The short answer, is that people want to believe. According to Brian Cronk, a professor of psychology at Missouri Western State University, "The human brain is always trying to determine why things happen, and when the reason is not clear, we tend to make up some pretty bizarre explanations." 

Why is this the case? "It is an artifact of our brain's desire to find cause and effect. That ability to predict the future is what makes humans 'smart', but it also has side effects like superstitions [and] belief in the paranormal." 

According to the Livescience, today, media coverage of the paranormal on the Internet, television, and radio, help to perpetuate myths and folklore. Fiction and belief often masquerade as fact and news.  And according to a 2005 Gallup poll, three-quarters of those surveyed believe in at least one paranormal phenomenon, including 41 per cent who are convinced of ESP, 32 per cent of ghosts, 31 per cent of mind reading, 26 per cent of clairvoyance and 25 per cent of astrology.

Spend some time online and you can find many other highly questionable beliefs like the idea that space aliens landed at Roswell, New Mexico, that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, that the Holocaust never occurred, and that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government to incite America into war.  The list is very long.

Why do so many people believe such weird things?

Michal Shermer, founder of Skeptic Magazine, tells us that, "All humans seek patterns. That's our nature. We are also storytellers because it helps us find meaning in a chaotic world. In order to survive, we have evolved to find cause-and-effect relationships in nature, and then weave a plausible story to explain them. Our ancestors who identified the pattern linking the seasons to animal migrations ate better and left behind more offspring. But because believing that the rain gods can be appeased through rituals isn't fatal, we also have inherited magical thinking. Add to this the fact that many of these beliefs make us feel better, meet some emotional need, promise miracle cures or instant wealth, and in general appeal to our emotional brains and bypass our rational brains.” 

When someone is firmly set in their belief, then, even when presented with scientific evidence, it is very difficult to get them to let go of their beliefs. To true-believers, shady and unsupported explanations which sometimes suggest somewhat causal connections between events are more appealing than well-supported, scientific explanations which do not provide comfort to the individual.

Scientists and critical thinkers are then left with an impossible task: proving something does not exist. You can prove an object like rock is there. You can't prove that the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, or a ghost is not there. 

So then, what are we, as pattern-seeking, cognitively biased humans, supposed to do? How do we filter out fact from fiction? Shermer gives his own version of a Baloney Detection Kit.  Use the list below to help yourself figure out if there is merit behind a claim, belief, or seemingly weird idea:

What this blog's about...

At around 6 years old, I was introduced to my first book about dinosaurs.  I decided shortly thereafter that I would move to Alberta to work the Badlands as a paleontologist.  I of course didn’t, and instead stayed in my home town of Montreal and collected dozens of books about dinosaurs, and could rhyme off many of them, including whether or not they lived during the Triassic, Jurassic, or Cretaceous periods.  I couldn’t get enough of them.  I loved the idea that these creatures roamed the Earth millions of years ago.  Paleontology forced me to learn a bit about geology, which then led me to learn about weathering and erosion, climate, eco systems, biodiversity, extinction, evolution… and more. 

Astronomy, for me, tied the world of physics and chemistry.  After the project’s completion, I got my first telescope - a 4.5 inch Newtonian Reflector.  I hastily set it up and pointed it at the moon.  I could not believe what I saw.  Craters, shadows, ridges, valleys – the whole moon was magnified so much that it couldn’t even fit in my field of view.  I remember calling my father over and showing him – he thought I had placed a card in front of the telescope.   It was literally that unbelievable.

Astronomy also introduced me to Carl Sagan, one of the “fathers” of skepticism.  I watched Cosmos on TV and VHS, and read the book twice.  He spoke with such passion and clarity, and in a way that non-scientists could understand.  He helped bring science to the mainstream.  When he died in 1996, I was extremely sad, and deeply touched.  I had only known of his work for a short time, but was deeply affected by his passing because I felt it was a huge loss for both the scientific community and the general public.

“A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.”

