Delve inside Chambers Dictionary of the Unexplained, with Bob Rickard’s Preface, a new entry drawn from the book each week and sample pages.
Preface
by Bob Rickard
Depending upon which opinion poll you take, modern belief in UFOs, ghosts, psychic powers, astrology, luck, fairies, Atlantis and life after death – to name a few of the more popular subjects – has never been stronger. I am often asked if, generally, interest in the paranormal and the ‘unexplained’ is increasing; this is difficult to assess as a proper study has yet to be done. What we can say, with some certainty, is that personal and public discussion – augmented by media coverage, entertainment shows, book sales and the Internet – is at an unprecedented level of openness, where, previously, such interests were preferably private or the province of dedicated groups. Few have the time or opportunity to research in the depth and breadth necessary to answer their questions, or even to put them in context. Also, the more aware people are of these subjects, the more they are likely to be interested in historical precedent, inter-connections, current research and attempts at explanation. We hope that this dictionary will give them some help.
Given the extent to which the paranormal, in one form or another, pervades modern life the world over – as it has done throughout human history – what are we to make of its extensive and unseen influence on our personal and social lives? Inevitably, in such a wide-ranging forum, the variety and quality of information spans a full spectrum, from deeply personal (but ultimately unverifiable) experiences to the most rigorous of scholarly research papers. Fully represented, too, is the range of positions, from the hostile sceptic to the credulous believer.
Most of our subjects are not science – yet; though some subjects respond more to a scientific approach than others, and the proponents of some anomalous subjects, seeking respectability or scientific approval, try very hard to couch their data in scientific terms. This ‘pseudo-science’ is rarely successful if the underlying material cannot withstand critical examination. However, it is not helpful to lump this rich mix of subjects, opinions and data together and dismiss it as time-wasting nonsense, as some hostile sceptics do. Nor can they all be the product of wilful attempts to deceive and defraud. Yet we must always be aware of the possibility of misidentification and misinterpretation in observational data, and of delusion and pious fraud in its interpretation.
I used the word ‘yet’ above because there are things incorporated into modern science, medicine and engineering that were once regarded (often by the best minds of the day) as something only uneducated peasants would believe in. One only has to think of Galileo’s heliocentric heresy, of meteorites (officially rejected by the French Academy of Sciences in 1790 and not accepted until 1840), of Wegener’s theory of continental drift (never accepted in his lifetime), of the ridicule heaped upon Edison’s first light bulbs, of Pasteur’s theory of germs, of Logie Baird (the inventor of television) who was judged ‘a swindler’ at first, of the gorilla (known since Roman times but only accepted in 1847), of ball lightning (a well-observed physical phenomenon, the nature of which is still in dispute), and of countless modern pharmaceuticals that once were known only to tribal healers. This brief list could be expanded, but it serves to illustrate two important points: firstly, that scientific knowledge grows by assimilating data it once excluded; and secondly, the value of the study of anomalies themselves.
But – when faced with such a vast and undisciplined subject field, with so many ‘equal and opposite’ experts – how is the ordinary person to distinguish what is real and lasting from what is misleading or wrong? Two and a half millennia ago, Gautama Buddha answered this dilemma by encouraging a true spirit of inquiry. The villagers of Kalama complained to him of their confusion at the endless procession of mystics, gurus and teachers through their village, each with a seemingly different message. The Buddha replied that doubt was the proper response, and that it is wise to make a proper examination before committing to any belief. As paraphrased from the Pali Kalama Sutta, he advised: ‘Do not be led by what you are told. Do not be led by whatever has been handed down from past generations. Do not be led by hearsay or common opinion. Do not be led by what the scriptures say. Do not be led by mere logic. Do not be led by mere deduction or inference. Do not be led by considering only outward appearance. Do not be led by preconceived notions. Do not be led by what seems acceptable or believable. Do not be led by what your teacher tells you is so.’
Today the paranormal field is replete with its own self-professed ‘experts’, and I find Buddha’s answer to be wholly appropriate and sensible when facing the bewildering range of opinions, conundrums and complexities of the ‘paranormal’. My own mentor Charles Fort expressed the same advice: question everything, including authority. Test the data and opinions of others as far as you can, selecting what seems trustworthy and durable. This is pretty much the approach approved by science. Children’s minds can be inoculated against all sorts of bunkum, nonsense and superstition if they are taught, as early as practical, to think for themselves, clearly, critically and decisively. Even so, caution must be married to enthusiasm, and curiosity about this wonderful universe in which we exist creatively encouraged. A true sceptic is never afraid to say: ‘I don’t know’. To which Fort would add: ‘But I’ll find out’.
Bob Rickard
[back to top]
View sample pages below
* Requires Adobe Acrobat
