayal, mimics the style and flavor of pseudoskeptical critiques of our work over the years. At times the language is not kind and the images are not pretty.
Not all pseudoskeptics are so colorful or nasty, but have adopted the style of certain highly visible pseudoskeptical journalists, such as the creator of the Pigasus Award.
Please remember that I am intentionally saying these nasty things about myself to help you understand their antics. But first, there is a little more history.
The He Said–She Said Challenge of Addressing Pseudoskeptics
The problem with addressing pseudoskeptical claims is that it takes significant time and energy to correct them. Moreover, the process of correcting their errors is often experienced as tit for tat, like children squabbling in a sandbox, or sounding like he said, she said in a divorce court.
Here is one sample of a representative pseudoskeptical paragraph containing numerous erroneous and snide comments written by the creator of the Pigasus Award and published on his website in 2001, followed by a brief set of corrections and commentary prepared by me. It expresses the prototypic flavor and style of this pseudoskeptic’s criticisms, which I then modeled for the sake of illustration.
Since I know that this gentleman appreciates humor (he was a professional entertainer and can be very funny), I will refer to him as Mr. P. (in honor of his playful award).
Since Schwartz has admitted that he’s never done a double-blind experiment, insisting that when he does get around to that mode he will improve it to “triple-blind"—whatever that means!—I will await his implementation of proper controls before making further comment; there is no need to explain something that has not yet been shown to exist. What he has done so far appears to be a series of games and amateur probes, quite without any scientific value.
Corrections and Commentary
First, one of our very first experiments conducted with a medium, which was completed well before the 1999 HBO demonstration experiment, was double-blind and was described in detail in an early chapter in The Afterlife Experiments book.
Mr. P. was explicitly told about this double-blind experiment with “proper controls,” but he apparently forgot or ignored it and falsely said “when he gets around to it” and “never” instead.
The basic design of a more sophisticated triple-blind experiment was carefully explained to Mr. P., but it may have been too complex for him to comprehend. When Mr. P. writes, “Whatever that means!” he shows that it was he who did not understand the scientific need to improve upon conventional double-blind controls.
When Mr. P. labels our research as a “series of games” and “amateur probes” that were “quite without any scientific value,” this illustrates the extreme language, disbelieving bias, and implicit sneering that sadly is all too typical of many pseudoskeptics.
Unfortunately, if a scientist does not respond to egregious false allegations made by pseudoskeptics with appropriate corrections from time to time, the reader may presume that the pseudoskeptics are offering valid criticisms when they are not. Sometimes it is necessary to stand up for the truth, even if it is unpleasant and tiring to do so.
I offer these seven fictional examples of pseudoskeptical criticisms to illustrate how some strongly disbelieving individuals may respond to the position taken in this book: the premise that it is timely and justified to increase our scientific efforts to discover if Spirit is real and can play an important role in our individual and collective lives.
To make this hypothetical he said-she said exercise as impersonal and fair as possible, the fictionalized pseudoskeptics are simply referred to by number, and a created second person provides the corrections and commentary.
Pseudoskeptic #1
This research is all exploratory. Even the few controlled experiments are preliminary. None would be published in mainstream scientific journals. Dr. Schwartz generalizes from flimsy evidence and makes extreme suggestions that go far beyond the “data.” There is nothing here.
Corrections and Commentary for Pseudoskeptic #1
This is a cleverly deceptive and unfounded critique.
First, Dr. Schwartz himself emphasizes in the first two chapters that the investigations were exploratory and were proof of principle (proof of concept) and that the majority would not be published in mainstream journals—though some are sufficiently complete to be published in peer-reviewed journals.
He spends significant time explaining to the reader why the wealth of results, though preliminary, deserves serious consideration.
After the pseudoskeptic questioned the significance and implicit credibility of these exploratory investigations, she then overgeneralizes and erroneously infers that the evidence must be “flimsy.” This undoubtedly refers to the personal self-science investigations, which by their very nature are meant to suggest future possible laboratory science.
As for the pseudoskeptic’s claim that Dr. Schwartz made “extreme” suggestions that went “far beyond the data,” the facts clearly indicate that he regularly considered alternative hypotheses, and he reminded the reader that his conclusions were tentative.
It is a typical practice of pseudoskeptics to misrepresent experimental parameters and interpretations in order to draw erroneous negative conclusions.
Pseudoskeptic #2
Talk about imagination. This book is a flight of fancy, a collection of disconnected pseudo-experiments and personal experiences that show us how irrational and crazy Schwartz has become.
