 It's Sunday, May 23rd, and this is For Good Reason. Welcome to For Good Reason, I'm DJ Grothi. For Good Reason is the radio show and the podcast produced in association with the James Randy Educational Foundation, an international non-profit whose mission is to advance critical thinking about the paranormal, pseudoscience, and the supernatural. My guest this week is my old friend from the Center for Inquiry, Benjamin Radford. He's solved the mystery of the vampire beast El Chupacabra, only one of hundreds of unexplained phenomena he's investigated personally, including ghosts, bigfoot, crop circles, UFOs, lake monsters, all that stuff. He's been a science-based paranormal investigator for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry since 1997. That's formally Psycop. Radford is author or co-author of five books and hundreds of articles on science, paranormal investigating, on critical thinking. He's managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer Magazine and a columnist for both live science and discovery news. He's been featured on all the networks, what CNN, BBC, ABC News, History Channel, Discovery Channel, Learning Channel, National Geographic, all of them. And he's also been featured in the Associated Press and the New York Times. Benjamin Radford, welcome to For Good Reason. Hey, glad to be on, DJ. So I've interviewed you a number of times for my previous show, Point of Inquiry. It's good to be talking to you again on For Good Reason, and we're going to try to focus on mostly your new book, Scientific Paranormal Investigation. It's been getting good reviews. I've actually called it a must read for any skeptic. Tell me, Ben, have you gotten any negative reaction I mean from paranormalists or even from skeptics who might not adopt your approach? I haven't yet, in fact. I mean, it's also true that the book is only in its first stages of being out. In fact, it's not even on Amazon.com yet. So it'll probably be a month or maybe a little bit more before it's really publicly available, although of course it will be available at TAM and also on my website. Now, you mentioned TAM for our listeners. That's The Amazing Meeting. It's coming up in a little while in Las Vegas, Nevada. And you will be speaking at The Amazing Meeting this year. Indeed, I'm on a panel or two and I'm talking about some investigations and stuff. But no, I mean, I've actually been pleasantly surprised at the reaction I've got. Not that I was expecting bad reaction, but even among many people sort of more pro-paranormal type folks, I've actually gotten very good response of people saying, hey, you know what, even though I don't necessarily consider myself to be a real hardcore skeptic, what you're saying makes perfect sense and more people need to hear it. Well, that's great. But to be fair, your approach is very different from some other paranormal investigators. That's why you use the designator scientific, right? So you're very different than, say, the ghost hunters on TV, right? Absolutely. In fact, I spend the better part of an entire chapter basically deconstructing many of the techniques that you see on TV, particularly the ghost hunters as well, just sort of explaining why what they're doing really bears no resemblance to any scientific methodologies or, you know, critical thinking skills. So for you, it's kind of an insult to call a fellow investigator unscientific. So you're scientific, they're not scientific. That means they're not as good at it as you. It's not so much that they're not as good as I am. The problem is that you're just not using good science. I mean, I wish that the ghost hunters and other, you know, parents, so-called paranormal investigators on TV and elsewhere were doing good science. And if they were, then I'd be happy to support them and applaud them. So to my mind, it's not so much that we're on opposite sides. It's just that they're not using good science and that's fine. I mean, if they want to sort of spin their wheels, they're certainly welcome to. But what distinguishes me and my approach and those of other people, including Joe, Nicole and others, is approaching from a very scientific, skeptical point of view and just sort of saying, look, you know, we need to examine claims individually and apply methodologies and logic to them. And you, I take it you find some of these TV paranormal investigators to be kind of mystery mongers. You know, I like the phrase TV paranormal investigators. It reminds me of an insult that in the magic world, you'd you'd give some people. Oh, he's a TV magician, you know, as opposed to a magician. He's a TV magician. Well, these TV paranormal investigators, they're would you guess that they're interested in ratings? And so they kind of hype up the mystery of some of these cases. Oh, absolutely. I mean, that's that's one thing you you really notice, you know, having been on a couple of the TV shows on occasion, as a sort of a skeptical point of view and perspective. Often you find that that's exactly what they're doing is they're this mystery mongering and and a lot of it is, you know, it's it's TV producers. That's why, for example, on a lot of these ghost shows, the ghost hunters walk around, you know, in