Category: Opinion

Bending Spoons and the Limits of Intellectual Tolerance

6/16/2016

A few weeks ago, the CARE Program for Integrated Health and Healing at the University of Alberta posted a notice about an upcoming spoon-bending workshop on campus. Participants (mostly doctors, but other community members were invited as well) would be guided through a meditation that would enable them to warp a spoon with the power of their minds - and a certain amount of pressure from their hands. The event was the concluding presentation in a series exploring integrative medicine as a complement to conventional health care, and it was intended to be a fun activity to end on.(1)

   The would-be presenter, Anastasia Kutt, an energy-healing therapist in Edmonton, Alberta (Western Canada), was prepared for a skeptical audience and hoping for an “educated conversation.”

   She was immediately disappointed.

   An outcry from skeptical tweeters pressured CARE’s director into cancelling the workshop and spurred Kutt’s resignation from the program. Meanwhile, the media amplified debunkers’ scorn in an over-blown and one-sided treatment of the controversy.

   The #spoongate controversy demonstrates the narrow limits of our tolerance for unorthodox views in the modern university system, and offers a warning on the intellectually-stifling effects of suppressing discussion for appearances’ sake. It also raises questions about the role of academic institutions in regulating thought and practice, and implores us to take a more committed stance on intellectual freedom in the university.

The Spoon-Bending Workshop Controversy

   Sometime before June 1, Timothy Caulfield, a professor of health law and science policy at the University of Alberta, came across a poster for the event and took offence to its being taught at a “science-based” institution.

   In an interview with the CBC, Canada’s national public broadcaster, Caulfield insisted that spoon bending has been thoroughly debunked, and expressed concern over the effect that hosting such an event would have on people’s confidence in university science.  Whatever the university’s role in organizing the workshop (and Caulfield himself was unsure), he felt that even including the U of A logo on the poster was damaging to the credibility of the institution. “It really does seem like [programs like CARE] are part of academia and that, to me, is problematic.” (2)

  Caulfield’s reproach proved to be contagious. On June 1, he tweeted a screenshot of the event poster in a disapproving tone. The tweet - now retweeted nearly 100 times - sparked an outrage from the twittersphere, and specifically from opponents of alternative medicine.

   Other tweeters were far more explicit than was Caulfield in his condemnation of “quackery” on the university campus. “Bending spoons is a great entry level activity. Sadly my med school taught science,” tweeted Clay Jones. “Solid skills for every physician to possess. Yikes.” remarked Susan Chapell, sarcastically. “I’m embarrassed to be from the same country,” tweeted Scott Stratten.

   Others posted mock photos of their own attempts to bend spoon through intense concentration, and shared memes of the spoon-bending kid from The Matrix. Many tweets tagged the U of A’s Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, drawing institutional attention to would likely otherwise have been an under-the-radar event.

   The backlash resounded in the skeptical blogosphere, where writers joined Caulfield in criticizing the university for facilitating the workshop’s organization, and presumably, for not putting a stop to it altogether. The very existence of the workshop was considered to be a breach of intellectual rigour. “Sure, it’s possible that a lot of physicians saw the spoon-bending flyer and scoffed derisively,” said David Gorksi at Respectful Insolence, “but the very fact that the workshop was scheduled is a symptom of a serious problem.” (3)

   Then, just two days after Caulfield’s tweet, the Office of the Vice-president (Research) issued a statement reporting that the event had been “withdrawn by the presenters.” It was explained that the event had been organized in the absence of CARE’s founding director, Sunita Zohra, who immediately cancelled it when media backlash brought it to her attention. (4)

   The same statement remarked that the event was about “reiki and other energy therapies, highlighting how and why patients and therapists use it… acknowledging that there is a lack of evidence about how, and how well, it works.” Kutt said that she had been asked to speak to this, and would make only a few remarks about energy healing at the outset of the workshop. The statement also made note of the fact that such Ivy League schools as Harvard, Yale, and Standard also engaged in research on “alternative medical approaches.” The statement reads like damage control, and a special attempt to convince debunkers of the CARE team’s compliance with mainstream medical opinion.

