In the years that I’ve been researching both mundane and weird claims, I’ve had both the pleasure and displeasure of working with both avid believers and the morbidly skeptic.
Being the type of guy who constantly rides the fence until enough information is in to draw, at the least, an educated guess about a situation – I find both the avid believer and the morbidly skeptic to be two of the most annoying, frustrating types of people to work with. Here’s why:
1. They make an early decision about what to believe, and then only search for evidence to support it.
If you’re ever doing research with someone, and they state a hypothesis and then seek evidence to prove it, you are in the company of a good researcher. However, if you notice that the same researcher tends to ignore any findings that do not support the original hypothesis – that’s a bad sign. All new information, whether verified or not, needs to be fully authenticated before accepting or dismissing. And when there is an abundance of new information – all the more reason for aligning your efforts in that direction.
2. They work fervently to discredit evidence that does not support their theory.
Another sign of a poor researcher is the instant and automatic dismissal of new information that runs against the original hypothesis, but a tendency to accept and incorporate new information that supports the original hypothesis. This is a dangerous formula. If you spot a researcher that started with one hypothesis, and a year later you see them working on an altered hypothesis based on the abundance of clues – that is a good sign.
3. They work harder to protect their ego than to seek the truth.
It is the most frustrating when you are usually more on the skeptical side, but you have the extreme skeptics holding back progress. When professional investigators seek out leads, they use both verified, cold hard evidence, and they also use suggestive and anecdotal evidence. However each type of evidence has a separate and distinct purpose in any investigation.
The purpose of hard evidence is so that you can stake your claim, plant your feet and say, “This is the truth.” It’s what you can put your name on. However, suggestive and anecdotal evidence are critical to establishing and following up leads – even if those leads “lead” the investigation in a direction that you don’t believe is true. This is the test of a truly unbiased investigator, and it’s where most people fail. It is the purpose of “suggestive evidence” to provide clues (hopefully an abundance of clues) that will lead you to the hard evidence.
Herbert Spencer, a British Philosopher once wrote:
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance– that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
This hits at the crux of why so many avid skeptics spin their wheels without discovering the truth, because often they destroy their chances of uncovering hard evidence. They avoid certain avenues of exploration, at all cost, because of their contempt toward the messenger and/or the message.
With that said, if hard evidence comes out that discredits the messenger, then you have a right to your contempt – but I’ve observed, all too often, fellow skeptics showing contempt toward a new witness or interviewee before even a single word is said or a single fact has been proven.
That is not how the truth is uncovered, it is not an unbiased pursuit of the truth, and it does grievous injury to your chances of finally uncovering the truth about any situation. Listen first, prove or disprove using thorough investigation and uncovering facts, and then judge. Not the other way around. The other way around is how lazy armchair skeptics investigate – and it’s the most common form of Internet skepticism as well, because it’s the easiest and requires the least level of effort.
One thing I know is that I never want to find myself buried in the middle of an important investigation with such an avid believer, or skeptic, by my side. The two are equally poisonous to an investigation into the truth.
Truth lies in the Twilight between faith and fact – the moment when you decide to follow a path because certain yet-unverified clues lead in that direction. It is the decision to temporarily abandon your long-held conviction that separates those who are capable of uncovering truth, and those who simply can’t.
“If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to
argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated.”
- Wilfred Trotter
Ryan Dube is editor-in-chief of TSW and an electrical engineer in the automation industry. He spends his time investigating declassified government documents, legends and conspiracy theories. Ryan has 296 post(s) at Top Secret Writers
You might also like these articles:
 |
 |
 |
