Yesterday, I posted an article about what skeptics of the Enfield Poltergeist actually experienced when they visited the house where the poltergeist was centered. Part of that post addressed the experiences of Milbourne Christopher, a famous magician who visited the house. Prior to visiting, he had researched paranormal cases for decades and had been a skeptic of the paranormal, and he was a skeptic of Enfield. The evidence suggests that he experienced paranormal events at the house, some occurring right in front of him, his arguments against the case are bad, and he never even attempted to explain (publicly, at least) the best evidence for the case. Yet, skeptics have been citing Christopher's comments on Enfield for decades.
We've discussed other examples of magicians who have behaved similarly. See here, here, and here regarding James Randi. And here on Joe Nickell. Go here for something on Richard Wiseman. And see the section of the post here on the Gold Leaf Lady and a magician who appeared on a television show about that case.
There's some value to the debunking work magicians have done on paranormal issues. But we need to keep in mind that magicians have biases and other weaknesses of their own. It makes sense to apply scrutiny to paranormal claims. Magicians can be, and often are, helpful in that process. But scrutiny needs to be applied to them and their work as well.
Not to mention, even if a paranormal event can be "replicated" by a magician doesn't mean the original event itself wasn't paranormal. Like if a book levitated off a bookshelf and floated to the other side of the room because of a spiritual force, if a magician could set up a scenario using a guide wire and his knowledge of physics and optics to mimic the same event that would have nothing to say about the reality of the first occurrence. Even the magicians of Egypt were able to mimic some of the plagues, albeit not to the same extent nor efficacy.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I agree there is value in someone trained in the arts of deception and illusion to be able to say, "This is how I could fake that" but the fact that someone could set up the scenario in a specific way doesn't mean that the first person did, nor that the first person would even be able to do so. In fact, the expertise of the skeptic at this point might make it impossible for them to truly vet what happened.
In a sense, that's illustrated in Penn & Teller's show "Fool Us" where they have to guess how you did a trick. Some of the most successful winners are those who do a normal, basic trick in a different way than Penn and Teller are used to seeing it done, meaning they can only guess how it was done because they expected it to be something different than it was.
Yes, that's a good point. Demonstrating that a magician can replicate a phenomenon would just be one step in the process of arguing that the phenomenon was more likely normal than paranormal. More would be needed.
Delete