Are Hardcore Skeptics and Debunkers Actually Brain Deficient? Their Own Beloved 'Hard Science' Might Well Suggest Many Are.

Articles Hierarchy

 

Obsessive Debunking Disorder (ODD)?

 

We have all encountered them. The men and women of 'reason'. The self-appointed guardians and vanguards of materialist dogma along with their absolute faith and belief in official government and corporate press releases. The debunker, the hardcore skeptic—how they love to compulsively ridicule and mock all they deem 'pseudoscience' and 'conspiracy theory'—while also declaring anyone who thinks outside the box or questions the prevailing orthodoxy, a "moron" and a "tard". Matters not how solid the evidence you present them with is, nor how flimsy their own state-sanctioned 'hard science' which they smugly offer up as their rebuttal; they are driven by a messianic compulsion to root out unscientific 'idiots' with all the zeal and fanaticism similar to that of a Dominican or Jesuit charging through southern France in the twelfth century seeking out 'heretics' for the burning. Irony does not even come into their myopic worldview—unless of course a government, corporate or university press office states this. Then it becomes an undisputed fact. Thanks to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christoper Hitchens, these Internet-bound warriors of rationality see 'Creationists' and 'hidden Christians' around every corner and seek to root them out and expose them as part and parcel of their own peculiar secular witch hunt mentality. 
The reality is that apart from their own kind—other self-proclaimed non-'idiots'—most people find such arrogant and obnoxious debunkers and hardcore skeptics to be strangely angry and boorish, and often confrontational to the point of hysterical. So many of them seem to lack basic social and behavioural skills when 'debating' with their 'kook' of choice. Their absolutism can be staggering at times. Yet, despite all this, they have somehow come to consider themselves 'cool' and even 'sexy' within the last decade. This is simply a lack of critical thinking on their behalf; a distorted worldview where only they are right and everyone else is an idiot.
However, when you strip down their whole mandate into its constituent parts, one soon finds that most of these 'scientifically' minded crusaders have no actual accredited scientific background, and the entire thrust of their endeavours remains nothing less than unconditional servitude and unquestioned devotion to authority figures and the status quo. They seek entrenched orthodoxy, not exploration and wonder. They see an open-minded individual as being akin to a brain being infected with a disease, or the mark of a witch. They act as if Creationists are a real danger to human survival, as if the US Bible Belt has extended beyond its absurd boundaries. Creationists are about as much danger to the advances made by scientists in the last two hundred years as Graneda was to Ronald Reagan back in the early 1980s.
It is only fair to point out that there are also healthy skeptics who genuinely do look at anomalies and unexplained phenomena within the natural and unseen cosmos with a cautious eye. They will at least indulge a novel or radical opinion and look at the evidence before taking a stance—often it is an arbitrary position—based on using the Scientific Method coupled with Carl Sagan's "extraordinary evidence". They are generally polite and only moderately condescending at worst.
The debunker and the hardcore skeptics, on the other hand, will even attack these open-minded Materialists, similar to how a flying saucer cult will have very public witch hunts of so-so members who have not shown their unconditional devotion to the messages sent from the 'space brothers'. The irony is that many of the open-minded skeptics that they attack often have a scientific or engineering background, and these folks are being attacked by debunkers whose sum total of their own quest for reason and logic rarely extends beyond procuring a 'Mythbusters' DVD box set or having a poster of Richard Dawkins on their wall. Any Reductionist fence-sitters will be treated with ridicule and contempt—even fascistic vitriol and vicious insults.

There is simply no grey areas within the concrete consciousness of the debunker or the hardcore skeptic; instead, only a kind of scientific idealism—and idealism, both secular or otherwise, is really just a nice way of saying 'fascism'.
So what gives? How come they behave the way they do? A complete lack of social intelligence? An inability to debate, share interesting banter and listen to what another person is saying which might be at odds with their own beliefs? Surprisingly, their own beloved science might well provide the answer to these questions. It may well be an over-stimulation of the left hemisphere of their brains leading to a kind of self-induced schizophrenia whereby the right hemisphere of their brain has been switched off. Hence, why they place no value on other forms of non-lateral intelligence: noetic wisdom and intuition.
THE LEFT RIGHT BRAIN—MYTHOLOGY AND FACT
During the 1960's and well into the following two decades, a branch of pop psychology developed which began to make some very speculative assumptions about the specific roles the two hemispheres of our brain play in our cognitive awareness and functioning. The general understanding developed that the left hemisphere of the brain was essentially analytical and concerned with processes and quantitative evaluation, while the right hemisphere of the human brain was where the artists and dreamers resided. This is a very simplistic understanding; and in recent years, imaging research has shown that both hemispheres share more or less the same attributes, and both can equally process the same cognitive functionality. However, and this is crucial, there is a level of redundancy in both hemispheres.
The growing speculation for the need for two (asymmetrical) brain hemispheres is to perform two acts of awareness. The left brain is devoted to specific tasks and objectives, while the right brain acts as a kind of peripheral awareness. There has to be a kind of background seeing, as well as immediate attention to the task at hand. Think of an early human on the side of a riverbank trying to spear a salmon—the left brain would be devoted to this task. In order to maintain awareness of the environment and possible dangers therein, the right hemisphere of the human brain is 'looking' out for predators such as a saber-tooth tiger seeking an easy meal in the form of a prehistoric human who is completely concentrated on catching a fish. Hence, why the right brain is often associated with insight, intuition and noetic realisations. Which is why artists tend to have an ability to see changes in their environment and social conditions before the rest of the population. Their 'background vision' is more highly developed due to them using both hemispheres of their brain for the purpose they were intended.
The left brain, on the other hand, has been shown to be highly narcissistic and with an inflated sense of its own worth and status. The left hemisphere sees no problem with itself, and this has been shown in stroke patients who lost the use of the right hemisphere of their brain. Operating in left-brain mode only, they assumed they were perfectly fine until they attempted to get out of bed only to discover they were paralysed on one side.

