 It's Sunday, June 27th, and this is For Good Reason. Welcome to For Good Reason, I'm DJ Grophy. 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. I'm really happy that my guest this week is Paul Kurtz. He's one of the founders of the worldwide skeptics movement. He's Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and a founder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, PsyCOP. He's also founder of the Council for Sacred Humanism and of Prometheus Books, and has served as editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry Magazine and has edited Skeptical Inquirer Magazine for many years. He's a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and has been featured very widely in the media on topics as diverse as reincarnation, UFO abduction, religious versus secular ethics, communication with the dead. You name it, if it had to do with skepticism over the last many decades, he's talked about it. In fact, he's really advanced a critical thinking, a humanistic and skeptical inquiry into many of the most cherished beliefs society's had for the last 40 years. So Paul Kurtz, it's a great pleasure to welcome you to For Good Reason. Delighted to talk to you, DJ, and always enjoyed your sharp questions. Well, thank you, Paul. Along with Randy or along with Martin Gardner, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Ray Heimann, this group of men in the 70s, there were a couple others. You are one of the central founding figures of the modern skeptical movement. So before we get into exuberant skepticism, let me just ask you, is the skeptics movement, is it turning out like all of you planned in the mid-70s? Well, it's part of the landscape and I'm pleased about that. I think I was the one who first initiated and then I invited these other people and I was delighted when they came to the State University of New York, Buffalo, where we got it going. You're one of, you're what the social scientists call a super connector. You bring people together. I don't know about that, but I do try to, maybe I give them a shock. That's why they conduct this, that's how it gets going. But in the case of Get Off the Good Start, immediately, I think it hit the front page of the New York Times and ever since that, it's now part of the landscape. So I'm pleased about that. I mean, people have talked about skepticism, but now it seems to be more current. And I think we're responsible for that to some extent. So you think it's had some impact. You're proud of where it's, where it's how it's turned out. But what's more to do as you know, there are foolish beliefs everywhere. But yes, we've made a great deal of progress. Wouldn't you say though that the shape of this worldwide skeptics movement, it was never really planned, right? A group of men didn't sit in a back room and kind of plot a 30 year plan for it to turn out this way. No, we didn't plan that. It seemed to me growing out of my criticism of astrology that was very successful internally, that we need to critically examine other ideas. And so I did invite people here at a conference in Buffalo and we got it launched, yes. And so it is widely used now and particularly in science and in politics and business and other areas. When you say you're a skeptic and you doubt and that's important, not used widely enough. But the point is you're recognizing there has been impact. So Paul, your new book is exuberant skepticism. Honestly, it's one of the best books I've read on these issues. It belongs on everyone's shelf right next to Sagan and Randy and the other classics, I think. So for you, skepticism is not just doubt. It's a kind of active inquiry. It's life affirming. Is that what you mean by exuberant skepticism as opposed to just run of the mill skepticism? Yes, I think you've touched on the key point that I wanted to make. Many people keep consider skeptics to be cold fish, to doubt doubt doubt. And that form of skepticism is negative and it has existed throughout history and still exists today, but there is a positive form of skepticism. And that's what I've been defending and my colleagues have been doing it as well. So skeptics shouldn't be going around just doubting everything. Otherwise, there's not much difference between a scientific skeptic. You know, I've had I've put a lot of college students over the years that we often touch on skepticism. And I find out many young college students are skeptics. They doubt everything. There's no such thing as knowledge. There's no truth. Then those things values go to bed right or wrong. And I try to show them that that is mistaken. So you argue for something you call selective doubt. It's not doubt in general. It's selective. If you doubt in general, you never get up in the morning and go out. So you have to take things for granted and act on the best knowledge that you have. So you're right. Selective skepticism, which I consider not negative, but positive. So how does one decide, Paul, what to be skeptical of and what to accept? Well, I don't know that one decides that in life, you encounter problems. You have questions of what is true and false. Issues of knowledge always arise. And the skeptical attitude is to raise questions and ask for evidence and reason. And until you have that, then when someone claims something, it may not be true. And when you believe it, it may not be true. I'm sure you can show evidence for it. So you're zeroing in on evidence. That's the thing skeptics get all wound up about. It's about the evidence and also reasons. And many, like in a court of law, you argue a case. So you