   But this is not a scientific position; it’s a PR front. So what’s the science on bending spoons, and what’s the scientific value of testing these kinds of claims in an informal, experimental setting?

I don’t know if there is anything to the practice of meditation-guided spoon-bending; as far as I know, it’s never been tested. But that’s the problem: before Kutt was even given the chance to state her case, she was shouted down by those who imagined her as a potential opponent. We should all be concerned by the way that the #spoongate scandal has played out, and I’d like to come to the defence of Kutt’s would-be workshop, if only as a matter of principle.

In Defence of Bending Spoons

   First off, contrary to what Caulfield has insisted, spoon-bending has not been conclusively debunked, at least not in the form that Kutt had promised to demonstrate it.

   It’s true that a number of prominent “psychic” spoon-benders have been exposed as frauds, and that numerous stage magicians have revealed their tricks to be reproducible without mental powers. A quick Google search will return a number of videos by prominent debunkers like James Randi and Michael Shermer demonstrating how to fool people into thinking you’ve bent a spoon with your mind. (5)

  All the techniques demonstrated in these videos, however, require the spoon-bender to be “in” on the trick, intentionally trying to mislead his or her audience. To the best of my knowledge, nowhere has it been shown how a group of doctors not willfully engaging in deceit could bend spoons through guided meditation, as Kutt claimed she could have them do. There is simply no basis on which to dismiss this claim a priori, as it’s never been previously debunked.

   And there’s no reason to think that Kutt was putting anyone on, or making any attempt to explain the process by recourse to what some might consider “far out” theories like telekinesis. Indeed, she seemed to be every bit as curious about its cause as her participants. Kurt clarified her intentions for the workshop in a post to her blog just a few days after her resignation.

“Attendees at the workshop would have learned that spoon bending is not a “magic trick”, nor is it “psychic”. Anyone can learn to do it… I was excited to share and discuss this experience with the University community, and ask them – what do you think is happening? I was prepared for “skeptics” to attend the workshop, and was looking forward to having an educated conversation with them at the end…” (6)

   Kutt claimed that several individuals in the medical community had previously expressed interest in the workshop. And why not? As Kutt pointed out, Health Canada estimates that over 70% of Canadians use integrative health therapies. Should our medical professionals not make some attempt to understand these therapies, and the non-materialist views that underlie them, even if they don’t believe them? By chasing alternative therapists like Kutt off campus, the medical community only risk losing touch with their patients’ views and beliefs.

   As Kutt remarked, it’s a little strange that anyone would be so alarmed by the prospect of a group of doctors - presumably some of the sharpest, most educated individuals in our society - hearing someone out on a controversial claim. What are we afraid is going to happen if a few smart people are given the opportunity to apply their well-honed critical faculties? If spoon-bending is so obviously bogus, as Caulfield believes, then we should expect that the doctors would simply fail to bend the spoons and decide that the whole practice is bunk. Would this not simply strengthen their conviction in the radical separation of mind and matter, and reaffirm their own philosophical materialism? Would the medical community not be more dismissive of anomalous claims if more doctors saw their lack of efficacy for themselves? It’s difficult to imagine any harm befalling medical practitioners or the general public if the workshop were to go ahead as planned.

Separating Science from Pseudoscience

   Running through the logic of knee-jerk scoffers like Caulfield is the assumption that there exists a clear line out there that cleanly separates science from pseudoscience, and that if people were sufficiently educated, they could all agree on where that line is. It is assumed by these same people that the university has some duty to police this line, and to ensure that the scourge of pseudoscience is never allowed to taint the purity of science. Avoiding pseudoscience is simply a matter of putting pressure on the right institutions to make the obvious, responsible choices.

   It’s my contention that no such dividing line exists, and that we should not be shaming university administrators into drawing one themselves. There will always be debate on the difference between science and pseudoscience, and not for lack of education. It is an integral part of the scientific method that inquiring minds should disagree on particular questions and methodologies, and constantly re-examine “settled” scientific truths. We don’t need the administration to force a consensus by presenting us only with workshops that don’t challenge the majority’s views. If there will ever be a consensus on the efficacy of bending spoons with your mind, then we should be trusted to reach it through free debate.

