What is needed is not the will to believe but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. — Bertrand Russell
Unwillingly back from 17 days off, with a wallet full of Post-Its full of ideas for the blog.
The first popped up when Michael Jackson’s ghost was spotted at Neverland. Here’s my favorite video clip of the event (cue soundtrack):
The debunk is easy, of course. More interesting is the question it raises for parents who want to raise critical thinkers. Some, I’m sure, sat their kids in front of the video and fed them the critique of credulity: “Look, at 0:18, see? There’s a courtyard to the left there. You can even see the windows into that room. And look look, one second later you can see a set light standing in that room! There’s obviously a crew setting up in there, and somebody just walked by that window! See? Not a ghost. Right?”
Johnny and Janey nod solemnly and power down, pending future input.
By debunking it for them, Parental Unit handed them a piece of information: this ghost was a shadow. But s/he didn’t allow the kids to stretch their own critical thinking hamstrings. S/he gave them a fish instead of teaching them to fish.
News of the ghost reached us on vacation as we drove with Grandma to the coolest kid museum in the U.S. (more on this later). One of my kids had heard it on a morning show: during an interview, a news crew had captured Michael Jackson’s ghost walking by in a nearby room. That’s how it’s generally presented, of course — never “a news crew captured something that some people thought looked like a ghost, and further assumed to be the ghost of Michael Jackson.” Too many ickily precise words. “An eerie presence at Neverland was captured on film” is the usual approach to keeping us tuned in.
“Huh,” sez I, or some such noncommital thing.
We had a fine time at the museum. Later that afternoon, I pulled out my computer and found the YouTube video I knew would be there.
“Hey, who wants to see Michael Jackson’s ghost?” I said. Yup — I left out the precision, too. I did so because I know which way my kids roll, and that they don’t need a push from me.
Present some folks with Elvis in a restaraunt, or Mary in a tortilla, or an exotic miracle juice, and they’ll roll fast and hard toward belief. As Russell would put it (after his third gin XanGo), they have the will to believe and they’re not afraid to use it. No matter how much you try to drag them back uphill, such folks will lie at the bottom of the hill cooing contentedly in the lap of Elvis or Mary, munching on mangosteen while P.T. Barnum grazes on their wallets.
My kids roll the other way. As a result of the low-key and fun questioning atmosphere they’ve grown up in, they have a serious crush on the real world. Oh they like fantasy just fine. But to paraphrase Russell again, their will to find out is reliably stronger than their desire to believe any given proposition. And they’ve blown their minds often enough by the wonders of that real world that they’ll wait patiently, tossing aside counterfeit wonder, until the real thing comes along.
The will to believe is a form of incuriosity. The will to find out is about simple, persistent curiosity. Raise curious kids by being curious yourself, out loud. Show a hunger for the actual and a delight in finding it, over and over again, and your kids will tend to roll that way as well.
Though they all roll toward reality, the steepness of grade isn’t the same for all three of my kids. Erin (11) rolls gently but steadily toward reality, and Delaney (7) makes long detours. But both eventually end up wanting to know what’s actually what.
For Connor (14), it’s a cliff. That can present problems of its own. He’s often unwilling to even consider any unconventional possibilities. That protects him from being duped by salesmen, politicians, and faith healers, but it can also keep him from seeing how deeply bizarre reality can be. He has, for example, dismissed my descriptions of quantum strangeness with a simple, “Oh yeah, I’m so sure.” In his defense, that’s pretty much the same thing Einstein said about quantum physics (”Ach ja, ich bin so sicher.”)
So we watched the video three times. Erin and Delaney toyed with the idea that Jackson’s ghost had really appeared before asking each other a few simple questions and watching it fall apart. (Connor went straight to pfft.)
To my surprise, CNN actually debunked the rumor, showing that it was a simple shadow:
…which enraged some roll-to-beliefers. My favorite comment:
Fine, so it’s a shadow. So what? Have you so-called “skeptics” ever considered the possibility that ghosts ALSO cast shadows???
Welcome back, Dale! I’ve missed reading your posts!
Comment: Karen – 20. July 2009 @ 6:32 pm
This is a tricky one for me. It is very hard to explain to people who don’t know me.
I am scientific, rational, reasonable, have never had “belief”, and educated etc etc………and I’ve had a “ghost” experience.
Actually several (same ghost though).
I’ve worked all through the experience….to no rational avail.
The first thing was auditory. My friend and I heard the voice. No rational explaination.
Next a physical object was moved. Again no rational explaination. None….no really…..none.
You see this is the hard part because people start saying well…there must be something. Okay…but I really don’t know what the something is.
A spring-tension shower curtain rod w/ the curtain was moved to about 6″ off the floor. It started at 7′ or so. This was in an area that was secured by a card lock. Only 3 people had access. One was 2 states away on vacation. The other was so freaked out when I told her, I know she didn’t do it. And the other is me. Also the report didn’t show any card/lock activity. No weather/wind. No people.