reason is true. So evidence and reasons and consequences. If someone believes something, well, what are the consequences? So this form of skepticism is a kind of practical knowledge by which you live. Paul, you've argued that this kind of skepticism, this method of inquiry, it's the same that's used in the sciences. Is skepticism the same thing as science or are you drawing a distinction? Well, science is based upon a method of inquiry. And the modern science is developed by leaps and bounds and still is because it uses these rigorous methods to test claims to knowledge. But you can extend that beyond science, the ordinary life, the politics, the ethics, the business, the personal affairs. Now that that itself is a kind of controversial claim because there are many skeptics the past 30 years who say skepticism should put its blinders on and only treat those things which you can scientifically investigate. Well, no, I see that as too narrow because a lot of things we can't scientifically investigate. For example, in personal relations, if you fall in love with someone and you want to know that is that person true to you? Well, if you find she or he is going out with someone else behind your back, then you ought to be skeptical. So it applies to every area of human life and not only the science. So I want to zero in myself on how you see skepticism more broadly applied. It's not just about fact claims, but it's vital to the life well lived. Is all the life life well lived and the life well lived should be based upon a kind of rationality or reasonableness. It's based upon reasonable choices that we make and we have to doubt those things that we want to choose if they don't hold up under scrutiny. So but you've argued that it's more about just knowledge claims that may or may not hold up under scrutiny. It has to do with self liberation, escaping the bonds of prejudice, idols, avoidable errors to use poppers line. It's it's really, you know, it's it's it like leads to a more enriched life. It's not just about being right or wrong. Well stated, indeed, I think it's the mark of the educated mind and you can be educated without going to college or university. It's a thoughtful person who does not leap in, you know, fools leap in without thinking. So before you act, you have to reflect. And so skepticism is part of reflection, the reflective life. And not just before you act, but before you believe something. Look for good evidence or so in that area. I mean, in the religion and ethics and politics, you have to be skeptical of claims that people make. So it applies to all parts of life, your own beliefs and the beliefs of others. And your willingness to examine these to see if they hold up under scrutiny. So you just said it applies to all areas of life. That's in. And yes, indeed. And in that it should. So you're well, you know, not, not all the time of your if you're in the process of having a good time at a party, if you're making love. You don't you don't engage in reflective inquiry. But there is a place for reflective inquiry, clearly. Skepticism for you is so it's not just a way to kind of take other people's supernatural claims for a test drive. It's clearly not. And that's a mistake to apply only skepticism to religion. Yeah, well, look at the area of politics, OK, where people are making claims all the time, candidates, and you want to doubt what they say, unless you can examine it carefully and listen to criticism. So by your broadly applying this kind of skepticism or rationality, you know, believing those things only for which there are adequate sets of evidence, yes, it is it's a method of living. It's a method of acquiring it. It's the test of an educated person who who when a claim is made, including his own or her own wants to see whether it holds up under scrutiny. So you need you need evidence. You have to examine the consequences and you need to give reasons for you. Skepticism, really, you kind of look at it in this historical sense. Sure, you could trace it back to the ancient Greeks, but that's not the kind of skepticism you're talking about. Not that kind of denial that knowledge is even possible. You're more talking about the Enlightenment project, that kind of skepticism. Well, I'm talking about modern skepticism. You know, the Greeks introduced skepticism. They were negative and some of them thought with no knowledge was possible. No truth was possible. You couldn't distinguish good from bad, right from wrong. And many people today are total skeptics. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about skepticism as the method of questioning and arriving at knowledge upon which you can act. The kind of skepticism you're talking about, this broadly construed or kind of applied skepticism, broadly applied, it sounds just at least a little different than the skepticism of the skeptics movement. You know, these people who get together at regular meetings or come to skeptics conferences, they focus mostly on spurious supernatural or paranormal claims, pseudo-scientific claims. Well, the skeptics movement does not represent the skeptical inquiry, the skeptical method, the use of doubt in everyday life. And that skeptics movement is important, but it's too narrow. I'm saying that skepticism is part of intelligent inquiry. And any educated person has to be skeptical until claims can be supported. And all sorts of claims, not just about the paranormal. Oh, yes, all sorts of claims. That why it should be focused on the paranormal or religion is really a surprise. I mean, you have to use it in business. If