Between the left and right hemispheres of the human brain is the corpus callosum, which is a thin membrane of nerve fibers which separates the two halves and has now been shown that rather than being a communicative link between the two brain halves, it acts more like a buffer, with the left brain in Western people having a desire to literally switch off the neural activity in the right hemisphere. This is one meme which Betty Edwards was correct about in her book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain—the left hemisphere is a bully. In overly logical and analytical individuals, fMRI scans have shown the left brain actually inhibits the right brain—via the corpus callosum nerve fibers—from offering its contribution to the entire cognitive process. This state of right hemisphere nullification is where the debunker and the hardcore skeptics are trapped and can never leave—in their intolerant and highly narcissistic left hemisphere—using the two percent of neural wiring into their right hemisphere in order to shut it off. Ordering the right hemisphere to cease activity while the left side of the brain saves the world from 'morons' who dare question official government press releases or the mandates from any authority figure or bureaucratic institutions. 
Along with this, their intuition and 'background awareness' are likewise diminished. Can you see where this is going? For all their obsession with brain functionality and brain size, as well as their entrenched (and completely unproven) notion that all human consciousness resides in the brain, the debunkers and hardcore skeptics are only using one half of their brain.
EVOLUTION AND THE CORPUS CALLOSUM
Despite what one would assume, the further we get from our hunter-gatherer ancestors, the thickness of the corpus callosum has actually increased. Pushing both halves of the human brain further apart rather than removing it. This presents Darwinists with a problem; as we move further away from the dangers of the natural world, there should be an on-going lateralisation and symmetry of the two brain hemispheres. Another problem is presented here; in that it has now been shown that people of higher intelligence and IQ are much easier to hypnotise and mind control than more creative individuals, and even people with lower IQs are less likely to be mesmerised than formally educated persons with advanced degrees. This would go a long way to explaining why the most absurd flying saucer cults are populated with PhDs and other highly qualified people waiting for the 'space brothers' to arrive. The over-dependence upon and submission to the left hemisphere of the brain leads to just as much delusion and risk of being deceived as the flighty and poetic over-stimulated right hemisphere.
A COGNITIVE AWARENESS STRANGLED BY STATISTICAL INFORMATION AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
All the great scientific discoveries were 'eureka' moments. They were not developed in the labs by white coats working for corporations and foundations. Scientific discovery was not gained by piling sequential 'certainties' upon previous 'certainties'. They were intuitive insights which were validated through the Scientific Method of measurement and constant re-testing. The Western system of education has created a kind of trial separation between the left and right hemispheres of the human brain. Therefore, similar to a stroke patient who is not aware that one side of his or her body is paralysed until they attempt to get out of bed, the deeply entranced hyperactive left brain debunker and hardcore skeptic is simply unable to grasp how the rest of us see the world and experience life. Unable to see the wood from the trees, they do not comprehend intuition and noetic insights. They are cognitively blinded to these experiences and the rest of us trying to explain to them how some official announcement or world event—does not "feel right"—is a human experience that they are completely unaware of. This is why you cannot explain an alternative viewpoint of view to them. Humans need both sides of their brain working in tandem in order for their consciousness to synthesise a more complete and richer understanding of the world as well as human and social dynamics.
THE JOURNEY INTO ORTHODOXY MADNESS
This can be seen as a kind of self-induced schizophrenia, resulting from over-hyperactivity in the left hemisphere of the brain. There is too much information being processed, and the intense devotion to the analytical leads to a kind of overload in the 'here and now' dominant cognitive rationalisation based on statistical data, while neglecting the right hemisphere of the brain and the 'background awareness'. 
Much of this has to do with how our minds process ideas and concepts through visual thought forms, and how this is then expressed in language and the written word. By neglecting the right hemisphere, extreme stress is then placed on the left hemisphere, and the results can be catastrophic. Philo Farnsworth, the Utah farm boy who invented the modern television system and then went on to develop over 150 patents in television and broadcast technology, ended up drinking himself to death due to—according to his family—being unable to shut his mind down and live a normal life. His initial discovery was a result of a 'eureka' moment, when as a teen, he observed how the plough lines behind his tractor represented the ideal method for transmitting images by radio waves; however, his obsession with formulae and endless analytical pursuits literally blew his mind. Farnsworth is not unique in this respect.
When one becomes completely entrenched within the left brain and obsessed with an exclusively analytical lifestyle (which then becomes a belief package to be defended), there is a loss of cognitive functioning and behavioural control. This explains why there is so much anger and hostility among debunkers and hardcore skeptics. The bullying aspect of their narcissistic left brain creates a superiority complex, in that they come to believe they know all and see all, when in reality, they are running half-empty with one aspect of their human experience essentially missing. This part of the human experience where intuition, hunches, insight and social intelligence of the most subtle and intricate forms are a complete mystery to them. To the skeptical debunker, things—'either are or they are not'—there is no grey area, as they are ironically not fully utilising their own grey matter to its full potential. 
Stress is then incurred upon their left hemisphere cognitive functioning and behavioural deficiencies result. They are not calling people 'morons' and 'retards' as a general insult or standard Internet 'courage'—the debunkers and hardcore skeptics are deeply frustrated and near hysterical to the point where they see anyone who is open-minded and willing to indulge the mysterious as being akin to an alien life form. They simply cannot relate to the rest of us. We are 'irrational', 'lacking reason' 'lost in woo'. Their experience of being human and how they describe it through crude metaphors whereby 'we are just DNA robots' and there is nothing else going on—is not how the rest of us experience our lives. We know there is much more to the human experience than these left-brained internees of the hardcore skeptic and debunker faction assume. Much, much more.
So the next time you find yourself confronted with a hardcore skeptic or debunker, do not even bother to try and make your argument or present your point of view to them, as you are throwing 100% of a human experience in 50% of a self-repressed cognitive understanding. It's not their fault they are the way they are. They are victims of an educational system which began in Prussia in the eighteenth century and which has led humanity into one scientific genocide and meat grinder after the next.

Use your intuition and ignore them. You do not need their validation and approval, as they are only interested in what the men in the white coats tell them that which is a 'fact'. Be polite and continue to follow your own field of study and knowledge path, and then see where it leads you. This may lead you nowhere, but so what. The journey is often more important than the destination. Your life will be more rewarding, creative and enriching for allowing your right brain to take part in the imagination of yourself within this five-sense reality we call human existence.
Further Resources:
Left Brain, Right Brain: Perspectives From Cognitive Neuroscience by Sally P. Springer and Georg Deutsch
The Master and his Emissary by Iain McGilchrist
Right Hand, Left Hand by Chris McManus
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, by S.B. Kaufman

Rebuttel and correction.

1. Black white/binary thinking. Many skeptics will reject an entire concept or theory when they find things wrong with it only to make the mistake of latching onto the polar opposite concept or theory, thinking that “if it’s not this, then it has to be the opposite.” It’s either/or binary thinking, as if there aren’t more than only two choices in any given situation. I wrote an entire article about this topic called Polarized Thinking and the Removal of Options from Reality, (http://in2worlds.net/polarized-thinking-and-the-removal-of-options-from-reality) that’s how rampant it is in our society, with everybody, not just skeptics. Some classic examples include Religion vs. Atheism, Creationism vs. Evolution, man-made global warming vs. nothing funny going on with the climate at all, and in general any conspiracy where it’s a choice between the mainstream version of events, or only one limited version of the conspiracy. (such as: AIDS is either A) a virus precursored by HIV that can be viewed under a microscope and is a contagion, transmitted via blood transfusions, unsafe sex or sharing drug needles, or B) it’s all a giant conspiracy manufactured in a lab by the government in order to target undesirable groups, such as ghetto drug addicts and homosexual males. Or the moon landings, where it’s either A) we went to the moon starting for the first time in 1969 exactly as they tell us it happened, or B) we never went to the moon at all, period, and the moon landings were all filmed in a studio.) Etc.

