Regan from The Orange Orb Blog has posted some of her recent writings on skepticism.

I completely understand what she's trying to say, and the bullying tactics used by many to discredit whatever topic they dislike is difficult to deal with. In my opinion, she's right on with what she's saying.

Being a critical thinker, however, I think it paramount. You can't just go around believing everything that you read on the internet, or you'll certainly be misinformed. In that context, being a skeptic is actually a good thing, but one that many, if not most, people end up taking too far. So, perhaps, defining "skeptic" a little better is what's needed.

Mac Tonnies once wrote a little article titled "Skeptics, Debunkers and Believers" in which, I think, he defined skeptics quite well:

Skeptics are thinkers. Skeptics evaluate evidence, realizing that there is no absolute plane of reference on which to cling. Skeptics neither debunk nor believe--unless they are able to establish that a given phenomenon deserves to be debunked. “Belief” is not a luxury the true skeptic can afford; the mechanics of skeptical thought are rooted in probability and open-mindedness. Being a skeptic requires courage and intellectual flexibility. What looks like a neat idea may turn out to be unsubstantiated nonsense; conversely, it might be the real thing.

He continued with "debunkers" which is where I believe the skepticism goes too far, and is actually the class of people that I believe Regan was writing about:

Debunkers comprise the most virulent of contemporary self-described “skeptics.” There is nothing inherently unsound about debunking, contrary to the many appeals on behalf of the “pro” side of any given paranormal controversy. But in order to debunk, the subject being debunked must be bunk. Valid, substantiated evidence cannot be debunked until new evidence supplants or alters it.

The term “debunker” is often taken as a negative word, perhaps best personified by orangutan scientist-theologian Dr. Zaius in “Planet of the Apes.” But there’s nothing wrong with being a debunker as long as the debunker can back up his or her claims. Of course, this doesn’t mean that some commentators won’t abuse the urge to debunk--usually in the name of “skepticism.” For example, astronomer Donald Menzel “debunked” countless UFO sightings based on his scientifically baseless a priori conviction that there were no UFOs. Veteran ufologist Philip Klass continues in Menzel’s role, correctly debunking many spurious UFO reports but erroneously “debunking” others. This is inevitable, as Klass’ self-stated maxim is that all UFO reports can be attributed to prosaic causes. His personal bias manifests again and again in his proclamations, and one wonders what genuine contributions he could provide if he parted ways with the sloppy (if intellectually fashionable) debunking community to pursue uncorrupted skepticism.

So, if we take Mac's definitions to heart I think most people would end up classifying themselves as skeptics in the end. However, there are people out there, such as Randi whom Regan mentioned, or Philip Klass, mentioned by both Regan and Mac, who take that skepticism to a level which simply defeats their supposed purpose. Rather than being the "voice of reason" and espousing the truth, they end up shooting down everything which they'd rather not take the time to think about. It's entirely likely that many times this ends up putting these debunkers on the wrong side of the truth which they are claiming to stand for.

All of which leads up to a little article I saw on Fate Magazine's website from Robert Goerman titled "Never Has it Been Harder to do Good Research" which points out the lack of progression in the ability to do paranormal research. As he says, the same problems exist now that existed 15 years ago. For whatever reason, and there's probably many, the study of "fringe" topics occasionally gains scientific ground, generally only to be pushed back by the antics of a few.

It's unfortunate that there's very little "mainstream" research into cryptozoology, UFOs or the paranormal. Much of that is due to the bullying tactics of a few debunkers. Much of that is due to the way the paranormal community continues to bicker and in-fight instead of pushing forward. Much of that is due to a few true believers(defined by Mac as having "no pressing need for facts; a few vague correlations or anonymous “insider” remarks will suffice") who will shout about any story, believable or not, until they get attention.

In the end, I say be skeptical, be critical, but when there's evidence of the strange and/or unknown, don't throw it out just because it doesn't fit the current paradigm. The "truths" of today won't necessarily be the truths of tomorrow. There's nothing wrong with thinking for yourself.