Why we apparently believe in the paranormal

Popular skeptical articles on the paranormal typically focus on how prone most of us are to believe in the paranormal, or, as many skeptics prefer to label it, the "supernatural". Here's one such article:

Six ways our brains are primed to believe in the paranormal

It seems clear to me that these articles attempt to persuade the reader that nothing we label the paranormal exists, and this article is no exception. I do acknowledge the force of many of the points made though. So, I'm in complete agreement that most people have a predilection to believe in the paranormal. I agree that we are very easily fooled. I agree that our perceptions and memories can be unreliable. I agree that we have a propensity to prefer more exciting explanations to mundane ones. I also grant that our minds are susceptible to suggestion—hence it is not too surprising that someone might agree that a metal key on a table is bending if someone else suggests that it is.

The article also points out that what we perceive can be influenced by implicit expectations derived from our background experience of the world. Indeed, perceptual illusions illustrate that what we actually perceive is very much influenced by our prior beliefs and especially by what we are used to seeing. Hence what we perceive is moulded and shaped by an internal model of the world we implicitly hold. It should be noted, though, that this doesn't appear to help the skeptical case since, if anything, this serves to filter out, or alter, our potential perception of anything unusual. I once read about an experiment that tested people's susceptibility to prior beliefs and the effect this has on their perceptions. It transpired that many of the paranormal skeptics were adamant that an object was not moving when it was in fact being slowly covertly moved. This response didn't seem to be merely a result of their psychological rigidity; rather their perceptions were quite literally shaped by their expectations. This underscores how our perceptual processes seem to favour us perceiving that which is usual and normal, even when what is actually out there may be unusual in some manner (see a blog post by me for another example). So, the processes by which we come to perceive the world—and our consequent mistaken perceptions—may not be as compelling for the skeptical case as skeptics naively suppose.

I acknowledge then that there is a great variety of ways in which we can be fooled. But here's the crucial question. How does this show or imply that no "supernatural" phenomenon exists? For clearly the author is insinuating that it is rational to conclude none of them do exist. Indeed she—and many other skeptics— even employ the word "rational" to label those explanations that align with our modern understanding of how reality works. In other words, she and others presuppose it is rational to hold that some type of materialism is correct, which in turn therefore strongly suggests no paranormal phenomena exists.

Of course, what is being implicitly implied in such articles is that the only reason why we believe in any paranormal phenomena is due to our aforementioned propensity to believe. Yet, to state the obvious, experiences of the anomalous or unusual is not merely confined to people excitedly assigning some unknown noise to a restless spirit, or worse still, seeing images of Jesus on a slice of toast or other trivial silly claims. What is vastly more interesting, for example, is when a person sees someone up close, perhaps right in front of them, that looks like a normal person, but which subsequently transpires to have been an apparition. For example, crisis apparitions where the person of the apparition seen is undergoing some type of crisis, quite often death. And such encounters are often reported by less excitable, more sober-minded and credible individuals who can be relied upon far more in their reports. Notwithstanding our psychological proclivity to believe and the myriad ways we can be fooled, it is difficult to dismiss the numerous independent reports of this type of phenomenon, and other phenomena of a similar nature.

What we see is the usual tiresome tactic by skeptics of placing all anomalous experiences into the same basket, then ridiculing the most silly and frivolous of such alleged experiences, insinuating in the process that such ridicule is deserving of the entirety of the so-called paranormal.

The bottom line is that people don't just believe in many of such alleged anomalous phenomena due to any psychological propensity. Many people also believe due to the evidence and reason. In other words, it seems the rational thing to believe.

It's also worth pointing out that our modern western culture is pretty much unique in rejecting the entirety of the paranormal. Are we to believe that other cultures psychological propensity to believe is the decisive factor that determines their beliefs here? That the evidence and reasons for them to subscribe to such beliefs is slim to non-existent? That our modern western world has figured out all the answers to any questions about reality and any other conclusions are irrational?

The problem with articles such as this is that there is no attempt to provide any type of objective level-headed assessment of the evidence for such phenomena and why more thoughtful people might believe in at least the phenomena that is more difficult to explain away. This, and so many other skeptical articles of a similar nature, are all about persuading. Trying to persuade people that any belief in any of the paranormal is irrational. 

For those interested, I address a different type of critique of the paranormal in the following link: Skeptical Inquirer attempts to explain why psi could not possibly exist