pitch black darkness going, Oh my God, what was that? What was that? What was that? Well, you know, it's totally illogical and scientific. If you're trying to look for something, you want the lights on, not off. The only real reason that you would have the lights off is because some TV producer thinks that it's more dramatic and more interesting to use the night vision. They actually make an argument, though, that having the lights on, if there are ghosts, they're less likely to come out unless it's dark. That's like the old dark room seance justification of the late 19th century. Right. Well, that's an interesting idea. Unfortunately, it's not based on any any fact. In fact, oftentimes what you find is that what people report as ghosts are actually shadowy figures. That is dark figures, not not ones that are glowing or emitting light. And so if you're looking for a shadowy or dark figure, do you want to look at it in a dark room or do you want to look at it? You know, are you are you more likely to find a shadowy figure in bright light? So that's funny. Ben, before we dig into your approach more, let's step back a bit and answer for me why you're into this field in the first place. I mean, some folks consider questions like whether or not you believe in, say, the Loch Ness Monster or UFOs or something. They think that's kind of trivial. When you have stuff like global warming or world hunger going on, why are you busying yourself with, you know, things that go bump in the night? Well, that's an excellent question and that are a couple of different answers. One of them is that whether you believe them, believe in these these things or I believe in them, many people do. And yeah, and what people believe affects how they vote, how they think and what they do. And so so again, just because some people think that, oh, well, this is too silly or ridiculous to spend time with. And no, no, it's not because many of the same, you know, critical thinking lapses occur, for example, in alternative medicine, where, you know, if a person isn't thinking critically about claims, it could literally kill them. Wow. So, you know, there's I mean, there's a variety of other answers as well. But that's certainly part of it, is that, you know, all people believe matters. You're saying that these paranormal beliefs actually have a real world impact. They touch on really the biggest questions people can ask. Absolutely they do. And, you know, you can certain, you know, I've heard skeptics say, oh, well, you know, we should just ignore it. But ignoring it isn't going to make it go away. But do you want it to go away? Is that your agenda? Well, I would, you know, you're never going to get rid of belief in ghosts. I mean, all cultures have a belief in ghosts and, you know, have for millennia. So these things aren't going away. But what you can do is try and show people that these sorts of claims and phenomena can be and have been scientifically examined and oftentimes in the process debunked and known not to be what people think they are. I'd like to let our listeners know that you can get a copy of scientific paranormal investigation, how to solve unexplained mysteries through our website forgoodreason.org. So, Ben, let's get into your approach a little more depth. To start off, do you begin your investigations? You just use the word debunk. Do you begin knowing that this stuff is bunk or are you truly open minded that the house might be haunted or that the crop circle might have just actually been created by aliens visiting planet Earth or whatever the claim is? Are you an open minded skeptic? I am indeed. I don't I don't go into an investigation with a preconceived notion about what I'm going to find. Certainly, my past experience and knowledge in the field and I've been doing this for 10, 12 years now, certainly, that informs my investigations and it tells me what to look for. But each case is different. And just because the last five or six or dozen haunted houses you've been in haven't actually turned up to be haunted does not necessarily mean the next one won't be. Just because the previous big foot sightings or psychic claims have basically not panned out doesn't it doesn't logically follow that the next one mightn't be. So. So skepticism for you is less about a set of beliefs and more about an approach to claims, right? Yeah, it's basically it's basically the scientific methods. I mean, that's the basic principle that we're using here are our science and, you know, testing claims and trying to figure out how do we decide what's true and what's not and what's real and what's just an illusion. So, you know, I mean, if if I were absolutely convinced that big foot didn't exist or that psychics couldn't possibly be real or or ghosts were ridiculous and couldn't be real, I wouldn't waste my time. I mean, I've been doing this, you know, for a long, long time, I've written a lot of stuff on it. This is going to be my my fourth or fifth book. I got another one coming out later on. So I've devoted much of my life to this sorts of these sorts of investigations. And so to me, these are not ridiculous, silly things. These are things that are worthy of, you know, a legitimate analysis. Right. It'd