someone wants to sell you a product, then you have to examine it carefully and evaluate it in the light of other products. If you're going to buy a car, you have to be damn skeptical about what the guy tells you. And that's a good illustration of everyday skepticism. Or if you want to be an educated consumer of health care, you want to make sure what you're buying from your doctor or health practitioner that it works. Doctors are often taken as authority figures, but you ought to be skeptical about everybody to some extent. You've actually in recent years almost argued that a lot of the topics that organized skepticism treats, that they're sort of trivial and that you think there are bigger fish to fry than whether or not Bigfoot exists. Of course. I mean, as the one who introduced the paranormal in some sense, the reason I did that because it was easy to criticize Bigfoot or psychic claims or astrologers and people would be interested. It's more difficult to apply skeptical depth to questions of religion or business or politics or ethics. But but that's where it is crucial in life to do it. It has to be used everywhere, not only for the paranormal or for religion. OK, so if you want to broadly apply skepticism and skepticism is based on evidence, what do you do about certain kinds of beliefs for which there's no evidence one way or the other, like certain political ideologies? There's no units of measurement to see whether or not libertarianism or socialism is the true approach. Well, there may be some, but it's insufficient often. So I would be hesitant about leaping in. I mean, the fools rush in. We're skeptics fair to trade until they get some support. So you ought to be you ought to consider claims, hypotheses using science as a method hypothetical until you can find sufficient evidence to say, well, this seems probable, like I can act on it. So you don't need certain knowledge, but you could have reliable knowledge based on the probable likelihood of it being true. Well, we very rarely have certain knowledge. I mean, certain areas such as mathematics, people say, well, we have certain knowledge, yes and no. But there are areas where more is somewhat certain, such as mathematics. But in the other areas, even in the sciences, you have to use the principle of fallibilism, according to the American philosopher, Charles Perce. You may be mistaken. People may discover new facts, which will claim, which will undermine their theory. So you ought to be prepared to change any belief you have. But challenge, but just because you may be wrong, you're not then therefore suggesting that you should withhold adopting any positions, whatever. Look, if I step off a curb and I want to get to the other side and I see a car rushing rapidly, it's the student I flunked. I don't know whether he's going to hit me or not, but I'm sure it's all going to rush back to the other side. So you have to act as the kind of will to believe. OK, so it's a question of the great. OK. Point is, skeptical doubt is an antidote to foolish beliefs and enables you to clarify beliefs and decide whether they're sufficient support for them. You were just talking about how some of the topics of skepticism over the past 30 years may have seemed trivial. And I don't think I'm putting those words in your mouth. I've heard you say as much many times, correct? There are many questions I'm using and fun to deal with. But you can't stop there and the focus on the paranormal happened because it was safer to criticize these foolish beliefs than others. But then other beliefs such as what? Well, beliefs in religion, you don't prepare to do that. Belief in politics, beliefs in business, beliefs in personal relationships, whether you can trust a person. So you have to use common sense, critical common sense. Skepticism is part of common sense. So leaving aside that cheeky retort of skeptics who say there's no such thing as common sense because most people aren't sensible. Well, that criticism is well taken. Yeah, because some people use common sense. It's commonly held belief, but they're widely different. Often so it's difficult to find universal belief. But by common sense, I mean intelligence, the ability of a thoughtful person to examine a claim and see whether it holds up. Yeah, that sense of common sense is very important. And you need it not only in the sciences, but in everyday life. I want to get back to this topic. We were just talking about how you as one of the fathers of the worldwide skeptics movement here, you've suggested that so much of what the movement has concentrated on for the past 30 plus years has been somewhat trivial. I want to ask about that. Even even if you recognize that some of its trivial, on the other hand, wouldn't you agree that so much of that stuff deals with our most basic and most cherished convictions, the meaning of life, life after death, communication with loved ones, you know, deceased people? Trivial. I mean, there are trivial questions that have been examined and held. But there are important questions and skepticism should be used everywhere without the hesitation. The reason why the the skeptics of modern days focus on paranormal beliefs because it is easy to criticize that. But there are cherished beliefs that people hold dear, such as religion. And people are fearful of challenging them. But if it is in a situation where you can do that without embarrassment, then you should. You just raised a lot of questions. Maybe next time you're on the show, I want to talk about whether or not religion can can be treated by skepticism. I