Like any spectrum, this one has polar opposites; diametrically opposed camps whose members’ approach to the subject are so different that they are almost certainly not going to find middle ground.
Believers
Characterized by willingness and sometimes even a need to see the paranormal or supernatural, Believers tend to take the position that "there are more things in heaven and earth" than pure science can account for. Believers might proceed from the point of view that most reported phenomena have a paranormal cause and that the purpose of investigation is to uncover that paranormal cause.
Skeptics
The center point of the spectrum is inhabited by a group of people who neither believe nor disbelieve, but rather who require proof (or at the very least decent evidence) before they will commit themselves to one point of view. They are hampered by the co-option of the word “skeptic” by others with a far more definite point of view, and by the tendency of Believers to use the word as an insult. A true skeptic is a phenomena agnostic, having made no decisions prior to examining evidence.
Cynics
This might seem the default position for those who want to employ the standards of science to the investigation of the paranormal, but it also encompasses those who exist specifically to find fault with the work of others. Of course, it should be remembered that the word comes from a philosophical sect who attempted to cultivate virtue in themselves and became all too aware of the faults of others, and pointed them out.
The Challenge
While it would be easy for any reader to place themselves in one of these camps, or somewhere between them, it's easy to forget that all three have an important function to perform. It might be that the Skeptical point of view is one that the “perfect” investigator would adopt, given that the essentially neutral stance of the skeptic allows them to look for both normal and paranormal roots to a given set of circumstances; however, without Cynics there would be no one to test the validity of methods or hypotheses. Without people who, frankly, do not want to believe, how does the field keep itself honest?
Without those who are willing to believe wild stories or apparently outlandish tales, there is no field of study in the first place. The reason to treasure colleagues who accept without much apparent critical thought is simple: they encourage people to talk about their experiences and, through the increased reporting of phenomena, give the rest of the community something to investigate.
 |
