« International Justice: A Chimera | Main | Truck Bombs In Baghdad »
October 24, 2005
Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings
One of my main topics for venting on this blog is the increasing scarcity of logical thinking in our society. Sharon Begley writing in the Wall Street Journal gives a perfect example of what I mean. In an essay that focuses on a new book by Dr. Susan Clancy entitled "Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens," Begley relates that all sorts of people, who function quite well in society otherwise, are firmly convinced they were taken and returned by "aliens", and the cause is not mental illness but rather an inability to thinks scientifically--that is, to think in terms of observable evidence that supports valid premises. Begley:
Numerous studies have found that abductees are not suffering from mental illness. They are unusually prone to false memories, she and colleagues found in a 2002 study, and tend to be unusually creative, fantasy-prone and imaginative, but so are lots of people who have never met a little green man.
Even the smartest abductees fall short, however, when it comes to scientific thinking. Dr. Clancy asked if they realize that memories elicited by hypnosis are unreliable. Yes, the abductees said, but they are really, really careful with hypnosis, so their recovered memories must be real. Do they understand that sleep paralysis, in which waking up during a dream causes the dream to leak into consciousness even while you remain unable to move, can mimic the weird visions and helplessness that abductees describe? Of course, they say, but that doesn't apply to them. [...]
The principle of parsimony that underpins all of science -- the simplest explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be right -- is, well, alien to abductees. So is the notion that "it feels right" doesn't make it so, and that exceptions to rules are, indeed, exceptions.
Feelings are king these days. Feelings rule our election cycles and shape our reaction to policy proposals. And a ratings-driven, supersaturated media environment provides the perfect growing medium for the feelings virus.
I wish the aliens had just kept them.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/390
Comments
Wasn't it ever thus? There was never an age where a lot of people didn't believe daft nonsense, and there never will be. Interesting though this description of how people believe these things is, more interesting would be an examination of why. If there is a mistrust of science and empiricism, what causes it? To what extent is it justified?
Posted by: Newfred at October 25, 2005 06:12 AM
Good post, Jeff. This may seem unrelated, but it's totally not. In light of this post, what's your position on Intelligent Design, by chance?
Posted by: Fargus at October 25, 2005 07:42 AM
Newfred: I agree--of course there's always been illogical people. They just didn't stand out as much when the general amount of available knowledge more closely matched their own. You're very perceptive in anticipating the second observation in Begley's article: Clancy notes that many people believe in astrology, etc., but don't claim they are abductees. She suggests that these people are using the claimed experience to fulfill a desire for meaning in their lives that religion often fulfills for others.
Fargus: I honestly don't know that much about ID--it's on my huge list of Topics To Investigate (which is only slightly shorter than my Books To Read list). I think my beliefs lie somewhere between ID and true scientific atheism. I believe God exists, but I require Him to follow his own rules of natural law. ;-) In any event that's a private matter--from a public policy standpoint, as far as I'm concerned science rules.
Posted by: Jeff at October 25, 2005 09:30 AM
(revised opening sentence, pardon my error)
I'm not sure that the "experiencers" can honestly be portrayed as having been non-critical in their thinking. It may well be that they considered prosaic explanations, recognized that the prosaic explanations were more probable, but decided that probability - probability being governed by what we know so far - was not going to provide an accurate result in this case.
I'm not arguing for what they say. But the author's claim that the people lacked critical thinking skills is not demonstrated. To prove her point, she should have asked the people if they felt the theory of aliens was as likely as the prosaic explanations. If they said yes, then, point proven. But for all we know they would have admitted that aliens were a far fetched theory - but one they believed was more accurate than the likelihood or probability of more prosaic explanations.
In short, they've taken a position that is unlikely. But that's hardly a failure in thinking. Some people just do not accept the odds as the arbiter of reality.
Posted by: deckard68 at October 26, 2005 06:38 PM