be a kind of stupid career decision to be chasing after all this stuff if you thought, you know, 100 percent certain that it's all nonsense. I mean, why why spend your life doing that? Do something more important, right? Exactly. I mean, this is the way I look at it is that either these things exist or they don't, you know, if we're talking about psychics, big foot, you know, whatever unexplained phenomena you're talking about, either these things are actually real, either they actually exist in the real world, independent of us, or they don't. If they do, then we as as as people and as scientists need to understand them if these things are actually out there. We need to we need to find out what ghosts are. We need to find out what big foot is. On the other hand, if these things do not exist, if they're not real, then the question becomes a psychological one and a social one. The question becomes, why are people reporting things and experiencing things that don't seem to exist? So in my mind, it's a fascinating question either way. I see. So after all these years, you do allow for the possibility that you might uncover something legitimately supernatural or paranormal, but makes sense out of something for for me. You're you're saying you're open-minded, but isn't it the truth that really all of your investigations end up debunking these claims? All the ones so far. Well, that's an important distinction. I mean, look, if with any, you know, you can look at the two ways. You can either say, you know, the fact that I've been successful in my investigation either means, number one, that, you know, I'm a good investigator or two just means I've got lucky or that you're cherry picking and only taking on those cases that you think you'll debunk. And you're leaving the really good, juicy paranormal stuff because you don't want to like ruin your record. Right. Well, I've heard that. In fact, I get I get to ask that on occasion. Well, you know, isn't it true the skeptics, you know, they avoid the best cases and they, you know, they only pick the weak ones they know they can solve. And and that's absolutely not true at all. In fact, I, as a as a scientific paranormal investigator, I actually want the best cases. I want, you know, give me the best evidence. I'm not going to waste. Why would I waste my time on something that that I know is going to go anywhere? Yeah, your your grandma making claims about spooky noises. That's less interesting than, you know, something that's been investigated by a lot of other people and there's supposed to be hard evidence. That's what you want to look into, you're saying. Absolutely. I mean, well, again, why would I if I'm trying to understand something and that's that's ultimately my goal. My goal is not to debunk or disprove. My goal is to understand what's going on. And if the answer is that what's going on is a misinterpretation or a misperception or a mistake or a hoax, then that's the answer. If the answer turns out to be that well, there actually is a lake monster there or this person actually can bend spoons with his mind, then that's fine. I'll I'll go there, too. And you'll probably win a Nobel Prize in the process. Absolutely. Sure. I mean, this is, you know, this is one of the funny things that that that is that I sometimes get accused of, like, well, you know, of course, you know, Radford is going to disprove some of these things because, you know, he's he's paid to to disprove these things. And, you know, I could pay the same either way. I mean, whether whether I find ghosts or not, whether I prove that Bigfoot is real or isn't or psychics or whatever else, you know, I'm not paid to disprove them. I'm paid to investigate them. And in fact, as you pointed out, if I were able to prove that these things exist, I'd be the first person in history. So there you go. Ben, one of the overarching theories you were talking about, like, psychologizing why people believe this stuff, even if there's not good evidence. Well, one of the theories you advance in your book to explain how so many people can buy this stuff, even though you find little real evidence for it. It's the notion that our brains are hardwired to connect the dots. I mean, that we're pattern seeking animals. And it's like you get a lot of mileage out of that explanation. Yeah, because it really underlies the majority of the evidence for these phenomena. When you look at UFO claims or psychic claims or ghosts, what have you, the vast majority of the evidence for these for these claims is anecdotal. It's stories. It's someone's experience. It's someone saying, I saw something, I experienced something. It's not hard evidence that you can touch and feel and analyze for the most part. And so because the bulk of it is experiential, then you have to look to psychology to to understand that the basis for many of these claims. Another factor you used to explain the prevalence of paranormal belief, it's not actually kind of a psychological explanation. You blame it on the media. It's called the file drawer effect. Yeah, the file drawer effect is really kind of interesting. It's a case in which people will they will assume that if they haven't heard about something that it