Corrections and Commentary for Pseudoskeptic #2
This pseudoskeptic labels the exploratory investigations and experiments as “disconnected.” It appears that he did not appreciate or comprehend the intuitive flow of Dr. Schwartz’s presentation, often predicated on their real-life venues.
The pseudoskeptic further labels the investigations and experiments as “pseudo,” but he does not tell us his criteria. Would he label the replicated biophoton imaging and silicon photomultiplier investigations as pseudo?
In point of fact, these university laboratory investigations employ the basic methods of experimental science.
In addition, what criteria did this pseudoskeptic use to conclude that the author was “irrational and crazy”?
Is it because Dr. Schwartz systematically addresses the controversial questions arising from afterlife research?
Or is it because he is encouraging scientists and the general public to consider that such exploratory investigations and experiments might be revealing a fundamental property of the Universe?
It is neither irrational nor crazy to raise legitimate questions, even if they are controversial, when they can be brought into the laboratory and put to experimental testing.
Pseudoskeptic #3
Yes, Schwartz may be a good storyteller, and even paint a pretty picture with words. But so what? The painting is from his imagination; there is no reality here.
Corrections and Commentary for Pseudoskeptic #3
Pseudoskeptic #3 draws the overarching and erroneous conclusion that there is “no reality here.” I think this quote can be aptly rephrased to say, “The reality here is not one I’d like to explore.”
The pseudoskeptic covers his reluctance by calling Dr. Schwartz “a good storyteller” and dismissing a large collection of observations, exploratory investigations, and formal experiments as mere imaginative flights.
If pseudoskeptic #3 were genuinely interested in experimental details and numbers, she could have read some of the author’s scientific publications on related subjects in peer-reviewed journals.
But this would have refuted her fallacious argument.
Pseudoskeptic #4
The people whom Schwartz works with are at least as weird if not as crazy as he is. How does this woman named Mary, for example, know that she is talking to saints and angels? Schwartz blindly takes these people’s experiences at face value and has succumbed to their New Age gibberish. They are pathetic, and so is he.
Corrections and Commentary for Pseudoskeptic #4
Pseudoskeptic #4 makes a set of unsubstantiated claims that the author “blindly” took people’s experiences “at face value,” and he “succumbed” to their “New Age gibberish.”
For pseudoskeptic #4 to make such patently false statements suggests one of the following:
1. He did not read the book.
2. He read it but did not understand or remember what Dr. Schwartz wrote.
3. He is being extreme and overgeneralizing.
4. He is lying.
Dr. Schwartz repeatedly described how he regularly questioned what Mary said and claimed, and he took none of it at face value. Dr. Schwartz tested Mary under a variety of different situational and experimental conditions.
Often pseudoskeptics make unfounded accusations that are based on no information or ignore significant information that would invalidate their arguments.
Pseudoskeptic #5
Schwartz is grieving the loss of his adopted grandmother and is grasping at straws concerning her continued existence. We are forced to take his word on many of the claims. He rarely shows us all the raw data. For all we know, he is making it up, or at least not perceiving it correctly.
Corrections and Commentary for Pseudoskeptic #5
Pseudoskeptic #5 claims that Dr. Schwartz is “grasping at straws” concerning Susy’s possible existence.
However, pseudoskeptic #5 fails to mention the complex combination of reasons that actually led Dr. Schwartz to pursue this question with Susy, including the fact:
1. It was her personal wish to “prove that she was still here.”
2. She was the author of thirty books in the field of parapsychology and life-after-death.
3. She was a recognized authority on these topics.
Pseudoskeptic #5 is correct that Dr. Schwartz rarely reports all the raw data of a given exploratory investigation or formal experiment, but this doesn’t consider the nature of the presentation: a book for a general mass audience.
Dr. Schwartz can refer the skeptic to his many scientific papers and their complete research data.
The statement that Dr. Schwartz might be making it all up implies that his colleagues and research subjects were making it all up, too, a highly unreasonable scenario.
The accusation that it might be all misperception requires that the reader ignore the investigations and experiments where Dr. Schwartz provided actual content and his accurate interpretations of it; the facts clearly do not support this accusation.
Pseudoskeptic #6
Obviously Schwartz is biased. He says he had some personal experiences, even healing experiences. If Schwartz found negative evidence, he probably won’t see it or report it or understand it. Schwartz is deceiving himself and the reader about his claims of putting all the possible explanations on the table.
Corrections and Commentary for Pseudoskeptic #6
This comment illustrates how little pseudoskeptic #6 knows of the author’s almost forty years in science and academia.
He makes the accusation that if Dr. Schwartz found negative evidence, “he probably won’t see it or report it or understand it.” The facts clearly indicate otherwise.
Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues have published numerous negative studies, including a report of a woman claiming psychic abilities whom they discovered in the laboratory was cheating, as well as a detailed analysis demonstrating how so-called orbs are almost always caused by inexpensive lenses on cameras and light reflections.
In the book itself, the author describes numerous negative observations and apparent experimental failures.
And in each of Dr. Schwartz’s books, including this one, he devotes pages to carefully examining alternative hypotheses.
Pseudoskeptic #7
Skeptics have already pointed out the fatal flaws in Schwartz’s previous research. Now he presents a few preliminary experiments and anecdotes that happened in some of his experiments and personal life, and we are supposed to take this seriously? Who does Schwartz think he is?
Corrections and Commentary for Pseudoskeptic #7
A common technique of pseudoskeptics is to make claims that certain imperfections or limitations in a given investigation or experiment are “fatal.”
Pseudoskeptic #7 takes this one step further by claiming that the author’s previous research was fatally flawed, and the new book’s research is much weaker.
The accusation of fatal flaws is serious, and deserves special attention. To place such a claim in context, let’s review a serious flaw reported on the internet and even in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine and consider whether it deserves the extreme label of fatal.
A well-known pseudoskeptic, Mr. P. noticed that the screen separating the mediums and the sitters in the author’s HBO demonstration experiment had a tiny slit just big enough to look through.
Mr. P.’s pseudoskeptical colleagues jumped on this observation, claiming that it showed how naive and sloppy the author and his colleagues were, and how this might explain his amazing results.
In announcing Dr. Schwartz’s receipt of a 2001 Flying Pig Award, Mr. P. wrote:
As a single example of his poor control of the “experiments” in “carefully isolating” a subject from a psychic during the tests—so that the psychic would have no information about the subject—he failed to notice the psychic clearly peeking into the adjoining area. When this was pointed out to him, he shrugged it off as an unimportant factor. So much for scientific rigor.
What Mr. P. and his colleagues failed to mention was that during the readings the mediums were not facing the tiny crack; they could only see the sliver when they were first sitting down and looking at the screen.
The video recordings clearly show that during the readings, the mediums were facing the video camera and never looked sideways to potentially peer through the crack. This was obvious in watching the HBO documentary.
Do you believe that it is reasonable to conclude that a quick glance made once, at the beginning of a reading, could plausibly explain the greater than 80 percent overall accuracy scores that the mediums obtained for the complete readings that typically took ten to fifteen minutes?
Paraphrasing pseudoskeptic #7, who does this pseudoskeptic think he is?
Mr. P. and his pseudoskeptical colleagues also failed to mention the results of the EEG and EKG readings in the HBO experiment, which indicated that when the mediums were doing their readings, they showed less synchronous EKG and EEG with the sitter.
In other words, during the readings, the mediums appeared less connected physiologically to the sitter, which does not support Mr. P.’s interpretation that the mediums were actively looking through the slit for visual cues.
Mr. P. and his pseudoskeptical colleagues also failed to mention the results of other investigations and experiments reported in the book that used slit-less screens and long-distance phone readings, probably because these results were positive and did not support their extremely flawed argument.
When reading critiques written by pseudoskeptics, it is important to carefully evaluate their use of extreme and overgeneralized statements; those words are often a sign that something is not right.
I had originally considered including more examples, but the required he said-she said format becomes tiring for both the reader and me. Hopefully the prototypic examples provided make it possible for you to better appreciate some of the general strategies of pseudoskepticism in action.
Do I welcome serious questions, critiques, and feedback? Absolutely, but with the following proviso:
If the people offering the critiques have not done their homework, have misrepresented the facts, or have presented their misinformed critiques in an unfriendly or mean manner, then they are wasting his time and mine.
My personal focus is on discovery, not dogma; my devotion is to true skeptical inquiry and questioning, not to pseudoskeptical debunking.
Having said this, I must confess that my heart goes out to people when they are not aware of the fact that they are being dogmatic and pseudoskeptical.
My students and I have published more than twenty research papers in mainstream journals and academic books on the psychophysiology of self-deception and repression. I know what it is like when someone attributes to others what they cannot see in themselves.
I have seen it even in psychologists and psychiatrists.
Advanced academic training, and even psychotherapy, does not necessarily guarantee that one is accurate in one’s self-awareness.
It requires regular self-monitoring, nondefensiveness, and a genuine and persistent desire to know oneself. It requires the courage to truly look at oneself in the mirror, face that person, and have the inspiration to change.
This is why I continually question myself and others about our reasoning, sanity, and integrity. I am aware of the potential risk of self-deception and repression, and we try to stay mindful of it.