When I tell people that I’m a Skeptic, I’m usually met with a frown, eyes rolling, or a muttered comment.

Why is this?

Well, there’s a few common misconceptions surrounding Skeptics and the Skeptical community. Some will generalize and assume that Skeptics are close minded, negative, don’t believe in anything, oppose opinions, and are just plan “not fun”. This is the furthest from the truth.

Let’s take a look at what Skepticism is and isn’t. John Jackson, author over at UK-Skeptics, lays it out on the table clearly and concisely.

Here’s what he has to say:
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
“Skepticism is an honest search for knowledge. It is an approach to claims akin to the scientific method. It is a powerful and positive methodology (a collection of methods of inquiry) that is used to evaluate claims and make decisions. It is used to search for the (provisional) truth in matters and to make decisions that are based on sound reasoning, logic, and evidence. Skepticism is based on a simple method: doubt and inquiry. The idea is to neither initially accept claims nor dismiss them; it’s about questioning them and testing them for validity. Only after inquiry does a skeptic take a stance on an issue.

There is more than one way to look at claims of all kinds:

Acceptance

For many reasons, people will accept claims at face value. The claims may agree with their other beliefs and so are deemed acceptable, they may have heard a claim repeated so often that they assume it must be true (e.g. we only use 10% of our brains*) or it may be something they would like to be true; that fits in with their world-view or that of their social group.This approach has the major disadvantage that claims and beliefs are not scrutinised and could well be false.



Denial

This approach is where a claim is dismissed without proper consideration because it does not fit in with a person's current understanding, belief system or world-view. No thought or scrutiny needs to be used; if the claim is not deemed acceptable for any reason, it is denied. The disadvantage to this approach is that if a claim were to be true, it would not be recognised as such.Doubt and inquiry.This method is the essence of skepticism. Claims, whether they look reasonable or extremely unlikely to be true, will be doubted; however, they will not be denied. A skeptic will then inquire to reach a justified conclusion (where possible).

The method involves:

1. Doubt
Doubt is not the same as denial. Skeptics use doubt constructively; it is a provisional stance, the suspension of judgement: a position held until a claim can be assessed. The purpose of constructive doubt is to avoid hasty conclusions such as accepting or rejecting claims without justification.

2. Inquiry
To inquire means to search for knowledge. This is the very heart of skepticism. If a claim is to be examined, evidence in support of the claim needs to be considered, but crucially, so do counter-claims and alternative explanations. Successful inquiry is the result of examining all of the evidence related to a claim and reaching a conclusion that is justifiable.

After inquiry, a skeptic will form a conclusion on an issue (should sufficient robust evidence have been available to justify one); however, this conclusion is a provisional one that may change if better or newer information comes to light. This aspect of holding a provisional position on matters gives skepticism the beneficial attribute of being self-correcting. There is no dogma with skepticism: no matter how sound a conclusion appears there is always room for it to be shown to be wrong by new evidence. The advantage of this method is that claims are scrutinised. False and misleading claims stand a much better chance of being discovered as such; and any claim, whether ordinary, paranormal, or scientific, that seems unlikely but is nonetheless true, will have a good chance of being shown to be true.

The burden of proof...

The burden of proof is the concept that it is up to those making a claim to prove it, or provide good supporting evidence for it, rather than for others to disprove it. This is the same concept as how a court of law operates. It is up to the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty; it's not up to the defence to prove innocence.This is the approach to claims that skeptics take. A claim presented will be doubted (presumed unproved) until the evidence in support of it can be examined. If the evidence supports the claim, either completely or beyond reasonable doubt, the claim will be accepted; otherwise it will be rejected unless or until further evidence is presented.What is evidence?When talking about evidence, skeptics are referring to tangible or empirical evidence. That is, evidence that can be inspected or examined by third parties. It is the quality, or robustness, of supporting evidence that determines whether a claim is accepted or rejected. It is because of the importance of the high quality of evidence required to support claims that one of the most popular forms of general evidence, personal testimony (or anecdote), is not accepted as being satisfactory to support a claim. Psychologists have identified many cognitive errors (of reasoning, perception, memory, etc.) that we all possess which means that we can form many incorrect conclusions about things no matter how sincerely we may believe them.

