How to Think About Weird Things

1. Critical Thinking is Essential for Evaluating "Weird Things."

Without good whys, humans have no hope of understanding all that we fondly call weird—or anything else, for that matter.

Beyond mere belief. When confronted with extraordinary claims—from UFOs and psychic phenomena to alternative medicine—it's not enough to simply believe or disbelieve. The crucial question is why you hold that belief. Without solid reasons, our convictions are arbitrary, offering no path to truth and leaving us vulnerable to hucksterism and self-delusion. The book's central premise is that understanding how and when our beliefs are justified is both possible and empowering.

The prevalence of weirdness. Public interest in the paranormal is widespread, with polls showing significant belief in astrology, ESP, ghosts, and alien visitations. Billions are spent annually on products and services based on these claims. This pervasive belief underscores the urgent need for critical thinking skills, not to debunk everything, but to equip individuals to evaluate claims for themselves and discern what is genuinely credible from what is merely comfortable or convenient.

The cost of irrationality. Unjustified beliefs can have severe consequences, ranging from financial exploitation by psychic hotlines to serious health risks from bogus medical remedies. Historically, "quackery kills more people than those who die from all crimes of violence put together." Beyond individual harm, a society unable to distinguish reasonable from unreasonable claims becomes susceptible to manipulation, threatening democratic processes and collective well-being.

2. Distinguish Between Different Kinds of Possibility and Actuality.

Just because something is logically or physically possible doesn’t mean that it is, or ever will be, actual.

Defining impossibility. Not everything is possible. Some things are logically impossible (self-contradictory, like a "married bachelor"), physically impossible (violate laws of nature, like a cow jumping over the moon), or technologically impossible (beyond current human capability, like interstellar travel). Understanding these distinctions is the first step in evaluating extraordinary claims, as many "weird things" are dismissed as impossible without proper categorization.

The appeal to ignorance fallacy. A common error is to argue that a claim must be true because it hasn't been disproven, or false because it hasn't been proven. This is the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. A lack of evidence only indicates our ignorance; it doesn't establish truth or falsehood. For example, the absence of proof for ghosts doesn't confirm their existence, just as the inability to disprove mermaids doesn't make them real.

Challenging scientific paradigms. While some phenomena may seem physically impossible according to current scientific understanding (e.g., ESP violating energy conservation), this doesn't automatically invalidate them. Science progresses by confronting anomalies that challenge existing paradigms. What appears impossible today might be explained by a new theory tomorrow, as seen with meteorites or the Red Sea parting. However, the burden of proof always rests on those making the extraordinary claim, not on skeptics to disprove it.

3. Master Argumentation and Identify Common Fallacies.

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.

Arguments are reasons for belief. In critical thinking, an argument is a set of claims (premises) offered as reasons to accept another claim (the conclusion). Distinguishing arguments from mere assertions or persuasion is fundamental. Indicator words like "therefore" or "because" often signal premises and conclusions, but careful analysis is always required to identify the underlying logical structure.

Deductive vs. inductive reasoning. Arguments can be deductive, aiming for conclusive support (valid if premises guarantee the conclusion), or inductive, aiming for probable support (strong if premises make the conclusion likely). A good argument is both logically sound (valid/strong) and has true premises. Understanding common argument forms, like modus ponens (If P then Q; P; Therefore Q) or denying the antecedent (If P then Q; Not P; Therefore Not Q - which is invalid), helps quickly assess validity.

Beware of informal fallacies. Even with true premises, an argument can be fallacious if its premises are unacceptable, irrelevant, or insufficient. Common fallacies include:

• Begging the Question: Circular reasoning, assuming what you're trying to prove.
• False Dilemma: Presenting only two options when more exist.
• Appeal to the Person (Ad Hominem): Attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
• Hasty Generalization: Drawing broad conclusions from insufficient evidence.
• False Cause: Assuming causation from correlation (e.g., "after this, therefore because of this").
• Slippery Slope: Claiming an action will inevitably lead to a series of bad outcomes without sufficient evidence.
  Recognizing these logical traps is crucial for avoiding irrational beliefs.

4. Knowledge Requires Justified True Belief, Not Mere Certainty.

To have knowledge, then, we must have adequate evidence, and our evidence is adequate when it puts the proposition in question beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beyond true belief. Knowledge is more than just having a true belief; it requires having good reasons for that belief. While absolute certainty is rarely attainable (as philosophical skepticism highlights), knowledge demands evidence strong enough to place a proposition "beyond a reasonable doubt." This means the proposition offers the best explanation for phenomena, even if other remote possibilities cannot be entirely ruled out.