   As Kutt remarked, “the “skeptics” criticize many of these therapies for having no evidence, but when they are being explored in a university setting, they are bullied out.” Is spoon bending a real phenomenon? Can it be scrutinized by science? We’ll never know if we continue to drive its proponents from centres of learning, shutting down research and debate before they’ve even begun.

   Tolerating advocacy for a particular position is not the same thing as advocating for that position, and censoring dissent is not the same thing as reaching consensus. We have nothing to fear from extending the limits of intellectual tolerance to include a discussion of what some might consider pseudoscientific practices.

   The spoon-bending workshop should have proceeded as planned. Who knows, maybe some doctors would have bent their spoons. Maybe they would not have. Either way, we’d have learned something about the power of the mind.

- Jason Charbonneau

Anastasia Kutt, Luminous Tranquility, June 6, 2016, http://www.luminoustranquility.ca/anastasias-blog. Anastasia’s website is currently down for renovations. All quotes and references as taken from a transcript of the original blog post sent in a private message to the author.
Mack Lamoureux, “Spoon-bending workshop, widely ridiculed online, pulled by university,” cbc.ca, posted June 3, 2016, accessed June 16, 2016, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/spoon-bending-workshop-widely-ridiculed-online-pulled-by-university-1.3615916?cmp=rss&cid=news-digests-edmonton
David Gorski (username Orac), “Integrative medicine and spoon bending at the University of Alberta and “Bigfoot skepticism,” Respectful Insolence, June 3, 2016, accessed June 16, 2016, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/06/03/spoon-bending-at-the-university-of-alberta-bigfoot-skepticism/
Office of the Vice-President (Research), "Statement related to IHI and Cancelled PIM Rounds Workshop," blog.ualberta.com, posted by hbrodie June 10, 2016, accessed June 16, 2016, http://blog.ualberta.ca/2016/06/statement-related-to-ihi-and-cancelled.html
Michael Shermer, “How to Bend a Spoon with Your Mind,” YouTube video, uploaded by Skeptic Magazine, Jan 5, 2009, accessed June 16, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxSNuIx4m5k; James Randi, “James Randi demonstrates how to fake psychic powers,” YouTube video, uploaded by HaulMorgan, Jun 12, 2007, accessed June 16, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJQBljC5RIo
Kutt, Luminous Tranquility, see above.

3 Comments

Flying Saucers are NOT Real

4/14/2016

1 Comment

The famous Canadian UFO researcher, Stanton Friedman, did a documentary in the early 1990s called “Flying Saucers are Real,” an homage to Donald Keyhoe’s UFO classic, The Flying Saucers Are Real (1950). The title seemed as basic and straightforward a statement as any advocate of UFO research could make. But while I’m certainly an advocate for UFO research, I’d like to argue the opposite: flying saucers, or the disc-shaped craft that supposedly carry extraterrestrial visitors from far away planets into our atmosphere, are a figment of our social imagination. They are not real.

   Let me be clear: I absolutely believe that there is something wholly unexplained in the UFO data. Unexplained, or Unidentified Flying objects are undoubtedly a part of our reality, and they are more than worthy of scientific interest. I also acknowledge that many of these objects are described as being disc or saucer shaped, and could therefore justifiably be referred to as “flying saucers.” I’m even open to the notion that these “saucers” may be carrying alien beings.

   I’m merely trying to argue that the concept of the flying saucer, and all that we assume about its pilots and origins, is a human creation based on a narrow, and arbitrary sampling of global UFO reports. The flying saucer label does not represent the wider UFO phenomenon, and even excludes many of the sightings we’d consider true airborne anomalies. We need to stop using the term, “flying saucer” as a substitute for UFO, UAP, or other more neutral terms, if not drop it from our vocabulary altogether.