that it's not there. And so, for example, if there are studies that show that that, you know, psychic powers exist and other studies that show that demonstrate that psychic power doesn't exist, you're far more likely to hear by the studies that have that show some sort of effect. So what so what that means in real terms is that, for example, a person who is researching information about big-foot sightings or psychic states or whatever else, they're far more likely to hear and read about the cases in which there's some evidence offered. And they won't hear about the 10 times as many cases just as well researched and just as well studied where there was nothing there. And it's important to take the totality of the evidence, not just pick and choose, but to realize that for every case you hear about that seems to give some glimmer of hope or evidence to these phenomena. Oftentimes, there are dozens of cases that are just as well that are just as valid that actually comes to exactly the opposite conclusion. It's like the dynamic in psychic readings where the sitter remembers the hits and forgets the misses. Well, the media reports on that haunted house. But even if it's solved, even if an investigator comes in and says, Oh, no, it was just this creaky floorboard or this squeaky hinge in the door. Well, you don't hear that follow up in the media. That's exactly right. I mean, that I couldn't have picked a better example. You know, people people are attuned to and more importantly, journalists and reporters are attuned to things that are sensational, things that are, you know, that challenge the conventional wisdom. And so the average person is far more likely to hear sensational stories than the more sober, skeptical analysis that follows up. If you had to break it down, how much blame for the prevalence of belief and what James Randi would call woo woo stuff, right? How much blame would you put on the media? I would put approximately 68 percent you would take. I wasn't going to push up to 70, but it's a lot of it goes with the media. But again, as you pointed out, a lot of it is hardwired into our brain. So, you know, blaming the media only takes you so far because they do perpetuate it and they do they do make people, you know, think more about it. And they do set very, very poor examples for critical thinking investigation. On the other hand, it's also true that there's a willing and open audience for that. I mean, the reason that these shows are are on the air is because they're popular and people people want to read about these things. They want to they want to get the mystery and be scared. The book Scientific Paranormal Investigation. Well, Ben, it's not just essays from you about your experiences as one of the only full time scientific paranormal investigators out there. But it also has a lot of contributions from some other really big names and skepticism, such as Ray Hyman, James Randi, others. What are some of your favorites that you've collected for the book? Yeah, and that was one of the most important aspects of the book for me was giving not only giving my perspective on it and sort of showing people, you know, what I've done and what Joe Nicklaus have done, but also making sure that people recognize that there's a broader spectrum out there. And so that was why it was important to, you know, include people like Martin Gardner and Ray Hyman and Randy and stuff. So because there's, you know, even though I am, you know, sort of by default, one of the top investigators, there are many people out there who are doing quality work. And so, for example, I got a I got a great piece by Richard Wiseman, the British researcher who was talking about doing improvisation investigation. The psychologist and magician, Richard Wiseman, a parapsychologist, I guess. Parapsychologist, yeah. And he's in the psychology department in the University of Hertfordshire. And he did a great piece on on basically and you'll enjoy this. Because it involves magic tricks and catching people who are who are pretending to be having pretending to have amazing abilities. When in fact, they're simply doing magic tricks. And in fact, Martin Gardner did a similar piece talking about the testing of woman named Susie Cottrell and also in conjunction with James Randy as well and Joe Nicol and many others. So that was that was that was why I was glad to get a broader perspective and sort of, you know, bring people under the tent and say, look, you know, there's there's lots of good work being done out there. That's one of the reasons why this book is so comprehensive. And it's gotten kudos from really the biggest names out there. Michael Shermer, Martin Gardner, Richard Wiseman, you know, really a who's who of skeptics have looked at this book and said, you know, it's it's the book, it's the must read. Shermer said it's a brilliant manual, you know. So that's that's not too shabby. I was very pleased to get that. And I I certainly hope and I don't believe that that these are just sort of, you know, back scratching other other skeptics. I mean, I again, and part of the reason I think that is because I've gotten very complimentary responses from people who would be sort of on the other side of the