No doubt, there are conspiracies floating around out there have some major plot holes and problems going on with them, I’ve definitely seen my fair share of them over the years. And I’ve even warned on my site against the idea of automatically thinking any conspiracy must be closer to the truth than the mainstream version of events merely because it’s a conspiracy. But just because one particular version of a conspiracy has issues doesn’t negate the idea of any conspiracy happening at all with a particular subject and that therefore, you automatically choose the polar opposite (which is usually the mainstream version of events). For myself, I don’t agree with the standard AIDS conspiracy that it’s a virus manufactured by the government in a lab, designed to target undesirables.....but it doesn’t mean I’m going to turn my back on the idea of any conspiracy happening with the subject and just believe the mainstream cover story. As if those are my only two options in life. It just means I’m going to keep digging, find other possibilities. Always keep researching and looking closer at things. Put in some effort. Switching back and forth between only two binary choices is the lazy man’s way out, and it’s also the way a computer operates. Are we machines, or are we humans capable of more?

------------

2. “Because I can’t explain something and don’t want to believe in it means I’ll ignore it and just dismiss the entire thing.” Self explanatory. For me, so long as I’ve seen personal proof for the existence of something woo-woo then I’m perfectly comfortable not knowing how or why it works or exists, and just accept that it does. But this is a no-no apparently for many die hard skeptics. If they can’t understand something or don’t want to deal with it (maybe because it scares them on some level), then it gets swept under the rug. And the weirder and more unnerving and unexplainable that something is, the faster it gets swept away and dismissed. The reason for this mindset is because skeptics are determined to believe that the world is a purely physical, five sense, rational place where humans know and understand everything and everything is under complete control. For many die hard skeptics, acknowledging even one small bit of woo-woo is a slippery slope towards having to acknowledge the wider prevalence of woo-woo, which they don’t want to do. It’s all or nothing, black and white for them. So they don’t acknowledge anything out of the ordinary, period. Solves that slippery slope problem right there. I used to date a die hard skeptic, who was also an atheist, so I know how it can be. This “logic” is a bit laughable when you think about it because by that rationale it means you should go around negating and disbelieving in any and all phenomenon in this world – both non-physical AND physical – so long as you haven’t yet learned what it is and how it works and if it could somehow become a slippery slope on the way to anywhere.

3. When is an ongoing pattern/recurrence no longer “just a coincidence”? Skeptics love to dismiss woo-woo subjects such as synchronicity, number sightings and the like as being “just a coincidence.” Many things probably are just a coincidence, but when something happens enough times in enough unusual ways, then at what point is it no longer just a coincidence? For a Skeptic Gone Awry the answer is.....never! It will always be just a coincidence, no matter how frequent or how “out there” and unbelievable/unexplainable the occurrences are! Because once again to even acknowledge one occurrence of woo-woo is opening a door to a slippery slope of having to acknowledge others....and we know where that can lead. ;)

With number sightings in particular I can understand why skeptics might dismiss the majority of people’s occurrences, especially when they’re pretty mundane. If you’d told me about number sightings back before they were happening to me, I would have shrugged off the idea too. But when the occurrences are complicated in their set up, becoming downright far fetched, while increasing in frequency (to where it’s almost becoming a distraction....) then it’s time to stop and take a closer look. Ultimately the only way to know for sure whether something is just coincidental, or a legitimately weird happening is to start a log and begin keeping track, while gathering photographic and physical proof wherever possible. And that’s exactly what I did. Everybody’s free to come to their own conclusion about what I’ve noted in my number sightings log, but my conclusion is that something very unusual was/is going on there, and in my opinion I was able to prove that. What exactly it is, or how it all works remains to be seen, but once again, just because you can’t definitively explain how something works.....doesn’t mean something isn’t happening.

There has to be a reasonableness when it comes to trying to determine whether something is just coincidence. When something is happening frequently, and defying statistical probability/odds, and is extremely unusual in its nature to the point of becoming downright far fetched, then the idea of coincidence ceases to apply. And if, despite the facts and statistical probability/odds and frequency of occurrence, etc. a skeptic still steadfastly clings to the idea of coincidence then they’ve become unreasonable/irrational, plain and simple. In those cases, any number of things could be going on to explain their skepticism gone awry, and I get into that at the end of this piece.

------------

4. Selective evidence, or, ”cherry picking” evidence. Selecting only evidence that seems to prove a skeptical argument while ignoring evidence that disproves it. Three examples from my website where I’ve described this exact behavior with debunkers and skeptics:

“Biorhythms is a topic that the skeptics have a ball with, due to the supposed lack of scientific proof or any concrete studies which validate it. Namely, they love to cite examples where people were tricked, and given false biorhythm cycles that they were supposed to go back and correlate to their diary entries, to see if things lined up. Most of the time people “retrofitted” the incidents and basically tried to force a square peg into a round hole, thus giving the debunkers triumphant material to rub in people’s faces and gloat over. No mention is made, of course, of the instances where genuine biorhythm cycles actually did fit and line up with real events, because that would debunk the debunkers. ;) And that’s where my own little experiment comes into play. Being Little Miss “Keep a Log Book and Log Your Stuff!” means I was able to use my log book to cross check against my biorhythm charts, and lo and behold, some very interesting results came to light. It pays to obsessively document the weird stuff....you never know what you might end up needing the documentation for down the line.” Biorhythms in Relation to Hyperdimensional Activity (http://in2worlds.net/biorhythms-in-relation-to-abductions)

“What you typically hear with colloidal silver debunking is the couple of sensationalistic times when somebody turned blue from using the silver. But what they fail to tell people is that there’s a right way and a wrong way to make colloidal silver. Colloidal silver, made the correct way, does not turn you blue. The mainstream media of course only shows you the couple of people who did it wrong. But where are the thousands who use correctly made colloidal silver, get healed, and don’t turn blue? [I’ve used colloidal silver myself and never turned blue.] They don’t exist as far as the mainstream media is concerned. They don’t want you to know.” Headline Dissection (http://in2worlds.net/headline-dissection)