The First Flying Saucers

   So where did this term come from, and why do we use it in the first place? Its history is actually quite short, given the long history of UFOs. People have seen things in the sky they could not explain for at least as long as they’ve been capable of recording them, but “flying saucers” are a product of the post-war era. Ufologists have discovered that people saw metallic, disc-shaped craft at least as far back as the turn of the twentieth century, but we had no name for these objects at the time, and no obvious category to place them in. As a result, they weren’t often recorded, and they weren’t widely discussed.

   This all changed when an American businessman and pilot named Kenneth Arnold saw what he thought were a fleet of unusual aircraft over Mount Rainer, Washington in June 1947. Arnold described the craft he saw as “delta-shaped,” and claimed only that their movement resembled that of a saucer skipping over water. Media reporting on the incident, however, twisted his words, and dubbed the objects “flying saucers.”

   Despite the inaccuracy, the term stuck, and it even spawned a few imitations. Just two weeks after Arnold’s sightings, the Roswell Daily Record broke the infamous story of the Roswell crash. “No Details of Flying Disk are Revealed,” ran the sub headline. From then on, “flying disc,”and “flying saucer” have been treated interchangeably.

   The concept of the flying saucer was solidified in the popular imagination after a few key photographs made it to the media: one over New Jersey in 1952, and two from a farm near McMinnville, Oregon in 1950. The McMinnville UFO photographs are among the most famous ever taken, and are considered today as emblematic of the UFO phenomenon.

One of the two famous McMinnville UFO Photographs, 1950, now considered emblematic of the greater UFO phenomenon.

   The image of the spinning, metallic disc quickly made it ways into popular culture. Flying saucers were featured in magazines and comic books everywhere, and even shown on the big screen. 1951’s landmark science-fiction film, The Day the Earth Stood Still, had the aliens landing in spinning, silver discs. In Forbidden Planet (1956), set in a far away future, even the humans flew flying saucers. The sleek, domed saucer became a symbol of the space-faring civilization, and hung around for a very long time in popular culture.

   It’s true, many of the early UFO reports of the late 1940s involved disc-shaped craft (“like two inverted saucers” was a common description), but others didn’t. The famous Maury Island sighting of 1947, the same month as Arnold’s, involved doughnut-shaped craft dropping molten metal from their hulls. The craft that supposedly abducted the Hills in 1961 was described as being in the shape of a pancake, with two little wings on either side. And many sightings over the years, including one over an Italian football stadium in 1954, involved cigar-shaped craft hanging motionless in the air. (1)

   The term “flying saucer,” and the mythos that came to surround it, was a media creation, one that began in the wake of Arnold’s sighting and never quite went away.

Where have all the Flying Saucers Gone?

   That the term lingered for so long is even more surprising in light of the more recent trend towards seeing more complex types of craft. The officers that chased a UFO across two states in 1966 said that the object was shaped like an ice-cream cone, with a lop-sided, rounded top. Betty Cash and two passengers were stopped in the middle of a highway in 1980 by a hovering, diamond-shaped craft. Thousands of people in the Hudson Valley area in the 1980s and 90s reported triangular or boomerang-shaped objects, and in 2012, a mother and daughter in rural Wisconsin saw a brilliant, lampshade-shaped object fly over their neighbour’s home. (2)

   Still other sightings involve objects that aren’t obviously craft - or objects, for that matter - at all. Dr. J. Allen Hynek’s collected hundreds of reports of “nocturnal lights,” or points of light in the sky hardly discernible from a star if not for their movement.(3) Many UFO sightings, then and now, fall into this category. To call such a thing a “flying saucer,” or even a “flying craft,” is more than a bit presumptuous.

   But even in cases where the UFO is seen within 150m - what Hynek would have called a “close encounter” - the object does not always appear as a structured craft. As early as 1969, the French ufologist, Aimé Michel, published the extraordinary account of a physician in Southern France who watched two glowing discs approach the window of his home and merge into one, seamless object. (4) Last April, a Colombian newspaper editor took photos himself of a shape-changing UFO that flew over Bogota and at times took the form of a figure eight. (5) What sense does it make to refer to these aerial anomalies as “saucers?”

