Why are so many articles on these phenomena (such as Wikipedia articles) so negative?
A number of organizations are openly hostile to claims of the paranormal. One has to wonder if their sentiments have played a role on Wikipedia and elsewhere.
One such organization is the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI). CSI’s Lee Nisbet, who holds a PhD in philosophy, said of paranormal phenomena: “We feel it is the duty of the scientific community to show that these beliefs are utterly screwball.” One of CSI’s former co-chairs of its “Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal” resigned because he felt that “they sought to debunk rather than scientifically examine.”18
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has been a target of criticism from skeptics and speculates that a group called “Guerilla Skepticism” is contributing to negativity around the paranormal on Wikipedia. As Dr. Sheldrake states in his blog post Wikipedia Under Threat:
Wikipedia is a wonderful invention. But precisely because it’s so trusted and convenient, people with their own agendas keep trying to take it over. Editing wars are common.…Everyone knows that there are opposing views on politics and religion, and many people recognise a biased account when they see it. But in the realm of science, things are different. Most people have no scientific expertise and believe that science is objective. Their trust is now being abused systematically by a highly motivated group of activists called Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia.
Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt. Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.…Most materialists believe that the mind is nothing more than the physical activity of the brain, psychic phenomena are illusory, and complementary and alternative medical systems are fraudulent, or at best produce placebo effects. . . . Several advocacy organizations promote this materialist ideology in the media and in educational institutions. The largest and best-funded is the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), which publishes The Skeptical Inquirer magazine. The Guerrilla Skeptics have carried the crusading zeal of organized skepticism into the realm of Wikipedia, and use it as a soapbox to propagate their beliefs.
This summer…a commando squad of skeptics captured the Wikipedia page about me. They have occupied and controlled it ever since, rewriting my biography with as much negative bias as possible, to the point of defamation.…The Guerrilla Skeptics are well trained, highly motivated, have an ideological agenda, and operate in teams, contrary to Wikipedia rules. The mastermind behind this organization is Susan Gerbik. She explains how her teams work in a training video. She now has over 90 guerrillas operating in 17 different languages. The teams are coordinated through secret Facebook pages. They check the credentials of new recruits to avoid infiltration. Their aim is to control information, and Ms. Gerbik glories in the power that she and her warriors wield. They have already seized control of many Wikipedia pages, deleted entries on subjects they disapprove of, and boosted the biographies of atheists.
As the Guerrilla Skeptics have demonstrated, Wikipedia can easily be subverted by determined groups of activists, despite its well-intentioned policies and mediation procedures. Perhaps one solution would be for experienced editors to visit the talk pages of sites where editing wars are taking place, rather like UN Peacekeeping Forces, and try to re-establish a neutral point of view. But this would not help in cases where there are no editors to oppose the Guerrilla Skeptics, or where they have been silenced.
If nothing is done, Wikipedia will lose its credibility, and its financial backers will withdraw their support. I hope the noble aims of Wikipedia will prevail.19
If what Dr. Sheldrake describes is truly happening, then we might (in part) understand why the reality of the “paranormal” has struggled to gain momentum. The casual researcher doesn’t have time to dig into the details. If you Google a topic and the first thing that comes up is a Wikipedia article saying it’s fraudulent, you might stop your search then and there.
An End to Upside Down Thinking
Dispelling the Myth That the Brain Produces Consciousness, and the Implications for Everyday Life
Mark Gober
No comments:
Post a Comment