“ [...] She was living proof that you don’t need chemo to recover from cancer, even if it’s progressed so far that the docs refuse to even “waste” chemo on you. So, “go home and die”? I don’t think so. Where is her story in these mainstream debunking agendas? She, and the many more like her, are conveniently overlooked and stepped over. That AP article from what I do remember went as far as to claim that nobody has ever been cured by any of these natural healing remedies. That is a lie. I know more than one who has, the most extraordinary one being the woman just mentioned. But they don’t want you to know about them. They want you to be convinced that there is only one route to go with your body, and that’s to “entrust” it to the mainstream medical establishment. And most importantly, to always be giving your money to Big Pharma, and not these other natural healing companies.” Headline Dissection (http://in2worlds.net/headline-dissection)

Bottom line is you can’t selectively ignore evidence that would prove your beliefs or ideals wrong, and this goes for anybody, for any circumstance. Ignoring evidence that runs contrary to something you want to believe in doesn’t suddenly make it right. Problem is, too many people are invested in certain ideas or beliefs or outcomes, we see it every day, all around us, and it includes those with a personal need for a purely physical, rational and scientific-based world where everything is under control and humans know everything. Their ego needs things to be a certain way, and so evidence is selectively chosen or discarded on that basis. The only thing to really say to this mindset, no matter who’s committing the offense, is “Get over yourself.” :D Seriously. Or put in nicer terms – Get out of the way of yourself. When you get over yourself you no longer have investment in ideas or beliefs or outcomes. You don’t care. Life is a lot easier that way, trust me. Suddenly everything is what it is, whether you like it or not, whether you believe in it or not, and whether you understand it or not.

------------

6. Refusal to consider any evidence. Then we have the worst offenders of all when it comes to evidence. The Skeptics Gone Awry who, no matter how much evidence somebody produces to show exactly why they believe something, won’t look, read or hear it. 9/11 is a biggie for this. There are researchers who have meticulously studied the events of 9/11 and compiled damning evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official version that we’ve been told is a lie. The conspiracy goes even deeper with 9/11, but at the bare minimum these researchers have proven that the official version is not what actually happened. That is....if a Skeptic Gone Awry would be willing to look. However, it’s obviously easier to just laugh it off and dismiss them as a “conspiracy wacko” then to actually expend any sort of effort researching the matter. The irony is that the “conspiracy wackos” who are labeled idiots, terrorist sympathizers, anti-American, the tinfoil hat brigade, etc. actually do their homework most times and can produce evidence, whereas the Skeptics Gone Awry who pride themselves on being so smart and sane, don’t even bother. Mmmm. Interesting how that one works.

Chemtrails is another biggie. Many skeptics are out in full force debunking the idea that the trails littering the skies are anything other than naturally occurring jet contrail emissions. And no amount of photographic evidence will convince them otherwise. There are endless pics showing these trails forming grid patterns and wheel spoke designs, among other formations, as well as evidence that shows the clear distinction between rapidly evaporating contrails and then lingering, polluting chemtrails, but it doesn’t matter....all of it is natural jet emissions across the board, with no distinctions whatsoever. “Nothing to see here folks, move it along!” As I noted in my weather anomalies write up, “We all know that jet liners just trying to get from Point A to Point B don’t sidetrack around forming wheel spoke designs and checkerboards/grids in the sky, which means who knows what’s really going on with somebody who would argue otherwise.” And as noted, “If chemtrails were somehow just the natural by-product of jet emissions, totally random and not purposeful in their application, then they should be there all the time, considering the frequency of passenger and military jet activity in the skies. Yet, they clearly only appear during select times. It is not a 24/7 occurrence.” For chemtrail debunkers however, no amount of photographic evidence or common sense facts gets through to them.

7. “Because something isn’t happening to me or my friends means it’s not happening to anybody else.” This one was on display earlier in Christine’s email and it’s one of the most laughable logical fallacies that a supposedly intelligent and rational person could commit. For someone to automatically dismiss something that happens to others merely because they themselves haven’t experienced it only shows the nature of one’s own narrow mind and limited life experiences. If we were to continue with this rationale it means we need to dismiss anything that anybody ever tells us providing we haven’t personally seen/experienced it for ourselves. It’s pretty extreme, but that’s what the rationale is behind this mindset.

One example of this from my own experiences concerns auras. Many people out there in the world claim that they can see the energies that surround living things, most notably known as “auras.” But even more people cannot see energies and auras (myself included) so, they reject the idea. I may not be able to see auras but just because I don’t have this particular skill doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. There is a simple test that would put this to rest once and for all and that is to get more than one person who can claim to see auras, and have them independently write down what they see in terms of aura/energies around a test subject, and see if their descriptions even remotely match up. Very simple. And I myself have actually experienced this test inadvertently, when over the years at least four different independent people who had nothing to personally gain from it confirmed the exact same things concerning my own energy, with matching descriptions. (It involved energy pouring off the top of my head, as well as being told that they’ve never seen anybody who gave off as much energy as I do.) At what point will a skeptic be willing to sit up and listen when multiple people can report the same matching descriptions of something independently? At what point can pride and ego be put aside to admit, Okay, I don’t have this talent, but it doesn’t mean others don’t or that it doesn’t exist, just because I can’t do it. For a die hard skeptic gone awry the answer is never, unfortunately, same as with all other cases.

And another great example of this in my own experiences concerns those infamous “reptilians.” I myself have never encountered a reptilian in my waking life that I’m consciously aware of. However.....enough other people out in the world apparently have, and have told their tales in detail, including people I’ve personally known or met. (And actually I do have some random indirect evidence of it in my own reality.) So it’s enough for me to be open to the possibility. There’s nothing wrong with being open to a possibility. That’s a shade of gray, a third choice option that goes beyond computer-like binary machine thinking. If you don’t know whether something is true or not simply because it’s not overtly reflected in your own experiences the wise thing to do is to just put it on the back burner. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not. And if it is true then maybe more evidence will emerge over time to verify it. In fact, maybe more evidence already exists if one were to just poke around and put some effort into researching. But in the meantime knee jerk rejecting something due to sheer laziness or narrow mindedness only reflects poorly on the person doing the rejecting, not the person being rejected.

8. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This involves rejecting something completely because there is some sort of issue with the material, instead of taking the time to pick and sift. In a worse case situation it also involves the wholesale rejection of anything even remotely affiliated with material that has an issue. The end result of throwing the baby out with the bathwater is that a Skeptic Gone Awry usually then makes the mistake of latching onto the diametrically opposite (read: mainstream) theory.

