REALL News - Vol 01 No 02 - 1993

Magazine Overview

The REALL News, Volume 1 Issue 2, published in March 1993, features an in-depth article by Ray Hyman titled "Proper Criticism." The issue's cover includes a quote from James Randi: "It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense."

Proper Criticism by Ray Hyman

Ray Hyman, a Fellow and member of the Executive Council of CSICOP and professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, addresses the complexities and hazards involved in offering criticism of paranormal claims. He notes that since the founding of CSICOP in 1976, the growth of skeptical groups has led to more opportunities for skeptics to voice their views through media and other forums. While some responses can be carefully planned, many must be formulated on the spot.

Hyman observes that many well-intentioned critics have entered the fray without fully considering the implications of their statements. These critics often rely more on emotion than logic, make broad accusations without sufficient evidence, fail to adequately document their assertions, and generally neglect the homework needed to make their challenges credible. This type of "ill-considered criticism" can be counter-productive, potentially causing the critic to lose credibility, fail to achieve their desired effect, or even face lawsuits. The negative impact extends beyond the individual, affecting the entire cause of skepticism, as the public tends to associate individual assertions with all critics.

He recounts that during CSICOP's first decade, members of its Executive Council frequently had to spend time on "damage control" stemming from the careless remarks of fellow skeptics, diverting energy from promoting the skeptical agenda.

Hyman points out the current lack of formal training or guidance on how to properly criticize paranormal claims, stating that there are no readily available courses, manuals, or books of rules. He acknowledges that there is no easy solution to this problem but believes that improvements can be made by adhering to a few key principles.

Principles for Responsible Criticism

1. Adhere to Standards: Skeptics should embody the qualities they admire in others, such as precision, science, logic, and rationality. By consistently applying these attributes, the quality of critiques would significantly improve.
2. Avoid Hazards: Failing to uphold these standards can lead to going beyond the facts, miscommunication, confusing the public about the goals of skepticism, inadvertently making paranormal proponents appear sympathetic, and making the task harder for other skeptics.
3. Be Prepared: Effective criticism is a skill requiring practice, work, and a level-headed approach. Anticipating challenges and preparing short, effective answers to common questions (e.g., why skepticism is important, why false beliefs are harmful) is crucial.
4. Rehearse and Practice: Trying out arguments with friends and fellow skeptics, even role-playing as claimants and critics, can be beneficial. Reading books on critical thinking, effective writing, and argumentation is also recommended.
5. Clarify Objectives: Before addressing a paranormal claim, critics should ask themselves what they aim to achieve. Objectives might include releasing resentment, belittling an opponent, gaining publicity, demonstrating a lack of justification, or educating the public. Often, objectives are mixed or even conflicting, especially when acting impulsively.
6. Distinguish Short-Term vs. Long-Term Goals: While exposing or debunking a current claim might offer short-term satisfaction, the long-term goal of educating the public to better cope with various claims should not be sacrificed.
7. Identify the Audience: Strident attacks may appeal to existing skeptics but rarely change the minds of others. Arguments should be tailored to persuade different audiences, from the general public to academics and opinion-makers.
8. Attack the Claim, Not the Claimant: Critics should avoid creating the impression that they are interfering with civil liberties, advocating censorship, or trying to get people fired. Promoting rationality should not conflict with academic freedom or civil liberties.
9. Do Your Homework: Countering a specific paranormal claim requires gathering as many relevant facts as possible and carefully documenting sources. Relying solely on media reports is insufficient; specifics should be obtained directly from the claimant whenever possible.
10. Stay Within Your Competence: Critics should avoid making assertions beyond their expertise, just as they criticize paranormal claimants for doing the same. A critic's most significant error is to go beyond the facts and available evidence.
11. Speak When You Have Something to Say: Sometimes, remaining silent is better than entering an argument outside one's competence. It is acceptable to say "I don't know" when appropriate.
12. Let the Facts Speak: When sufficient facts are gathered, the audience can often draw its own conclusions, strengthening the critic's case. For example, reporting a police statement that a psychic's contribution did not help, rather than calling the claim "fraudulent," allows the audience to reach its own conclusion.
13. Be Precise: Given that skepticism appeals to objectivity and fairness, critics have a special obligation to be honest and accurate. Assertions must be backed by hard evidence, and care must be taken to ensure the media understands precisely what is being said.
14. Use the Principle of Charity: While this may be unpalatable to some who view paranormalists as "enemies," it means resolving ambiguity in favor of the claimant until strong reasons suggest otherwise. It involves distinguishing between being wrong and being dishonest, and interpreting or representing an opponent's arguments in a fair, objective, and non-emotional manner.
15. Avoid Loaded Words and Sensationalism: Critics should refrain from using prejudicial language or resorting to sensationalism, even if proponents do. The goal is to gain credibility and earn trust as a reliable resource.

Hyman concludes by emphasizing that while emotional charges might offer short-term publicity, the mission of skepticism is a long-term effort to persuade the media and public of its important message, requiring adherence to scientific principles and standards of rationality and integrity.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme of this issue is the importance of rigorous, evidence-based, and ethically sound criticism within the skeptical movement. The editorial stance, as articulated by Ray Hyman, advocates for a high standard of intellectual honesty, precision, and fairness in challenging paranormal claims. The publication appears to champion a thoughtful and responsible approach to skepticism, prioritizing long-term credibility and public education over sensationalism or personal attacks.