#stevevolk

I have sat and thought, since uploading my introduction post, about where I would even start. There's so much to touch on that I almost didn't want to approach it at all, but it only makes sense to start with a more general post. I want to start with the topic of “the paranormal” and the acceptance of such phenomena (in the sphere of this book, at least, considering the vastness of the topic). “Fringeology” was written and published in 2011 by Steve Volk, a writer with enough humility to subtitle his book, “How I tried to explain away the unexplainable and couldn’t.” He makes a good argument for the reasons why people can’t accept an opposing view to their own, and to put it plainly: why it’s really not so crazy to accept that paranormal phenomena exists, scientifically or otherwise (along with tons of other concepts to expand on separately). To begin, he offers a few quick examples of the connections between the paranormal, science and history- alchemy has led to modern chemistry, as Francis Aston used predictions from occultists to discover the isotope. Hans Berger invented the EEG originally wanting a mechanism for measuring psychic events. Plato told the story of Er, a soldier who died in battle, experienced the afterlife, and was revived days later, and President Lincoln dreamt/predicted his own death. Although these are just a few examples, they serve the argument that paranormal phenomena is present in situations, lives and even myths seemingly important enough for us to want to expand on. “…Taking the paranormal seriously means we gain a greater understanding of the world regardless of the outcome.”[1] An example of this would be the NDE: the Near Death Experience. It is a phenomenon that has been heavily associated with the paranormal, but is now a topic studied in our modern medical and psychological science. On the other end of the spectrum are committees and individuals dedicated solely to disproving paranormal and psychic phenomena. Volk mentions this one above all: CSICOP (The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), founded by humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz in 1976, a committee Volk pegs as the foundation for the modern skeptical movement. However, they voted to discontinue further scientific investigations after the Mars Effect study (conducted by Michel and Francoise Gauquelin, proving that extremely talented athletes and sports champions were found to have Mars “around the Ascendant and Midheaven in their birth chart more frequently than chance would allow.”[2]). In fact, according to Volk, CSICOP changed their name in 2006 to CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), so they no longer had to have the scientific method in question, which I find interesting and ironic for a committee with the mantra, “We can’t let the mystics rejoice.” Also mentioned is a good point made by Dr. David Jones, a man who believes that hard, rational thought traces the contours of the problem, not its answer. When you think about it, the main argument by skeptics (of anything, really) is the use of “logic.” As explained by Jones, “Logic is based on society’s current storehouse of accepted knowledge,”[1] which changes constantly. even though it’s an argument used all the time, the most obvious example of this is that “logically,” at one point, the whole world also agreed that the earth was flat. Specifics aside, I like the simple summary it ultimately comes to with Volk, which is basically that if “paranormal” refers to what is unexplained, then reality itself is paranormal. “The mystery of the world exists apart from our judgment of it.”[1] If you want to hang on to the concept of “logic,” even Volk elaborates on the fact that our version of logic does not equate to what is true, by explaining that our brain isn’t built to give us a true and accurate perception of reality. There is too much stimuli to assess, so the brain creates a model of the world that allows us to survive, comfortably so. It brings the “important” things to the forefront and suppresses anything else (like the paranormal, perhaps?), even though the image that this creates is wrong.

In fact, skeptics are so dedicated to disproving, that a popular tool used are psychological evaluations (the go-to explanation: if you believe, something is “wrong with you”). From what I’ve seen, they popularly come in the format of a questionnaire, one of the most famous being the Fantasy Prone Personality (FPP) test, proposed by Sheryl Wilson and Theodore Barber in 1981, “the debunker’s dream.” Fantasy Prone people are more likely to believe in something mainstream science rejects, and answering yes to 6 or more questions automatically makes you Fantasy Prone. With this logic, having one paranormal experience in your whole life can result in a 6+ “yes” response. Despite that being a main problem, Volk also mentions that your belief in your experiences aren’t always concrete- sometimes we have more vivid belief in certain things depending on what is happening in our lives at the very moment. Another famous psych-based test would be the Magical Ideation Scale, meant for “irrational thinking.” Apparently, people with confirming answers to a certain amount of the provided statements are more likely to develop a schizophrenia spectrum disorder, and people that are considered to have an “FPP” are more likely to have experienced childhood trauma. Although this is not unlikely, skeptics use these tools to prove that anyone with a sort of paranormal belief have them simply due to mental illness and trauma. From what I remember, Volk does not mention the condescending nature of these tests, but it’s something I noticed almost immediately. Imagine having to take one of these questionnaires given to you by your psychologist because you’ve discussed experiencing something paranormal, and the first thing you hear is that the test is to measure irrationality. This is just one of the many, many examples of reasons why experiencers have not and will not come forward. There is a sort of obsession with needing to be what we consider “logical” and “rational,” however, “Prosaic explanations aren’t always available - that is, unless we allow our commitment to the rational to make us downright irrational.”[1]

In an interview with Steve Volk given by Greg Newkirk (paranormal investigator and co-creator of the docu-series “Hellier”) on a temporarily posted live stream, Greg proposes that there should be a sort of Magical Ideation Scale for nonbelievers. Volk replies with nothing other than, “Absolutely.”[3] As i look back in my notes regarding his book, I realized that this idea was actually mentioned- Volk asks the question of why there aren’t comparative studies on “sane belief” and why people hold those opinions, and includes the viewpoint of skeptic Chris French, who believes there probably is a scale for nonbelievers, but being at the hard end of the skeptic spectrum is due to just being born not open to believing. According to Volk, French is a committed skeptic but believes we should continue to learn and revise our beliefs as we do so. Another interesting comment Newkirk has made in the past regarding the book was about the aforementioned perception of logic. Volk credits Edward de Bono as an “expert of creative thought” who argues that the West’s tradition of settling disagreements by argument is “over-reliance on logic”[1], while logic is more of a partner to free, associative thinking. Simplified by Newkirk, “The ‘wacky stuff’ is just a way of looking at the world differently,”[4] and in Volk’s eyes, “…What is today seen as wacky often leads to tomorrow’s progress.”[1] Volk isn’t afraid of being ignored or discredited due to the “wacky stuff”- in the Newkirk/Volk interview, Greg asks how skeptics have responded to “Fringeology.” Steve replies quick-wittedly, “They didn’t read it and hate it.”[3]

I wanted to explore the viewpoint of Volk and some of his examples regarding the paranormal generally, as I find it may be easier to begin with a sort of overview when discussing certain works and writers in this community- Nearly all of them have specific differentiating details regarding their own theories. I think it’s important that writers such as Volk explore the world of skepticism, as it is an obscure way of thinking in itself.

“The truth is, we don’t have to treat the paranormal the way we do. We don’t need to bathe in it with the believers, or strenuously deny its existence, like the skeptics. And we don’t need to turn the whole thing into a fight.”[1]

[1] Steve Volk, “Fringeology”

[2] The Astrology Podcast Episode 173 Outline

[3] Greg Newkirk live stream interview with Steve Volk for Patreon members (no longer available), 7/19/20