If you ask someone, “Are you angry?” and he replies, in a sharp and angry tone, “No, I’m not angry!” the disconnection between what he is saying and what he is expressing nonverbally is one indication that a person’s self-awareness may be impaired.
Pseudoskeptics are not usually appreciative when someone is skeptical about their beliefs. Pseudoskeptics often become defensive and angry when their beliefs are challenged, and this can apply as much to distinguished academics as it does to people with less than a high school education.
Healthy skeptics, on the other hand, enjoy other healthy skeptics’ questioning and challenging what they are doing, and they invite friendly critical feedback.
While I celebrate healthy questioning and skepticism, I deplore unhealthy dogmatism and cynicism.
And yes, I occasionally get angry and defensive at times. What evokes my ire is when a person makes uninformed, biased, and malicious accusations that disrespect honest inquiry and genuine discovery.
To reiterate, The Sacred Promise may be wrong in some of its details, and my colleagues and I are fully mindful of this possibility.
However, the emerging experimental evidence, obtained in the university laboratory as well as the laboratory of real life, suggests the serious possibility that there may be a beautiful baby in the bathtub here, and it would be criminal (some might say murder) to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Celebrating the Opportunity of Addressing The Sacred Promise Hypothesis
As mentioned previously, Dr. Carl Sagan is one of my heroes. His was a creative and visionary mind, committed to science and the possibility that the Universe was grander than most of us currently imagine.
Dr. Sagan said something that soothed my mind as it touched my heart, which I quoted at the beginning of the appendices. He said:
“When Kepler found his long-cherished belief did not agree with the most precise observation, he accepted the uncomfortable fact. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions; that is the heart of science.”
The ultimate hope for humanity and this planet is that all of us, in principle, have the potential to learn to accept uncomfortable facts and follow the hard truth rather than our dearest illusions. This is the heart of science; it is also our greatest challenge as well as our finest capability.
We can see beyond illusions, go beyond our limited senses, and as Marcel Proust said, see with new eyes.
It is an illusion that the earth is flat. It just looks that way with our limited vision when we are on the surface of the earth.
It is an illusion that the sun revolves around the earth. It just looks that way with our limited vision when we are stationary on the earth.
It is an illusion that objects are solid. It just looks that way with our limited vision when we see physical objects.
It is an illusion that invisible space is empty. It just looks that way with our limited vision when we process frequencies of light only using the retinal cells of our eyes.
Just because we experience illusions with our limited senses does not mean we are unable to go beyond them. The history of science provides repeated, and I would say definitive, evidence indicating that we can change our minds and go beyond what we once believed, as new evidence appears and awakens us.
What is even more remarkable to me is that we all have the innate capability to learn this meta-lesson, this lesson of lessons. We have the potential to see beyond our biological limitations, and we can evolve and transform our consciousness accordingly.
Though we may love certain ideas and be frightened of others, this does not mean that we are unable to let go of long-cherished beliefs and adopt new ones that may seem at first to be foreign, uncertain, gigantic, and even beyond our current imagination.
The history of science shows us that our minds can do this, and our hearts can catch up. As Dave Palmer wrote, and Carole King sang, “I can see you’ve got a change in mind but what we need is a change of heart.”
What is precious about The Sacred Promise hypothesis is that if it is true, then this bigger-than-life vision is full of hope, opportunity, adventure, and discovery. The Sacred Promise hypothesis gives new meaning and purpose to this life and life beyond life.
If numerous mediums are correct—and I underscore if—then Carl Sagan has changed his mind about life after death and a larger spiritual reality. So too has Harry Houdini (as discussed in chapter 14).
Only a week before I was writing the first draft of this appendix, two mediums again claimed that Einstein wants to speak with me. More important, he wants to speak with all of us.
And just this morning, as I was working with the copyedited draft of this appendix, a distinguished professor at Tel Aviv University in Israel and her highly skilled intuitive called me, revealing remarkable evidence indicating that the intuitive could bring forth accurate physics formulas from Einstein and other deceased luminary physicists, which can be scientifically verified.
Are we willing to listen to Einstein, Sagan, Houdini, and countless other wise and caring deceased people, if they are still here? Are we willing to listen to Sophia, Michael, Gabriel, and countless other wise and caring spirit guides and angels, if they are here?
Are we willing to listen to the Great Spirit, the Source, the Sacred, if She/He/It is here?
I would hope that if future science reveals that they are here, that we will be able to honor Sagan’s vision and wisdom. That we will be able to let go of the illusion that all there is is the physical world, and sooner rather than later embrace the truth that they are here, with us and for us.
This is the heart of science. And also of The Sacred Promise.