want to begin finishing up by asking you about why in the history of organized skepticism, the organizations have had a kind of non-overlapping magisteria. I'm not talking about this notion in science that says science can't touch religion, for instance. I'm talking about how the organizations have said, you know, psychops only going to deal with the paranormal and other organizations only going to deal with religion. But isn't it the same kind of skepticism that's applied to those various areas? Indeed. Correct. You're exactly correct. Why use it only in one area? Because you feel it's safe and not in other areas. You ought to be prepared to use it in any domain where claims are made. Now, you can't in a party get up and be the skeptic and shout to your criticism. So it depends on the appropriate time and place. But in answer to your question, yes, the method of skeptical inquiry can be extended and should be to all areas of human knowledge and human action and not only the paranormal. So a couple of quick things. I don't think we ever actually defined what exuberant skepticism is, unless you just mean that it's life affirming. It's not just denying claims. Yes, well, that's the term I've used to say the name is the title of a book, Exuberant Skepticism, that I published. Well, let me make a distinction. First, between negative skepticism, where you doubt everything, and that's a mistake. Second, positive skepticism. And I think positive skepticism is essential if we're going to develop knowledge and make wise choices. And then third, exuberant skepticism. That's what I've used. And my wife said sometimes to me, please, don't wake up again this in the morning, exuberant, you know. You go overboard. But exuberant skepticism, I think I relate that to the good life. But I believe happiness, exuberance, the realization of creative pleasures and joys are all a part of what it means to live well. And some some touch of skepticism is essential in that kind of life. So you're saying you basically get a better life if you are skeptical. Well, there's some skeptics I know, or sour pushes, and they don't enjoy life. Everything it would fail and so on. But I think skepticism. Let me make this point, D.J., and you you touch on the central question. I think skepticism is an antidote for nonsense. And they're always nonsense in life. And also it's a method for discovering what's true or false. And yes, we should use it throughout life, not only in the paranormal, but in everyday life and personal affairs and business in the company you work for is going to school everywhere. OK, moral claims, religious claims, all of it. Yes, yes, it's a mark of the educated mind. So last question. We were talking a little about this division of labor and the organizations that advance skepticism in North America, at least. Do you think that there could ever be a full throttle group of institutions that advance skepticism in the public interest? Or will skepticism always just be about clubs and meetings, you know, skeptics in the pubs that where people just get together for fellowship and friendship, but they're not actually changing society? You're raising the central question. No, skepticism should not become a cult where people get together and enjoy attacking other people's beliefs. They think they're foolish. Though that's not that that's important to some extent. No, skepticism should be developed throughout life in every area, in every field, wherever you are. If you're a captain in an army in the army, you have to be skeptical about whether the whether the enemy is going to fire that machine gun. If you're in business and you've been investing in stocks, you've got to be skeptical about the broker. The truth or merely trying to sell you a bill of good. So it seems to me it should be applied everywhere. OK, you know, I'm sorry, Paul, I just don't feel like we've really gotten into that topic of why the paranormal. So if if you think it should be widely applied, why does psychop just focus on the things that go bump in the night? Well, I love psychop. I found it psychop with the help of others. But clearly, it has to go beyond that. It can only be restricted to the paranormal. Then not the skepticism of the paranormal are not not the same as necessarily. It should be used everywhere and anywhere. OK. And it's useful. It's a pragmatic tool of inquiry and of knowledge. Well, personally, I agree with you that that skepticism should be widely applied. I think organizations are better if they have a limited mission and don't try to be all things to all men. So maybe we're agreeing and we're just talking about different aspects. But nonetheless, every every area, every field, whether you're studying for the law or you're you're studying to be an accountant or you want to be a nurse, whatever you feel you're in, you need to use your critical intelligence and the skeptical method in appraising claims to knowledge and not merely accept it, hook, line and thinker. Well, as I said a couple of minutes ago, I feel like we've only scratched the surface. We'll continue this discussion next time. Thank you, Paul, for joining me on For Good Reason. Thank you very much, D.J. Thanks for listening to this episode of For Good Reason to get involved with an online conversation about today's show. Join the discussion at ForGoodReason.org. Views expressed on For Good Reason aren't necessarily the views of the James Randi Educational Foundation. Questions and comments on today's show can be sent to info 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, D.J. Grothe.