Common Misconceptions:

"Skepticism is a belief system."
It’s not; it's a methodology. In fact it is quite the opposite of a belief system. Of course skeptics, people who use the skeptical method, often have opinions that are at odds with many people's beliefs; however, that does not make skepticism merely an alternative belief system.


"Skepticism is the position of non-belief."
It is very common for people to refer to themselves or others as 'skeptics' when they don't accept or believe something. This is not the correct usage of the word regarding scientific skepticism however. As explained above, skepticism is a methodology and as such, claims that are supported will be accepted by skeptics.

"Skeptics are closed-minded."
This criticism is normally made by those who believe in things that have been disproved or are unproven. Concluding that a claim is false when it fails to stand up to scrutiny is not being closed-minded - quite the opposite, in fact; and assuming or holding the provisional position that a claim is false until proven otherwise is also the correct approach to take (see Burden of Proof above). Forming conclusions based upon the best available evidence does not make one closed-minded simply because this logically-sound position disagrees with someone's belief or desire that their belief were real.

"Skeptics do not believe in anything."
This misconception probably comes from philosophical skepticism; a branch of philosophy that questions whether absolute knowledge and certainty are possible. Modern skepticism is rational or scientific skepticism; the method of doubt and inquiry explained above.Many people also make a fallacy of equivocation and confuse the word sceptical (to be doubtful) with skepticism (the methodology) and assume that skeptics are simply doubters or disbelievers.

"Skepticism is about opposing claims."
Skepticism is about examining claims, not opposing them. As explained, skeptics will doubt claims until they can be scrutinised; this, however, is the correct way to deal with new claims. There's no logical reason to accept or reject a claim before it has been examined - hence the suspension of judgement.Of course skeptics do oppose many claims, such as many involving the paranormal and pseudoscience; this is not simply an automatic opposition to such claims however, it's because such claims have been examined and the supporting evidence does not stand up to scrutiny.

"Skeptics are debunkers."
Bunk is another word for nonsense and means the opposite of something that is true or factual. To debunk something means to remove the nonsense from it and reveal what is true. Skepticism is not about debunking per se, but debunking is a consequence of critical inquiry. In fact, contrary to popular understanding, the best way of showing that something is true is that it can resist attempts to prove it false: attempting to prove something false is a robust way of testing its validity.The misconception here is not that skeptics sometimes end up debunking claims; but that the word 'debunker' is often used as a pejorative term. Debunking nonsense ideas, scams, hoaxes and misleading claims is of positive, not negative, value.It should be made clear, however, that skeptics do not set out with the purpose of debunking claims (i.e. holding a preconceived and unjustified position of a claim's falsity). Some claims will simply end up being debunked as a consequence of skeptical inquiry. That's an important distinction to understand.


Summary

Skepticism is a methodology, not a position on matters. It is a way of examining claims and making decisions. The idea is to apply the rules of logic and reason with critical thinking skills in assessing claims or issues and to form conclusions based on evidence, not on personal preference or prejudice.These methods make it more likely that those who use skepticism will reach correct conclusions on issues; which, of course, can be of great benefit in all walks of life: personal, business, health matters, recognising scams and misleading claims, finance, etc.”

This article can be found, in full, here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/content.php/9-What-is-Skepticism
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

And there you have it – I couldn’t word this better myself, so I didn’t.

The key point from the above article is that Skepticism should not be viewed as a belief system, but rather, a methodology and a means to find truth based on legitimate evidence.

So the next time you’re criticized for being a Skeptic, point them to this article.

* Author’s Note: The “we only use 10% of the brain” myth has been thoroughly debunked. For the evidence, see http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp and http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html