The rod was red and there were red marks an inch or so above on the paint of the doorway as if it had been pushed down tight in it’s position.
There were several other events that happened.
What’s a logical girl suppose to do when faced with several illogical happenings?
Generally when I see a tv show or someone tells of their ghost encounter I think “nah”. But then I think…but it happened to me. Maybe I should also add that I was a funeral director/embalmer…..what most people would think was a high ghost experience profession and I would say those people are nuts.
But…..it happened to me??????????
So in conclusion I agree with every thing you said in your post but if it walks and quacks like a duck….it’s got to be a duck unless somebody comes up with something to disprove it.
Comment: Hound Doggy – 21. July 2009 @ 2:41 pm
@HoundDoggy: This post is only about the video at Neverland, which has such an easy and clear naturalistic explanation, not about ghost claims in general. Your situation sounds more interesting, and may or may not have a naturalistic explanation. I tend to think it would in the end, solely on the basis of a million similar claims that fell apart on closer examination. But it would be foolish of me or anyone to say it’s impossible, even if we think it vanishingly unlikely.
HOWEVER…I really must protest your final sentence: “If it walks and quacks like a duck….it’s got to be a duck unless somebody comes up with something to disprove it.” Not true, not true. This is sometimes called the “burden of proof” fallacy, famously illustrated by “Russell’s teapot.” In short, the person making a positive claim has the burden of proof, not those doubting the claim.
Comment: Dale – 21. July 2009 @ 3:09 pm
My son, who is 10, mostly rolls toward skepticism, with occasional displays of credulity. He related a lunch time conversation that he had with his buddies that made me do a silent fist pump: he told his Christian friends that he thinks the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, and asked them if God made everything, who made God? Then, to swing the pendulum to the other end of the arc: at the end of the school year he went to a sleepover/campout party and apparently the talk turned to ghosts and spirits as it often does in such situtations. He told me he felt ashamed (I think he meant embarassed) that he was the only one there who didn’t believe in spirits. (Great conversation starter about gathering your own evidence and thinking for yourself.) This was followed by his getting interested in the Cartoon Network show called The Othersiders in which kids supposedly investigate paranormal experiences (hmm . . . ). He fell for it hook, line, and sinker at first. Again, great conversations ensued and now he is more likely to scoff than to be awed by that show. We went back to watching Mythbusters. So, it’s a process. I am looking forward to showing him the Michael Jackson video!
Comment: codysmom – 23. July 2009 @ 6:52 am
Your kids might like the show Mystery Hunters. I blogged about it here: http://doubtingeventhomas.blogspot.com/2009/06/mystery-hunters.html
When my son saw the ads for the cartoon network show he gave a good eye roll, thanks to the skepticism taught by Mystery Hunters.
Comment: doubtingfoo – 24. July 2009 @ 7:55 am
Thanks, we’ll check it out!
Comment: codysmom – 25. July 2009 @ 6:46 am
[...] Have you so-called “skeptics” ever considered the possibility that ghosts ALSO cast shadows??? The Meming of Life » Which way do your kids roll? Parenting Beyond Belief on secular parenting and … « Such people are not to be trusted, and if research of this callibre is what [...]
Pingback: BlogBites. Like sound bites. But without the sound. » Blog Archive » Fine, so it’s a shadow. So what? Have you so-called “skeptics” ever considered the possibility that ghosts ALSO cast shadows??? – 27. July 2009 @ 12:53 pm
HOWEVER…I really must protest your final sentence: “If it walks and quacks like a duck….it’s got to be a duck unless somebody comes up with something to disprove it.” Not true, not true. This is sometimes called the “burden of proof” fallacy, famously illustrated by “Russell’s teapot.” In short, the person making a positive claim has the burden of proof, not those doubting the claim.
Yes…of course. What I meant was that it seems to meet all of the “ghost-like” criteria. And because I can’t come up with a logical explaination…it will be my “ghost”. Even though I don’t quite believe it myself.
Comment: Hound Doggy – 28. July 2009 @ 11:49 am
I asked my 10 year old daughter if she wanted to see Michael Jackson’s ghost. She watched the video and said that it really looked like a shadow.
Maybe I can later us it to lead into a discussion of what it would take to persuade someone who believed in ghosts that this was probably a shadow, but at the moment she is not in the mood for one of those discussions.
Comment: Jeffrey Goldberg – 04. August 2009 @ 4:26 pm
I have a 10 year old also, and I can say from experience that: 1) my questions to him lead to more interesting discussions than any pronouncements of facts do; and 2) the fewer words that I use in answering his questions or rebutting his errors, the more receptive he is. Ah, preadolescence . . .
Comment: codysmom – 06. August 2009 @ 7:23 am