The role of background information and experts. Our vast system of well-supported beliefs, or "background information," is crucial. A proposition is doubtful if it conflicts with what we already have good reason to believe. Similarly, expert opinion, within their field of expertise, provides a reliable guide. Disregarding expert consensus without compelling counter-evidence is unreasonable. However, beware of appeals to authority outside an expert's domain or to non-experts, as these are fallacious.

Limits of faith, intuition, and mystical experience. Faith, defined as belief without logical proof or material evidence, cannot be a source of knowledge because it offers no justification for a claim's truth. Intuition, if merely a "sixth sense," lacks empirical support. While "hypersensory perception" (like Sherlock Holmes's acute observation) is real, it's not paranormal. Mystical experiences, though profound, are subjective and often contradictory across traditions, requiring corroboration through rational tests rather than being accepted as privileged knowledge.

5. Personal Experience is Often an Unreliable Guide to Truth.

Just because something seems (feels, appears) real doesn’t mean that it is.

Perception is constructive. Our senses do not provide a direct, photographic record of reality. Perception is a constructive process, influenced by our knowledge, expectations, beliefs, and physiological state. This means we often perceive what we expect to see, even if it's not there (hallucinations), or impose distinct forms on vague stimuli (pareidolia), as seen in the "face on Mars" or the N-ray affair. This inherent "constructive tendency" can lead to experiences that seem supernatural but are entirely natural.

Memory is reconstructive and selective. Our memories are not literal recordings but creative reconstructions, vulnerable to distortion by stress, suggestion, new information, and our own beliefs. False memories can be as vivid as true ones, and selective memory often highlights "hits" while ignoring "misses," making coincidences appear more significant than they are (e.g., seemingly prophetic dreams). This makes anecdotal evidence, like eyewitness accounts of UFOs or paranormal events, inherently unreliable without corroboration.

Cognitive biases distort judgment. Several biases further undermine personal experience:

• Confirmation Bias: Seeking and recognizing only evidence that supports existing beliefs.
• Forer Effect (Subjective Validation): Believing general personality descriptions are uniquely accurate for oneself (common in astrology, psychic readings).
• Availability Error: Basing judgments on vivid or memorable evidence rather than reliable data, leading to hasty generalizations and misjudgments of probability.
• Representativeness Heuristic: Assuming "like goes with like" (e.g., big events need big causes, or consuming something transfers its properties).
• Anthropomorphic Bias: Attributing human thoughts and feelings to non-human objects, often leading to belief in supernatural agents.
  These biases make us prone to seeing what we believe, rather than believing what we see.

6. The Scientific Method is Our Most Reliable Path to Knowledge.

Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent, common sense rounded out and minutely articulated.

A systematic search for understanding. Science is not a dogma or a collection of truths, but a self-correcting method for acquiring knowledge about reality. It begins with a problem, formulates testable hypotheses, and systematically checks them against reality. This process aims to identify general principles that are both explanatory and predictive, making knowledge public and open to scrutiny, unlike subjective claims.

Rigorous testing and controls. In fields like medical research, controlled clinical trials are the "gold standard" for establishing cause and effect. These involve:

• Experimental and control groups: To isolate the effect of the treatment.
• Placebos: To account for the psychological effect of receiving treatment.
• Blinding: To prevent subjects and researchers from unconsciously biasing results (double-blind studies are ideal).
• Replication: To ensure results are not flukes or artifacts of a single experiment.
  These measures minimize bias and extraneous variables, making scientific evidence far more reliable than anecdotal reports.

Criteria for evaluating hypotheses. Since no hypothesis can be conclusively proven or disproven, scientists use "criteria of adequacy" to determine which explanation is best:

• Testability: Can it be tested against reality? (Falsifiability is key).
• Fruitfulness: Does it predict new, surprising phenomena?
• Scope: How many diverse phenomena does it explain?
• Simplicity: Does it make the fewest assumptions (Occam's Razor)?
• Conservatism: How well does it fit with established, well-founded beliefs?
  A hypothesis that excels in these areas provides greater understanding and is more likely to be true, even if it challenges existing views.

7. Evaluate Claims Using the SEARCH Formula and Criteria of Adequacy.

The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism.

A structured approach to inquiry. The SEARCH formula provides a step-by-step method for evaluating any extraordinary claim:

1. State the Claim: Define it as clearly and specifically as possible.
2. Examine the Evidence: Assess the quantity and quality of supporting reasons, noting any biases or logical fallacies.
3. Consider Alternative Hypotheses: Brainstorm other possible explanations for the phenomenon.
4. Rate Each Hypothesis: Apply the criteria of adequacy (testability, fruitfulness, scope, simplicity, conservatism) to all competing explanations.
   This systematic process helps move beyond initial impressions to reasoned conclusions.