One of the most common ways I’ve seen this used with Skeptics Gone Awry is when it comes to conspiracy, metaphysics or “truther” material that is not 100% accurate. For starters, no material out there is going to be 100% accurate, nobody has the full picture or understanding about what’s going on here in this reality and how everything works (not least of all the mainstreamer skeptics who’ve never researched anything and believe everything we’ve been told). Everybody’s coming from their own perspective, with their own set of personal experiences, and everybody’s going to have a bias or two, that’s only natural. And this can, and often does, result in errors. But does that mean you throw the entire shebang out? Ideally, no. It means you take the time to put in the effort to pick and sift. However there are cases where something is truly 100% wrong, and one knows it definitively because of personal experience and can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, or some particular material just doesn’t work for somebody (for me I’ve experienced this with really hokey channeling material, where there was just no way I was going to listen to it because it was clearly fake and off and not what I was looking for....) and in those cases then sure, toss it out if you so desire.

A related way we see this within skepticism is when things are lumped together, instead of treating things on their own individual merit. You see this with hoaxes. Because hoaxes have occurred (for instance with UFOs, images of ghosts, or crop circles, or anything) therefore it means all claims of UFOs, ghosts, crop circles, etc. are hoaxes and then instantly dismissed as such. To this day, any time crop circles are mentioned in a mainstream news article there is, without fail, the “conclusion” that “Doug and Dave” came forward in the 90s and claimed to be behind the crop circle phenomenon using boards and string. So therefore, any and all crop circles, no matter how many years later or how varied the locations or how complex in design, and no matter how much strange energy (detectable by instruments) is emitted by them, must all be hoaxes created with boards and string merely because “Doug and Dave” (whoever the hell that’s supposed to be) once made an unsubstantiated, unproven claim...............almost 20 years ago. The end. Lumped into the same category, then tossed out in one swoop.

Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. But it apparently works on those who don’t want to exert the effort to pay close attention and apply brainpower.

------------

9. Appeal to authority. A common manipulative tactic that’s used to steer people away from certain lines of thought. One popular way that’s employed when it comes to debunking conspiracies and woo-woo in particular is to cite so-called authority, academia, science and such as “the voice of reason” who obviously “know best.” Because we all know that authority, academia, science and the like are never wrong and know everything. ;) They’re infallible after all, and everything that could ever be learned or known is already known, right now as I type this.

This is obviously ludicrous. If science and academia knew everything already and were never wrong then there would never be scientific progress or scientific revolutions for that matter, which there obviously have been. But unfortunately this simpleton thinking actually does work on a lot of people, such is their ingrained lifetime of programming to trust in authority and the supposed wise leaders of academia. And “stuff” knows this, which is why it resorts to this tactic. Now, it doesn’t mean I’m saying that nobody in science and academia knows anything about anything. It just means be alert to this as a manipulative tactic that is used, and which attempts to steer people in certain directions within certain situations. It happens. A lot. So be mindful of it.

------------

10. Straw Man. In logic and debate, “straw man” involves building up and putting focus on a side argument and tearing that down...then proclaiming oneself a victor in the main debate. In reality all they’ve done is sidetrack the debate onto something that may only be marginally related to the topic at hand. They haven’t “won” anything. You only win when you can stay on topic and prove your points, while disproving your opponent’s. It’s a major fallacy, and when you actually see it spelled out in writing it can be hard to believe that people actually commit this error of logic, but unfortunately it runs rampant.

And then I want to throw in a word about Skepticism Gone Awry vs. Religious Zealots, which are actually two sides of the same coin. The mindset of a skeptical zealot is no different from the mindset of a religious zealot. At first glance they seem diametrically opposed – one doesn’t believe in anything that the other does – but they’re actually “opposames,” as David Icke terms it. The former’s mind is already made up, closed off to the idea of hearing or reading any evidence that would contradict their programming towards the idea of a strictly physical, five sense reality where everything is exactly as academia tells us it is. The latter’s mind is also already made up, closed off to the idea of hearing or reading any evidence that would contradict their programming towards the idea of whatever particular religious beliefs they hold. Both sides have an obvious “NEED!” for their beliefs, which explains their refusal to consider any information that might contradict those beliefs. And neither one can be reasoned with or responds in a rational way. Hence, opposames.

Skeptics often times act in a very ironic way. Many of them try so hard to be rational and logical and yet manage to be completely irrational and illogical in the process (usually while committing multiple fallacies as they go along). One particular offense that’s quite popular is when the so-called “rational” explanations become increasingly more ludicrous than the woo-woo explanation. “Pounding a square peg into a round hole,” as it’s called. They’ll make it fit, dammit. :D

So the next time you come across a skeptical tackling of an alternative or woo-woo subject, scrutinize it closely to see whether any of these fallacies of logic and thinking are being committed. They usually always are, to some extent, from what I’ve seen.

All of this doesn’t mean that I swallow whole any and all conspiracy, truth seeking, metaphysical and woo-woo material. I opened this piece discussing the need for discernment and balance as one navigates through life, and it can’t be reiterated enough. There’s nothing wrong with questioning something, and there’s nothing wrong with feeling doubtful when first hearing about something that’s far out of one’s personal everyday norms. That’s only natural. I still do this myself to this day, and approach all new things with a bit of a frowny, analytical questioning mindset, and sometimes straight up doubt. :D The only difference is, I’m at least willing to hear people out. I may be doubtful, but I’ll hear you out. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been initially doubtful about something I was hearing or reading for the first time, but so long as a person could plead their case well, then I was listening, and I totally changed my mind. I don’t understand the people who put up walls and blocks and go on lock down mode and freeze everything out.

So, what is going on with those Skeptics Gone Awry then who refuse to consider evidence, resort to laughing people off with ad hominem attacks, where no proof is good enough and where every logical fallacy in the book may be committed to avoid that slippery slope of having to admit to anything? There are multiple possibilities, which I covered in another write up entitled When Everybody’s on a Different Page. (http://in2worlds.net/when-everybodys-on-a-different-page) But in summary it’s everything from being flat out unintelligent, to ignorance, intense societal programming, and on to more nefarious possibilities including “empty pawns on call” ready to bark when needed, or paid servants of an agenda. With the last item you’ll probably find this most often on the ‘net, where people who are either paid or volunteering go around on message boards and news sites and blog commentary sections posting “Nothing to see here” dismissive skeptical debunking commentary and giving everybody a hard time. You’ll also see this in supposed “journalism” where a biased agenda is clearly being inserted into a story to steer readers away from believing in a certain line of conspiracy/woo-woo thought. Any real journalist writes from a neutral point of view, giving equal time to both sides of a story and without inserting in any type of bias. That’s rare to find nowadays in corporate owned media, who tend to side with the powers that be, desperately trying to maintain the status quo.

