"Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures," by Karla McLaren

john kavanagh

this is copy and pasted from here . i thought it would be worthwhile doing as if you take the time to read it, it really does make a lot of sense and explain most of the arguments you see here.

Randi writes...."In a forthcoming issue of Skeptical Inquirer (www.csicop.org/si/) you'll have the pleasure of reading an account titled "Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures," by Karla McLaren of California. It will relate her ongoing conversion from full, unquestioning, New Age aficionado to evolving rationalist, an interesting process to follow. SI editor Ken Frasier has graciously allowed me to tease you with this excerpt:

To be fair, a skeptical movement did arise during my early teens, but it unfortunately created a deep cultural rift that continues to this day. In the seventies, Uri Geller (the spoon bending man) became popular. My first real contact with someone in the skeptical culture was watching James Randi on television, just tearing Geller to bits. I didn't understand what was happening. Uri Geller appeared on the Mike Douglas show and on the Merv Griffin show, and you could clearly see him perform his paranormal feats right there on television. Surely Mike and Merv wouldn't be involved in lying to the public? I really didn't understand what Mr. Randi's problem was with Geller, and my friends and I thought Randi was very vitriolic. I didn't learn about critical thinking from Randi — what I learned was that some people just had it in for healers and people with paranormal gifts. I know he would not like to hear this, but it's still true: James Randi's behavior and demeanor were so culturally insensitive that he actually created a gigantic backlash against skepticism, and a gigantic surge toward the new age that still rages unabated.

I certainly understand and support James Randi's anger, frustration, and even vitriol now — especially after having lived through the new age for so many decades — but all I could see then was a very sarcastic man who seemed to take Geller personally. Now, after having been a regular visitor to Mr. Randi's web site, I can see him as a deeply caring man who works tirelessly for an important cause. I also see that he is very concerned about some of the unbalanced new agers who write to him in barely legible missives. I empathize with Mr. Randi, because people like that write to me, too (though I take on the role of hero in their fevered fantasy lives, while Randi is treated as a villain). Now that I can see him as an individual and understand his culture, I can see James Randi as the excellent man he is — but it took me a while. Had Mr. Randi understood the new age culture back when Uri Geller was becoming popular, he could have easily spoken in a way that might have been heard — or at least in a way that wouldn't have caused such a violent backlash. Or perhaps I'm being too idealistic. . . .

I've been studying the conflict between the skeptical community and the metaphysical/new age community for a few decades now, and I think I've finally discovered the central issue that makes communication so difficult. It is not merely, as many surmise, a conflict between fact-based viewpoints and faith-based viewpoints. Nor is it simply a conflict between rationale and credulity. No, it's a full-on clash of cultures that makes real communication improbable at best.

I know this firsthand, because as a former member of the new age culture, I struggled for years to decipher the language, the rules, the attitudes, and the expectations of the skeptical culture. Yet for a great while, all I could hear from the skeptical culture was noise — and confusing noise at that.

Randi writes...."I hear you, Karla, and accept your very pertinent comments. Maybe it's in my DNA, or just a bit of an evolutionary disparity, but I'm often driven — by my extensive and constant exposure to nonsense — to express myself with less-than-appropriate gentility. I'm aware of that failing, but I despair of any immediate reform of my behavior. Warts and all, it's me. Despite my manners, I seem to get some things done, and I'll have to take comfort in that. Thanks for your observations.

Folks, Karla's piece in SI will be well worth watching for. She writes well and strongly, and I am listening to her. I suspect we would have many arguments on terminology and semantics, and I cannot guarantee that I'd agree with much of what she's already published, but basically she appears to be a good person — and that's a good 80% of the requirement, right there. Now, if only she were a rich widow with an attraction to bearded old codgers..."

dlofnep

I'm assuming we are to consider our roles as skeptics towards traditional training and visa versa..

TwoKingMick

No john, we never assume!

Clive

I´ batter the ****en out of that - gay etc...

dlofnep

TwoKingMick wrote:

No john, we never assume!

But.. But...

Clive wrote:

I´ batter the ****en out of that - gay etc...

Clive, have we been drinking and posting on the internet again?

Clive

LMAO - Clive in not remembering anything shocker...

tonyrogdor

I´ batter the ****en out of that - gay etc...

I do not also understand Clive

Thank yous

Tony

dlofnep

Tony, I like your gimmick. Tell me more..

tonyrogdor

Gimmick?

I do not understand what the Clive has said.

I think he has too much beer or vodka drunk. What was he saying?

Tony

dlofnep

Clive doesn't know who he is saying. He tried a flying triangle last night on a bouncer when he was drunk, hit his head, stumbled home and started posting on the internet. He's a true warrior! Take note of his brilliance.