   People no longer report saucer-shaped craft with the frequency they once did, and other kinds of UFOs have become more common. It’s to the point now that sightings of traditional discs are vastly outnumbered by sightings of all other types of craft. (6) There is an enormous range of UFO forms, and most of them look nothing like discs or saucers. As part of its regular analysis, MUFON, one of the world’s leading independent UFO research groups, categorizes sighting reports according to the shape of the object seen. Objects are widely distributed across more than 20 different categories of shape, but many more fall into the “sphere” category than any one other. In the month of February 2016, 111 UFOs were classed as “spherical,” whereas only 42 were classed as being in the shape of a “disc.” Other categories include “oval,” teardrop,” “square,” “diamond,” and “chevron.” (7)

   Referring to this whole range of structures as “flying saucers” is more than simply misleading: it is locking us into a single mode of thought, and preventing us from exploring alternative answers to the UFO question. When we refer to an unidentified object as a “flying saucer” or a “flying disc,” we are prejudicing the extraterrestrial hypothesis for UFO origins. Knowingly or unknowingly, we are generating the assumption for ourselves and for others, that “genuine” UFOs are physical spaceships from another planet. Even the weaknesses of the extraterrestrial hypothesis not withstanding, it is unscientific to assume it from the outset, merely as a function of our choice in terminology. If we’re going to leave the door open to alternative theories, we need to use terminology that allows for this.

Conclusion

   In Flying Saucers and Science, Friedman defends his use of the term, “flying saucer” by claiming that “Flying saucers are, by definition, unidentified flying objects, but very few unidentified flying objects are flying saucers.” (8) Perhaps so. But if flying discs are just a subset of UFOs, then there are many others under this umbrella category that deserve our attention, for all the same reasons.

   It is unscientific for Mr. Friedman, or any ufologist, to continue using “flying saucer” or “flying disc” to refer to the great range of anomalous aerial phenomena. It’s time to retire these antiquated terms and reconsider how we label what we can’t explain.

- Jason Charbonneau

Notes:

(1) Richard Padula, “The Day UFOs Stopped Play.” BBC.com. October 24, 2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29342407 (accessed April 14, 2016).

(2) “MUFON annual report 2012.” Mufon.com. http://www.mufon.com/2012-annual-report---top-cases.html (accessed April 14, 2016 ).

(3) Examples can be found throughout in J. Allen Hynek, The UFO Experience, New York: Ballantine Books, 1972.

(4) Aimé Michel, “The Strange Case of Dr. X” in Flying Saucer Review, special Issue no. 3. September 1969. Noufors.com. http://www.noufors.com/Documents/Books,%20Manuals%20and%20Published%20Papers/Flying%20Saucer%20Review/ (accessed April 14, 2016), 3-15.

(5) Jon Austin, “Shape Changing UFO Caught on Camera as Newspaper Editor Spots Alien Craft.” mirror.co,uk. May 15, 2015. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/shape-changing-ufo-caught-camera-5511582 (accessed April 14, 2016).

(6) Micah Hanks, “What Ever Happened to the “Flying Saucer” Shaped UFOs?” mysteriousuniverse.com. December 24, 2015. http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/12/what-ever-happened-to-the-flying-saucer-shaped-ufos/ (accessed April 14, 2016).

(7) Statistics from the “February 2016 UFO Sighting Statistics” email from mufon.com, sent to the author on March 31, 2016.

(8)  Stanton Friedman, Flying Saucers and Science, Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press, 2008, 57.

1 Comment

Articles

All Think Anomalous articles are written or edited by site founder and film maker, Jason Charbonneau. Jason is a freelance Foley artist and sound editor living in Toronto, Canada, and an anomalist by hobby.

Bending Spoons and the Limits of Intellectual Tolerance

Flying Saucers are NOT Real

Articles

Categories

Archives

​​

Bending Spoons and the Limits of Intellectual Tolerance

Flying Saucers are NOT Real

Articles

Categories

Archives