View Single Post
Old 15th December 2016, 10:30 AM   #8
PainKiller
Scholar
 
PainKiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Secret
Posts: 95
Quote:
The quote I posted as from Dingwall not long before his death, at the culmination of his career and summarised his opinions.
You are missing the point of this thread. It is claimed by modern day skeptics that Eric Dingwall was a skeptic and debunker of the paranormal during his career in psychical research. Not the case. He had openly written supportive things about psychics in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research and even bashed skeptics in this journal (Edward Clodd, Joseph McCabe). Is that normal behaviour for a skeptic?

I have just shown you he believed in paranormal phenomena throughout his career (1920s-1960s). This is not a single isolated case we are talking about.

The quote you cited is from 1971. In no place in that article did he retract his previous endorsements of the paranormal. He merely stated he had left the field and he was no longer impressed with it.

Dingwall had written supportive statements about the paranormal as late as 1968. See his Abnormal Hypnotic Phenomena four-volumes (1967–1968). He never retracted any of his statements.

Dingwall was on record for claiming that fraudulent mediums were genuine and that supernatural phenomena had occurred in countless psychical papers. Are you claiming he was a skeptic?

Skeptics do not publish papers in psychical journals claiming fraudulent psychics or mediums are genuine. Please do not claim otherwise.

Quote:
Besides, you should not cherry pick which quotes are or are not worth discussing. His views on why he left are as important as why he joined the field.
I'm the first skeptic to have acknowledged his support for paranormal phenomena. Like I said Eric Dingwall is cited by modern skeptics as some kind of debunker. I have just shown you he believed in the paranormal. Not just one or two cases, loads.

He was a paranormal believer, no different than those duped by paranormal claims like Gustav Geley or Albert von Schrenck-Notzing (two men he greatly admired). Yet history has been distorted.

Modern day skeptic books do not mention any of his endorsements of the paranormal. He is presented as some kind of cautious skeptical researcher, but this is false as I show above and will continue to show

Last edited by PainKiller; 15th December 2016 at 10:34 AM.
PainKiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top