• Front Page
• Butler Bio
• Contact
• Pledge

Trojan Horse Websites

Introduction

Some people on the Internet try to appear to be interested in the study of things paranormal but behave as if they are actually using that guise to undermine the community. They are in practice, Skeptics who chose to condemn others with whom they disagree without any attempt to understand the behavior.

Typical characteristics of Skeptics are:

1. They try to show the unacceptability of an idea by belittling it and associating it with obviously silly ideas, rather than with facts, evidence and sound logic.

2. They describe the idea and people associated with it in terms that would usually cause a fight if spoken face to face. They assume "believers" are seen as second class citizens by the mainstream public and thus do not enjoy the protection of social norms afforded mainstream citizens.

3. They do not add knowledge to anything, but are only able to destroy knowledge.

4. Skeptics may feign belief in a subject and may even claim subject matter expertise, but then condemn the work of others.

Constructive criticism without condemnation

In the more mature community of mainstream academia, it is common to see blunt criticism of a researcher's work, but at least in principle, it is based on evidence and is intended to be constructive. Peer-review of articles is intended to assure certain standards or community norms are maintained. Again, at least in principle, the objective of discovery based on sound science is always in sight.

Ours is a frontier field of study and we have yet to develop social norms or standards of excellence. It is all too common for members of this community to attack others seemingly more out of envy than out of a desire to improve the quality of work. Rather than asking why the person believes what they do, we see people assuming fraud or ignorance. Rather than allowing for the possibility of not knowing all of the details, it is too common for Critics to assume higher authority and attack others, even without the detail.

This is also a very fragile community in that any negative press has wide-spread negative impact, as Skeptics size on the opportunity to scoff and once again "prove" to the mainstream public how silly we are. There is an old sarcastic comment that comes to mind: "They eat their own don't they." When we attack one another, we are effectively giving ourselves to the mainstream Skeptical community. If you have ever looked for research funding, you would understand how frustrating it is to be ignored because of the assumption that we really are as some member of this community said in an article.

As I have attempted to explain in the Culture section of this website, the practice of vetting can be constructive even while it addresses shortcomings. For instance, a researcher might write about a report published by another in terms of "This is a good article that can be made better if..." or "I agree with many of the point made by the author, however, I would like to address the assumptions one point was based on." this leaves the subject open for discussion which may lead to a better article and would be constructive for others.

Remaining silent or "taking the high road," so to speak, about organizations and individuals who are hurting the community by their comments is nearly as bad for the community as attacking others as described above. Social norms are established and continuously modified by public opinion. Be an activist by speaking out but do so in the constructive spirit of vetting rather than the destructive spirit of finding fault.

Trojan Hoarse websites

I have begun a list of organizations and websites that have exhibited one or more of the characteristics listed above for Skeptics, and which claim to be part of the paranormal community. By doing so, I am saying that it is not okay to be that kind of a member of this community. In each case, I will attempt to explain why I list the group in terms of constructive comments. My intention is not to attack, but perhaps, police our own.

A most distressing development

It has come to our attention that at least some of the River City Paranormal Society (RCPS) members have a policy of attacking other organizations and websites. This group appears to be organized under the MyPara website owned by Jonathan Wood who is also owner of the Wisconsin branch of RCPS.

An example of this is the "Fraudulent Websites" page of the RCPS NorCal site. ATransC is listed because: "'certified' to charge people for evp work. Why would somebody want to charge for evp work? It is included in a good team's investigation for free!"

Their grievance appears to be that the offending organizations charge for classes in such paranormal oriented subjects as hauntings investigations and recording for EVP. ATransC has certified a few EVP practitioners to help grieving people contact loved ones, and considering the time and emotional burden involved in such work, they are encouraged to charge for their services. The expectation of reimbursement for time, effort and cost to the practitioner seems to be a problem for the RCPS and MyPara people.

Amongst the first signs of an emerging science is the appearance of educational organizations. All of us in this frontier field should encourage any effort to teach. At the same time and in the spirit of "you get what you pay for," it is not reasonable to expect people to teach for free.

Judging by the thousands of people who have contacted ATransC seeking information and help in how to work with these phenomena, it is clear that people need to have educational resources to turn to. While we may not agree with everything in every syllabus, we are happy that organizations are making an effort to offer training in various aspects of these phenomena. The process is that a person takes a course, pays a reasonable fee for the service, receives some form of receipt which is traditionally a certificate and then goes on to improve on what they have learned.

There is no practical difference between someone writing a book about these phenomena or publishing a magazine on the subject (as we see MyPara is now doing for $10 and issue) and selling a course. All of these convey knowledge and the publishers are reimbursed for the service.

What is not acceptable is behavior that is intended to degrade one group in order to promote another. We notice that, in addition to selling a magazine, Jonathan Wood is selling advertising on his sites. This would seem to indicate that a fourth indicator of a Trojan Horse website is that they are outrageous so that they can attract more website visitors so that they can sell more advertising.

Community response

At a time that we all need to be working together to bring things paranormal into the mainstream, it is most disheartening to see this group attack others with what are really short-sighted grievances. We like it that the larger community is not inclined to behave in kind, but at the same time, the public only sees the loudest voice. Judging by the nearly 1000 people registered on the MyPara forum, there are many people who are likely taking the poison-pen rhetoric as truth.

It is important that everyone in this field, especially the website owners and/or group leaders, know how to speak of what they know to be true, are sure they have based that understanding on sound logic and clearly state this to the public. It is important to speak out against the skeptical community, based on that understanding and with an even mind and mild manner.

My Pledge

Believe what you wish but know what you believe

My Pledge             Contact Tom Butler

Available as Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License