Applying SEARCH to "weird things." When applied to claims like homeopathy, intercessory prayer, UFO abductions, or ghosts, the SEARCH formula often reveals that extraordinary hypotheses fall short. For instance:

• Homeopathy: Fails on simplicity (undetectable essence, unknown force) and conservatism (conflicts with biochemistry/pharmacology), while the placebo effect offers a simpler, more conservative explanation.
• UFO Abductions: Weak evidence (hypnosis-induced pseudomemories, unreliable polygraphs), conflicts with technological possibility of interstellar travel, and is better explained by fantasy-prone personalities, sleep paralysis, or temporal lobe activity.
• Ghosts: The "disembodied spirit" hypothesis lacks simplicity (unknown substance, clothes), testability, and conservatism (conflicts with physics/biology), while environmental factors (magnetic fields, infrasound) and sleep paralysis offer more plausible, testable explanations.

The power of ordinary explanations. Often, the most mundane, naturalistic explanations prove to be the best, even for seemingly inexplicable events. The scientific approach prioritizes these explanations, demanding compelling evidence before resorting to extraordinary claims. This doesn't mean dismissing the mysterious, but rather seeking the most coherent and well-supported understanding available.

8. Beware of Fake News and Cognitive Biases in Information Consumption.

The problem of fake news is not just that it’s widespread, that it’s almost impossible to avoid, that internet technology works against us, and that armies of fake news creators work overtime trying to fool us. The main problem is that we are so susceptible to it for all the reasons just mentioned (and a few more).

The rise of misinformation. In the digital age, fake news—deliberately misleading or fraudulent information—is rampant, clogging social media and websites. Its purpose ranges from making money and pushing political agendas to stirring up hate or promoting unscientific theories. A significant challenge is that many people, including students, struggle to assess the credibility of online information, often failing to distinguish legitimate news from propaganda or satire.

Cognitive vulnerabilities to fake news. Our brains are wired in ways that make us susceptible to fake news:

• Confirmation Bias: We seek and accept information that confirms our existing views, often amplified by social media algorithms.
• Denial of Contrary Evidence: We dismiss or ignore facts that challenge our beliefs, leading to "echo chambers."
• Availability Error: We rely on vivid or memorable (often sensational) information over reliable but less dramatic facts.
• Social Reinforcement: We are more likely to believe fake news shared by friends, even if they are unintentionally misled.
• Credibility by Repetition: Repeated exposure to a claim can make it seem believable, regardless of its truth.
  These biases allow fake news to go viral and become entrenched.

Cultivating reasonable skepticism. To combat fake news, a default attitude of reasonable skepticism is crucial: consider claims doubtful unless there's good reason to believe otherwise. This involves:

• Evaluating sources: Check website legitimacy, mission, and staff. Be wary of strong bias or lack of transparency.
• Investigating authors: Verify credentials and look for "fake" bylines.
• Examining claims: Question plausibility, sensationalism, and conflicts with established knowledge.
• Checking supporting evidence: Look for references to trustworthy research and fact-checking sites (e.g., Snopes.com, FactCheck.org).
• Distinguishing advertising from news: Recognize native ads and sponsored content.
  These practices empower individuals to make informed decisions and avoid manipulation.

9. Objective Truth and Reality Exist Independently of Belief.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.

The allure of relativism. Many people embrace relativism—the idea that individuals, societies, or conceptual schemes create their own realities—often believing it fosters tolerance by implying all views are equally true. This contrasts with realism, which holds that reality exists independently of our thoughts about it. However, the assumption that realism leads to intolerance (absolutism) is a false dilemma; one can believe in objective reality while acknowledging multiple valid ways to represent it.

The self-refuting nature of subjectivism. The idea that "we each create our own reality" (subjectivism) is logically contradictory. If my belief makes something true for me, and your opposing belief makes the opposite true for you, then contradictory states of affairs would exist simultaneously. Furthermore, if belief creates truth, no one could ever be mistaken, rendering argument and learning pointless. Our daily experiences—like unexpected events or the persistence of objects when unobserved—strongly suggest an external reality independent of our minds.

Social constructivism's flaws. The notion that "reality is socially constructed" (social constructivism) faces similar logical hurdles. If a group's consensus makes something true, then societies would be infallible, and social reformers could never be "right" in challenging societal norms. Moreover, if truth is relative to society, then a society's belief that truth is not socially constructed would also be true, leading to self-refutation. The historical record of societal errors (e.g., flat Earth, divine right of kings) further undermines this view.

Conceptual schemes represent, not create. While different conceptual schemes (paradigms) offer different ways of classifying and experiencing the world, they do not create different worlds. The world constrains truth, and observations are not entirely "theory-laden," allowing for the recognition of anomalies and objective comparisons between paradigms. Ultimately, relativism in all its forms is self-refuting: the statement "everything is relative" is itself an unrestricted universal generalization, implying its own falsehood if true.

Last updated: November 23, 2025