Just keep in mind that when running up against a Skeptic Gone Awry who can’t be reasoned with....then don’t. Don’t waste your time or bother, because chances are you’re dealing with something beyond the norm, and in my opinion, it’s not worth the energy. May as well go talk to a wall. Or spend your time on more productive pursuits. And I say this because over the years I’ve read enough commentary from newbie truthseekers and conspiracy types complaining about going rounds with these types (either in person, or on the ‘net) and expressing their frustration with it all. Newbies tend to indiscriminately waste their energy trying to convince everybody around them, including the die hard debunkers, of the truth of their beliefs. But keep in mind that if you’re truly comfortable and secure in your beliefs then ultimately you won’t feel a need to try to convince anybody of anything. So pick your battles wisely. If somebody seems receptive to “seed planting” then go for it, if you feel you must. If somebody is proving themselves to be a diehard skeptic, then why bother. Maybe someday they’ll change their mind, but in the meantime just drop a seed and move on. That’s all you can really do.

Appendix – Skepdic.com sample article

The following is an article from the infamous skeptical website called Skepdic.com (http://www.skepdic.com/reincarn.html) I first came across Skepdic back in late 2004, when writing my Biorhythms piece. (In fact it was Skepdic that I was referring to in that one biorhythms excerpt that appears earlier in this piece.) But I hadn’t been back there since. However after writing this article I googled it to see if it was still out there, found that it was, clicked over, then selected “supernatural” from the category list on the left, then scanned down the list of subjects and chose reincarnation. I selected that one since it’s a large topic, and I was curious how he would dissect something as big as that. I was soon struck by how awful the write up was. Very badly argued and put together. If you’re going to be the representative of skeptics you have to do better than whatever he’s done, that’s all I can say. ;D Now, I don’t normally name/quote and target sources out there in Internet Land when they haven’t targeted me first, so I hesitated about whether or not to do this. It’s not my idea of a good time to start a “flame war” with another website. I’ve managed to exist on the internet since 2006 hanging out in my corner going relatively unnoticed, which is good. So I realize I’m opening myself up to who knows what in doing this. (oooooh! Controversy!!! weeeeeee!) However Skepdic has put his stuff out there challenging all sorts of woo-woo subjects, so in a way you could say it’s asking for a rebuttal of some sort. The whole goal of his website is to be one big challenge, after all. He takes personal feedback and commentary, of which he says he may post on the site, but he also mentions being very back logged on emails, so it’s no guarantee that one’s comments will be posted and heard. For that reason I figured, well, why not, I could post my rebuttal on my site. Then it’s guaranteed to be out there, even if only ten people read it. :D

And contrary to how my rebuttal may sound, I’m actually not invested in the idea of reincarnation, so it’s not coming from a place of being defensive. Again, I just picked that subject rather willy nilly. I could just as easily have selected a different category and sub topic. My research and life experience over the past decade has caused me to not fully believe in anything going on in this reality anymore. I just don’t fully trust any of it, for good reason, as people who’ve read my material will understand and be familiar with. And that would include reincarnation. I just love a good argument and picking things apart if they’re blatantly fallacious, but even more so if the author thinks they’re being so clever and intelligent. So in a way you could call it playing the Devil’s Advocate, for kicks. :D So, look at this rebuttal in that light. It’s not meant as some all out flame war, just a devil’s advocate rebuttal, using that write up as a good example of fallacious thinking and bad logic that one often – and ironically – finds with the supposed rational and intelligent skeptical community.

With that in mind, here is the article, with my commentary interspersed in brackets.....

“Reincarnation is the belief that when one dies, one’s body decomposes but something of oneself is reborn in another body. It is the belief that one has lived before and will live again in another body after death.”

[So far so good. These two opening sentences merely explain what reincarnation is typically understood to mean.]

“The bodies one passes in and out of need not be human. One may have been a Doberman in a past life, and one may be a mite or a carrot in a future life.”

[Now we encounter the first problems. ;) First off, not every believer of reincarnation believes this is the way things work. However the author is presenting things as if this is an across-the-board belief shared by every proponent of reincarnation, not bothering to differentiate or clarify. This lack of differentiation/clarification seems to be done very intentionally in order to bias the reader, as the snarky choices of “Doberman,” “mite” and “carrot” reveal. Using biased word choices means a skeptic’s argument is weak, and they’re having to resort to whatever manipulations they can grab onto to steer the reader. When your argument is solid and you actually have proof for your claims, and/or can definitively disprove your opponent, then you don’t need to resort to that.]

“Some tribes avoid eating certain animals because they believe that the souls of their ancestors dwell in those animals. A man could even become his own daughter by dying before she is born and then entering her body at birth.

[No real complaints here, as it’s more explaining what reincarnation is typically understood to be. However I do detect more snarky manipulation with the mention of how a man can become his own daughter. ;) ]

“The belief in past lives used to be mainly a belief found in Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, but now is a central tenet of much woo-woo like dianetics and channeling.”

[Yes, because reincarnation is a central tenet of the umbrella of New Age in general (which borrows heavily from all religions) of which dianetics, ie, Scientology, and channeling fall under.]

“In those ancient Eastern religions, reincarnation was not considered a good thing, but a bad thing. To achieve the state of ultimate bliss (nirvana) is to escape from the wheel of rebirth. In most, if not all, ancient religions with a belief in reincarnation, the soul entering a body is seen as a metaphysical demotion, a sullying and impure rite of passage.”

[Nothing really to critique here as the author is back to merely explaining things. There is the insertion of “woo-woo” to describe Dianetics and channeling, but even I use that term humorously, and even I think the alternative history beliefs of Scientology are woo-woo, and I also shake my head at so much of what passes for channeling out there. So, I can’t complain. ;D]

“In New Age religions, however, being born again seems to be a kind of perverse goal. Prepare yourself in this life for who or what you want to come back as in the next life.”

[Any sources that could be cited or quoted here to back up what the author is saying? I haven’t studied up in-depth on every aspect of New Age myself, but in the material I have come across so far I can’t say that I’ve ever seen what the author is claiming here, about reincarnation being some perverse goal of the New Age. Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if some group(s) somewhere think this, but does it mean it’s a goal for all New Age practioners? No. That’s a generalization. If anything it tends to be the exact opposite from what I’ve seen. Reincarnation usually is viewed as “doing time” because on some level you screwed up and now you’re forced to come back. Many New Agers I’ve encountered have this penchant towards pining away for a reality/world other than this one, some even going as far as to claim that they’re alien souls in human bodies who feel out of place here, and who would love nothing more than to get off the reincarnation round and round and get out of Dodge, ASAP. Therefore cited sources – and more importantly, differentiation/clarification – would be helpful for an eyebrow raising claim such as this.]

