School Teachers and Skepticism

The debate over how "dry" a skeptic should be in promoting skepticism does not appear to take into account the dangers of ridicule in hardening the very views we are attempting to counter. This is particularly so in schools, where both teachers and pupils have things to learn.

There has been a lot of discussion recently among our British counterparts about "wet" and "dry" skeptics. Apparently a dry skeptic is one who is ready to denounce all supposedly paranormal claims as absurd. A wet skeptic, on the other hand, is one who thinks that all claims deserve reasoned and thoughtful consideration.

David Fisher, past secretary of the UK Skeptics, goes so far as to call them "super" and "milksop" skeptics, and suggests that the time has come for the two groups to separate. He finds the attitude of the milksop skeptics too condescending and at variance with commonsense.

After decades, centuries, or millenia of failure to provide concrete evidence, why not prejudge telepathy, homeopathy, and astrology, at least. Why give the miracle-mongers the benefit of the doubt? The dice are usually already weighted heavily in their favour by economic power, the bottomless gullibility of the general public, and a greater affinity with the media.1

To a large extent I agree with David Fisher's point of view. Over the years I have become very dogmatic about issues such as crystal healing, tarot readings and the existence of ghosts. I find it very difficult not to ridicule these beliefs when I come across them. What worries me is that I might begin ridiculing not just the beliefs but the people who hold them.

Some years ago, my son and a few of his friends formed an anti-religious group. It soon became evident to me that their discussions centred around the nonexistence of God, and that members were spending all their energies attempting to disprove God's existence (which perhaps suggested that some doubts were held on the issue).

My response was, why not accept that the question of God's existence is not provable, assume that no God exists and look at the consequences of this assumption. To a large extent I feel the same way about many paranormal questions. I no longer wish to attempt to persuade people, for example, that tarot card reading is nonsense or that crystal healing is a sham.

Apathy or Irrelevance?

Most people don't talk much about their beliefs and certainly wouldn't join a group like Skeptics. It would be a mistake, though, to assume that such people are apathetic. In an editorial of the above-mentioned antireligious group's newsletter, a comment that people would not talk about religion because they were apathetic on the subject resulted in a letter which stated:

Apathy, of course, is the wrong word. If a subject is too ridiculous to think about, we are not going to waste time on it, are we? How much time do you spend thinking about ... gremlins...?2

Far from being apathetic, it looks as though we have here a super-skeptic.

There are two main reasons why I do not hold steadfastly to the super-skeptic view. They arise from my chosen profession as a teacher. .

Paranormal Teachers

In all the schools of which I have knowledge there are teachers who hold paranormal beliefs. Indeed, I would venture to say that such teachers are in the majority in virtually all schools. Further, I would say that in many schools there are teachers who hold extreme paranormal beliefs which must affect their teaching. In my own experience I have come across science teachers who have a strong predilection for pseudoscientific beliefs.

One head of a science department with whom I worked believed resolutely in the effectiveness of dowsing as a scientific method. This appears to be a common belief among teachers. He also believed that Uri Geller had the paranormal ability to bend spoons, repair watches, etc. As supporting "evidence" he told me that after watching a Geller TV

show he checked a broken watch in a drawer and found that it was ticking again. Another science teacher of my acquaintance dosed himself, his family and even his dog with herbal remedies whenever one of them felt "one degree under." When asked about dosage rates he implied that such rates were not important for natural remedies.

In addition, there are schools that have creationists on their science staff3 and there are many teachers of many subjects who believe in virgin birth and miracle cures.

Since skeptics, wet or dry, are in the minority and most people hold some level of paranormal belief, it is not surprising or particularly worrying, you may say, that teachers conform in this respect. I strongly disagree.

Teachers, particularly science teachers, holding strong paranormal beliefs are likely to be impaired in their ability to provide good teaching. Scientists propose theories that are the best explanations. Paranormal explanations are patently not the best explanations. Thus we need to be able to turn around teachers holding such views.

Ridiculing paranormal beliefs and, worse still, ridiculing the people who hold them is counter-productive in terms of modifying those beliefs. Subjected to such abuse, people tend to become entrenched in their views. The conciliatory approach of the wet skeptic is much more likely to effect a change in someone else's beliefs.* At the very least we must get teachers to think about their beliefs because of the influence they have on our children.

Which brings me to the reason I am not a super-skeptic. By the time students come to secondary school many are already dogmatic in their thinking. Couple this with the belief systems they already hold and there is cause for worry.

A Skeptical Survey

What beliefs do they have? I ran a preliminary survey across 100 secondary students, all boys, aged between 14 and 18, based on a Gallup national survey as described in Skeptical Enquirer.5

Perhaps no firm conclusions can be drawn from the results noted below — a sample size of 100 is not very large. However, students' responses do suggest there is cause for concern. Many teachers feel that it is wrong to invade their pupils' areas of belief, but can we afford not to? If being wet facilitates good communication then I'm all for it. That way we might at least ensure there is a next generation of skeptics.

Russell Dear is a mathematics teacher in Invercargill.

1. Fisher, David. "The Case for Super-Skepticism", The Skeptic, V5.1.
2. Letter to the Editor, Antitheists Newsletter, V1.4.
3. Cooper, Roger et al. "Creationism in Wellington Schools", New Zealand Skeptic, No 18.
4. Woods, Ian. "Passing the Torch", The Skeptic, V53.
5. Gallup, George H. & Newport, Frank. "Belief in Paranormal Phenomena Among Adult Americans", Skeptical Enquirer, V15.2

Do You Believe In:

Yes (%) Unsure (%) No (%) tarot cards, palms

Telepathy 39 25 36 Spiritual Healing 27 12 61 The Devil 28 19 53 Buildings can be haunted 42 22 36 Extraterrestrials have visited Earth 40 21 39 The mind can precit the future 46 23 31 Astrology 14 27 59 Some form of life after death 42 21 37 Telekinesis 24 18 58 Witches 13 13 74 Poltergeists 34 24 42 Communication with spirits 27 25 48 Seeing the future in tea leaves, 10 11 79

Which of these do you consider brings bad luck? Yes (%) A black cat crossing your path 4 Walking under a ladder 13 Friday 13th 20 Breaking a mirror 18 uck or encourage good luck?

Which of the following have you tried to either ward off bad Yes (%)

Thrown salt over shoulder

11

Touched wood 10 Crossed fingers 62 Worn a charm 26 How often do you read your horoscope? Yes (%) At least once a week 20 Occasionally 60 Never 20 Do you think UFQs are real? Yes (%) Real 54 People's imagination 41