Paul Kurtz is known to every astrologer, parapsychologist, psychic, and ufologist in the United States. Not in vain, through the pages of his magazine The Skeptical Inquirer, he dedicates himself to dismantling, one by one, the most common frauds of the paranormal world. To this end, he has surrounded himself with such eminent collaborators as Martin Gardner, Carl Sagan, Murray Gell-Mann, Stephen Jay Gould, Mario Bunge, Susan Blackmore, and an endless list of leading scientists, including Nobel laureates. They all write for Kurtz’s magazine and meet under his chairmanship in the world’s leading club of skeptical scientists, the CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Supposed Paranormal Phenomena).
But Kurtz, in addition to being a tireless fighter against pseudoscience, is the most authoritative voice of world humanism. It strictly follows the slogan that Protagoras launched twenty-five centuries ago, “man is the measure of all things”, and defends the first right of the human being: the freedom not to believe.
–So, with the permission of Protagoras, we could say that scientific evidence is the measure of all things …
-The basis of science is the combination of demonstrable evidence, theoretical constructions and experimental predictions. On these three bricks human scientific thought must be built and none of them can be missing. But the most important thing, without a doubt, is the presence of evidence. If we launch a theory and cannot prove it, we are left in mere speculation.
–And what do you think is the role of non-scientific thought, philosophy, art … in the development of humanity?
– Obviously, the human being is very rich and complex and all those things are, of course, fundamental parts of its development. Art, morals and philosophy are the highest activities, but there are other less abstract ways of constructing culture, such as sports, games, sexuality. All of this is part of who we are. However, if we refer to strict knowledge of the world around us, we have no choice but to ensure that the scientific method is the most powerful weapon of human beings to change the world.
–You have said that the best image of reality is the one drawn by the sciences of nature, society and behavior. Is this a call for interdisciplinarity?
-Yes. The expansion of human knowledge through science can only be stopped by one threat: excess specialization. Today, you can be a computer expert and not know how to tie your shoelaces. Or be a great mathematician and don’t know a word about biology. That is an obstacle to scientific evolution.
–What is the role of science in the world today?
-Of course, science has a great social responsibility. And to fulfill it in perfect conditions, there must be absolute freedom to investigate. You cannot give a social meaning to your work if you limit the field of action. You cannot have religious, economic or political powers asking you for results every day. Science is only at the service of humanity.
–But don’t you think that science and technology sometimes only serve a privileged few who have the resources to access them?
-May be, unfortunately. Looking at Spain, for example, which has a wonderful, rich and powerful cultural tradition, I think it needs to increase the use of science and technology to make the definitive leap into the 21st century. If you don’t, you will be left behind forever. In my opinion, that should be the top priority of all peoples. And that is achieved with money, of course, but also with education and the development of critical thinking among citizens.
–What will be the most important areas in the future development of science?
-No one can predict it, but I can suggest some. Nanotechnology, for example, has a lot to offer. Second, robotics and especially what in the United States we call combots (computer robots), that is, computer-controlled robots that, on occasions, are capable of making some decisions of their own. Longevity studies will also grow. It is clear that, if we do not have accidents, people will be able to live 90 or 95 years and perhaps things will improve until they exceed 100 or 115 years. But this can be a double-edged sword. There will be more and more elderly people and societies will be less productive. Some solutions are already applicable. For example, today it is absurd that you have to retire at 65. At that age, the men and women of today are perfectly capable of carrying out useful work. Research should lead not only to a longer life, but to a healthier, more efficient and more productive one.
–What is the paranormal?
-It is something that is very fashionable due to the impact on the media and its popular appeal. In reality, there is nothing magical, but there are phenomena that are still waiting for a scientific explanation.
–Do you think that the decline of the great religions, especially Christianity, has something to do with their rise?
-Yes. I think that when traditional religions decline, the paranormal becomes very attractive. The fascination with the unknown is inevitable and many people confuse the transcendental with the paranormal. I like to call esotericism “the transcendental temptation.” In fact, I think that pseudoscience is a new religion. And it’s probably the biggest religion in the world.
–Perhaps its popularity is due to the fact that it offers simple explanations for human problems …
-Of course. But perhaps that is not the most important factor in explaining the growth of the paranormal. I believe that the mass media are responsible for having given more importance to pseudoscience than to science. What is more attractive, talking about the Bermuda triangle and corn circles or explaining what Voyager sees when it passes Jupiter? For me, the real world is more exciting than any esoteric tale.
–There are people who believe that belief in the paranormal is actually a pathology …
-There are those who say that even for religions. Well, in some cases it is. There are people who become paranoid in it, which can even become an addiction. But I rather believe that the belief in the paranormal is a problem of misinformation, of a lack of critical sense.
–Maybe instead of fighting the paranormal it would be better to treat this problem as a social phenomenon and dedicate research to find out why people believe in it …
-Yes, many times it is a social and psychological problem. I consider that the paranormal is only in the eye of the believer. We need to be critical when thinking about why you convince people. For example, let’s look at astrology. This art underwent one of its greatest developments thanks to Ptolemy, who theorized about the cycles of the planets around the Earth. Later, science taught us that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Astrology became unfounded, declining in England, France, and many other countries during the 16th and 17th centuries. And now we see that in the twentieth century it returns in a surprising way. There is no corroborating evidence that it is true, but there it is … And people believe it. Well, science is actually only 400 years old, so we haven’t done enough yet to teach it to people.
–Do you think pseudoscience is a fad?
-Unfortunatelly no. Because each generation has its irrational way of thinking and the vicious circle does not end. Pseudoscientific propaganda is very powerful and appears in magazines, in books, on television, in movies, on the radio … It is a product that sells well. The only effective therapy against this is skeptical thinking. But, beware, skepticism must be positive. I advocate practicing a new skepticism. We must face the pseudosciences with real knowledge. It is not just about doubting, doubting and doubting. Doubt is a weapon of science, but we also have to offer indubitable, proven questions. And that’s what the scientific method is for.
Jorge Mayor
This interview was published in August 1995, in number 171 of VERY Interesting