“Belief in past lives also opens the door for New Age therapies such as past life regression therapy, which seeks the causes of today’s psychological problems in the experiences of previous lives.

L. Ron Hubbard, author of Dianetics and the founder of Scientology, introduced his own version of reincarnation into his new religion. According to Hubbard, past lives need auditing to get at the root of one’s “troubles.” He also claims that “Dianetics gave impetus to Bridey Murphy” and that some scientologists have been dogs and other animals in previous lives (“A Note on Past Lives” in The Rediscovery of the Human Soul). According to Hubbard, “It has only been in Scientology that the mechanics of death have been thoroughly understood.” What happens in death is this: the Thetan (spirit) finds itself without a body (which has died) and then it goes looking for a new body. Thetans “will hang around people. They will see a woman who is pregnant and follow her down the street.” Then, the Thetan will slip into the newborn “usually...two or three minutes after the delivery of a child from the mother. A Thetan usually picks it up about the time the baby takes its first gasp.” How Hubbard knows this is never revealed.”

[On the one hand I can understand what the author is doing here – He’s continuing in his quest to explain not only what reincarnation is, but what some of the proponents of reincarnation believe about the subject. However......This excerpt is strongly related to a “straw man.” It’s side tracking too much onto what Dianetics/Scientology believes about the subject, and for a specific, manipulative reason.....because the historical beliefs of Scientology are REALLY out there, even for people who are into the weird and the woo-woo. L. Ron’s material is therefore an easy target to go after. Or rather, side track onto, in order to make the subject of reincarnation as a whole look ludicrous. Put the focus on L. Ron’s beliefs...........but meanwhile, don’t focus too much on your every day Buddhist, middle ground “New Ager,” etc. who may have more sensible ideas about the subject.]

“Channeling, like past life regression, is distinct from reincarnation, even though it is based on the same essential concept: death does not put an end to the entirety of one’s being.”

[The author even admits that channeling is “distinct from reincarnation”.....so if it’s “distinct” from reincarnation, which is supposed to be the article’s focus, then why side track onto it? Again, we’re looking at something related to a straw man. More off topic diversion.]

“In classical reincarnation, something of the consciousness of the deceased somehow enters a new body but as that body grows only one unified consciousness persists through time.”

[I had a hard time understanding what the author was saying here and had to re-read this particular sentence multiple times. And I still don’t quite get what he’s saying to be honest. It’s the second half of the sentence and how that relates to the first half, that I’m not getting.]

“Channeling might be called temporary intermittent past life invasion because there is a coming and going of the past life entity, which always remains distinct from the present self-conscious being. For example, JZ Knight claims that in 1977 the spirit of a Cro-Magnon warrior who once lived in Atlantis took over her body in order to pass on bits of wisdom he’d picked up over the centuries.”

[JZ Knight may have channeled some past life entity over 30 years ago, but is this the normal mode of operations in channeling? You know, since we’re going to be side tracking onto the subject of channeling and all? ;) No. I don’t doubt there must be some channeling out there besides JZ’s that also involves a “past life entity” however, it’s in my own personal research experience that most channeled entities are claiming to be alien intelligences, or higher evolved entities of some sort, or just general human souls and spirits. But not entities specifically from the past, per se.]

“Knight seems to be carrying on the work of Jane Roberts and Robert Butts, who in 1972 hit the market with Seth Speaks. Knight, Roberts, and Butts are indebted to Edgar Cayce, who claimed to be in touch with many of his past lives.”

[What does the channeler JZ Knight carrying on the work of Jane Roberts and Robert Butts have anything to do with disproving whether reincarnation is a valid belief system? How has that sentence advanced the skeptical argument against reincarnation? Ah but see, the author goes on to explain that all three people are indebted to Edgar Cayce....who discussed past lives. Suddenly it’s all clear now......right?? o_O This is more off topic diversion.]

“One would think that channeling might muck things up a bit.”

[Channeling could indeed muck things up a bit......if channeling was exclusively linked to reincarnation in the first place, which it isn’t. Two separate subjects being linked together, and using one to bring down the other.]

“After all, if various spirits from the past can enter any body at any time without destroying the present person, it is possible that when one remembers a past life it is actually someone else’s life one is remembering.”

[If that was how channeling actually worked to begin with. Which it doesn’t. Channeling isn’t about entities (be it from the past, future, or any period or location) entering into “any” body at “any time.” Trance channeling – which is what JZ Knight and Jane Roberts were doing, since he wants to use them as examples – involves the designated host going into a trance state, and then willingly allowing the entity(ies) to take over their body. Not just some entity jumping into “ANY” body at “ANY” time. With that in mind it negates whatever point the author thought they were making here. And I don’t say this to defend the material of JZ Knight (or Jane Roberts). I myself am not a fan of JZ Knight’s material and don’t partake in her stuff. I’m merely correcting the misinformation and fallacies on display here, not defending the channelers themselves.]

“From a philosophical point of view, reincarnation poses some interesting problems. What is it that is reincarnated? Presumably, it is the soul that is reincarnated, but what is the soul? A disembodied consciousness?”

[Those are indeed interesting philosophical questions....but they are born out of previous incorrect information and fallacies, hence the reference to “disembodied consciousness.” Reincarnation doesn’t actually pose any problems.....if one were to stick to the subject at hand, instead of sidetracking onto channeling. It’s a very straightforward concept. It’s the idea that there is a soul, and that soul lives on after death, coming back into another body. The end. Nothing complicated or problematic about it.]

“Reincarnation does seem to offer an explanation for some strange phenomena such as the ability of some people to regress to a past life under hypnosis. Also, we might explain child prodigies by claiming that unlike most cases of reincarnation where the soul has to more or less start from scratch, the child prodigy somehow gets a soul with great carryover from a previous life, giving it a decided advantage over the rest of us.”

[That’s good that the author is willing to get into that. :D So, no complaints here.]

“Reincarnation could explain why bad things happen to good people and why good things happen to bad people: they are being rewarded or punished for actions in past lives (karma).”

[Slight issue with this – I myself don’t believe that bad things happening to good people and vice versa always has to do with the idea of “karma” (in fact, I’ve challenged some common beliefs concerning karma in past write ups on my site, but won’t side track onto it here) and I don’t feel that “karma” as it’s typically understood is a “reward and punishment system.” Many, if not most, believers of karma do believe this though, which is where the author got that from, so I can’t blame him for saying that.]

“One could explain déjà vu experiences by claiming that they are memories of past lives.”