spectrum. I'm pleased that that, you know, that it's gotten good reception across the board so far anyway. And, you know, hopefully it'll hopefully it'll sort of improve and raise the the bar of investigation evidence for these sorts of things. You mentioned Joe Nicol a couple times. He's your colleague at the Center for Inquiry at Psycop or I mean the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. They changed their name while back in a very real sense. He kind of mentored you and started the ball rolling for your scientific paranormal investigation career or or is that the case? Certainly. I mean, that was when I first began at at well again, what was then Psycop 12 or so years ago. It was mostly in an editorial capacity of managing editor of the Skeptical Inquire magazine, which of course I'm still with. And you weren't an investigator at the time. You were an English major who got a job in a magazine. Well, I had a degree in psychology at the time. Oh, I see. But yeah, I had I had done some little investigation on my own. But certainly, certainly I learned much in many of my investigations with Joe. We did stuff for the Discovery Channel and History Channel. And and we did many investigations together, some of which appear in the book. And then I sort of started branching out doing my own investigations as well. And so therefore I got a good, a good broad perspective of methodologies and that they get to me across the board. But I certainly learned a lot from Joe. And he's, you know, I dedicate the book to Joe and Randy. I say, you know, for Joe and Randy, the best of the best, and they certainly are. You just mentioned Skeptical Inquire magazine. I know you have a print deadline, so we're a little short on time. But I wanted to finish up, Ben, by asking you to recount in the in your history of paranormal investigation, recount for me even one case. Are there any that not only stumped you, but even had you questioning your own skepticism? In other words, have you come close to believing any of this stuff over the years? Well, there certainly have been times in which there wasn't enough information to come to a final conclusion. But I hear you saying that doesn't mean, therefore, that then you believe in some paranormal explanation. Right, absolutely. And that's an important distinction to make. I mean, just because you can't definitively prove something doesn't necessarily mean that it's paranormal or unusual. I mean, you take, you know, for example, an obvious parallel is homicide. There are many, many unsolved murders each year in America. Now, that doesn't mean that, you know, that it's a mystery as to how they die. It doesn't mean that, you know, they think that a dragon came up and and killed them. It's just that there's simply not enough evidence there to to point to the person. So there have been a couple of cases where where, you know, the case wasn't solved, not because I thought it was necessarily something paranormal or not paranormal, just as there wasn't enough information there. But, you know, I've had I've had unusual experiences. I mean, I've seen the UFO. OK, let's unpack that. You actually concede that you saw a UFO, but you mean it's unidentified. You don't jump to the conclusion that, therefore, it's an alien visiting the planet. It's unidentified as a flying object. Right. In fact, I mentioned that in one of the early chapters of my book, just very briefly, I was sitting at traffic one day many years ago as I was heading into Albuquerque for college. And I looked to my left and I saw this giant glowing disk hovering over the city of Albuquerque. And I thought I was seeing a UFO. I thought I was seeing some sort of extraterrestrial craft. And I was I was like shocked and amazed. And I was like, what the hell is that? And and within a few seconds, I realized that it was actually a reflection of the sun on the bouncing off the the car to my right and then off my inside of my window. So it didn't remain a UFO. No, it didn't remain a UFO at all. It was like an IFO then. Right. You know, in that moment, it jumped from UFO to an IFO. But I can tell you that for a few for a few fleeting moments, I was absolutely convinced that I was seeing something not from this world. So I know firsthand how powerful personal experience can be and how we can misperceive. Well, well, we have only scratched the surface. Ben, we'll have to have you back on to delve into some of your cases in more depth, like maybe the Lake Ogopogo monster or your solving of the Chupacabra mystery. Maybe your investigations into demonic hauntings that that sounds a little spooky. So with that, Ben, thank you for joining me on For Good Reason. Good to be on. Good to talk to you. Thanks. Thank you for listening to this episode of For Good Reason. For updates throughout the week, find me on Twitter and on Facebook. To get involved with an online conversation about today's episode with Ben Radford, join the discussion at ForGoodReason.org. For Good Reason is produced by Thomas Donnelly and recorded from St. Louis, Missouri. For Good Reason's music is composed for us by Emmy Award nominated Gary Stockdale. Christina Stevens contributed to today's show. I'm your host, DJ Growthy.