[One could, and I recognize what the author is talking about with this, however that’s not necessarily what déjà vu is. Most déjà vus that I’ve heard about in my research (or experienced for myself) seem to involve a person just going about their day-to-day life, then suddenly being hit with the feeling that they’ve done this before, and are repeating themselves in some way. The feeling that “This has already happened.” What the author is describing is a person visiting a place they’ve never been and feeling like they’ve been there before, maybe even recognizing landmarks, and knowing their way around even though it’s supposed to be the first time the person has ever been there. That’s not déjà vu in the traditional sense. That could be described as a soul memory of some sort. Two different concepts, being mixed up together.]

“Dreams could be interpreted as a kind of soul travel and soul memory.”

[They could....but that’s certainly not the only aspect of dreams. Not sure why this was thrown in there. This is the point in the article where things start getting really sloppy and rushed, in my opinion, jumping all over the place.]

“However, past life regression and déjà vu experiences are best explained as the recalling of events from this life, not some past life.”

[How would a “past life” regression be best explained as the recalling of events from this life? The very nature of it being “past life” means it’s from.......the past. Read or listen to any past life regression session and you’ll find people vividly describing a life....from the past, with everything that goes with it from historical happenings, clothes styles and general culture, daily lifestyle happenings, slang/vernacular, and so on. And as already noted, the correct interpretation of déjà vus – not soul memories, which the author was mistakenly describing – does involve events in the present life. So, there’s actually no argument there.]

“Dreams and child prodigies are best explained in terms of brain structures and genetically inheritable traits and processes.”

[Again, who said that all dreams have to do with soul travel and past lives? The author did. Nobody else did. Most dreams are the brain’s way of processing all those events and issues that make up our everyday lives. All sorts of various things can happen to a person while they’re sleeping, maybe even including past life connections, but that’s not the only purpose of dreams. So this is a fallacious point.]

“And since bad things also happen to bad people and good things also happen to good people, the most reasonable belief is that there is no design to the distribution of good and bad happening to people.”

[Arguing against the idea of karma does not disprove the idea of reincarnation. They are intertwined, yet separate, subjects. Karma, according to those who believe in the traditional definition of it, manifests not just from things we may have done in past lives, but also from things we’re doing in our current life. And reincarnation is the recycling of a soul back into a body, which may or may not have to do with karma. A person could have squeaky clean karma but feel like they’re not done experiencing physicality, or that there’s still a job they have to do. And then supposedly there are those souls who are reincarnating because they have karma to clear up. Different possibilities for two intertwined, yet separate, subjects. Notice how quickly the author is trying “wrap things up” here, but at the expense of intelligent reasoning. Very rushed and sloppy.]

“Stories, especially stories from children, that claim knowledge of a past life, abound. One collector of such stories was the psychiatrist Ian Stevenson, who made a weak case that the stories offered scientific evidence for reincarnation.”

[Ian Stevenson made a weak case? Okay, then what was it? I’ve never heard of Ian Stevenson, but I’m not just going to take the author’s word for it that he made a weak case and then move on, like, “Oh, okay, I believe you, I don’t need to do my own research and think for myself.” And neither will any halfway intelligent reader. The subject of children’s past life recall is one of the most compelling cases for reincarnation out there, because very young children haven’t yet been subjected to the programming or media influences that adults have. I’m not saying it definitively proves anything, but it certainly shows that something anomalous is amiss when children start telling people about a life in another body, in another place, and maybe even speaking in another language, or in an accent not of their region, having knowledge that they shouldn’t yet have, with no explainable source for it. And especially when the information they’re providing can be verified. (it could also be a case of entity attachments, but wait, that’s woo-woo too, right? ;D ) It’s probably because the argument is so compelling that the author skips right over this, in my opinion. He makes mention of it to say that he at least addressed it.....but he doesn’t take any serious consideration of it, and in fact goes out of his way to marginalize it. “Nothing to see here folks, move it along!”]

“Finally, since there is no way to tell the difference between a baby with a soul that will go to heaven or hell, a baby with a soul that has been around before in other bodies, and a baby with no soul at all, it follows that the idea of a soul adds nothing to our concept of a human being.”

[This sentence is yet another that I found myself having to re-read multiple times to figure out what his point was and where he was trying to go, since he’s jumping around and his ideas are not segueing up. Is he arguing against the idea of a soul, or against the idea of reincarnation? It’s a little confusing. If he wanted to argue against the idea of a soul then the article should have been set up differently, and been more organized and focused, first outlining why he can prove there’s no soul and then therefore, why he can prove there’s no such thing as reincarnation. And actually I would argue that the idea of a soul does add something to our concept of a human being. Many people when trying to describe the attributes of somebody who is behaving in sociopathic/psychopathic ways for instance will use such phrases as “The lights are on but nobody’s home...” “deadened eyes” or “They’re not all there...” or the blatant “They’re soulless” or “they’re not human.” They’re empty...missing something...something that would make them more “human”....and that something is understood to connect to what? A soul. Some sort of spark that others have, but which they’re lacking.]

“Applying Occam’s razor, both the idea of reincarnation and the idea of an immortal soul that will go to heaven or hell are equally unnecessary.”

[And....that’s the author’s grand conclusion? That’s the best they could do? It was as if by the end of the piece the author wasn’t even trying anymore, just rushing to get to the end like he was writing this at 4 in the morning or something. As mentioned earlier, this debunking piece just goes around and around in circles, but ultimately concludes and proves nothing at all. Reincarnation may be false, but this write up is not able to prove that in any intelligent way. One would have to do quite a bit better than this article if they were going to tackle the subject. And just as important, skeptics need to make sure that they’ve done the research and know what they’re talking about before they set out to write an article that debunks a subject. They should do their homework first. The author of this article did not seem to fully understand what deja vu is, how channeling works, or even what the nature of dreams are.]

In summary, this article displayed all of these fallacies of logic and faulty “thinking” and debating tactics:

Overall lack of focus/direction of the piece; author spins wildly around instead of just outlining what reincarnation is, and then providing clear and definitive proof for why it’s not valid; Relying on biased word choices to manipulate the reader due to weak argument that can’t stand on its own two feet; Lack of sources cited for claims being made; Lumping everybody together in the same group with no differentiations or clarifications made; making generalizations; Cherry picking evidence – focusing on material that serves to make the subject of reincarnation look silly while skipping over and/or marginalizing) sensible or compelling material and sources; Linking unrelated subjects together and using one to bring down the other; Misunderstanding concepts and then basing arguments on that misunderstood/incorrect information; Straw man, and the tendency towards diversion/side tracking onto material that the author knows will make the subject look bad.