My Position as Editor-in-Chief of Skeptiker magazine
The following links lead to texts that I have written for the Skeptiker magazine, the circular of the German skeptics society “Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften” (GWUP). As the editor-in-chief (1999-2003) I have aimed to maintain a fair, factual and rational approach to differing positions. I have attempted to encourage a discourse in which those who hold other opinions are personally respected and taken seriously, even if one doesn't agree with their position.
Besides a general enthusiasm for promoting scientific thinking in the general public, the main motivation for my work for Skeptiker was the desire and interest in understanding the opinions and beliefs of other people (see also Belief in the Paranormal: Mechanisms and explanations ) — because a serious consideration of other belief systems helps me to examine my own assumptions and beliefs more critically, to question them and to define them more clearly, and thus to gain new experience and knowledge.
During my ten years in this central position in the skeptical movement, I saw too often that a similar effort to respect and understand other people was not shared by some of the other active members. Even though a fair and factual approach is one of the publicly stated aims of the skeptical movement, rhethoric and reality are two very different things, even in influential “skeptics”: People with differing opinions are not seen as partners in a controversial discussion, but as “opponents” who can be attacked and ridiculed as persons — emotional soundbites replace solid arguments, and a constructive exchange is made more difficult. This enthuses the skeptics' own supporters, but it does not reach out to the audience that skeptics are supposed to address, and it creates a hostile atmosphere which is problematic simply due to its aggressive nature.
In several texts for Skeptiker, I have therefore repeatedly tried to encourage readers to think critically about their own assumptions and about style and argumentative approaches in the discussion with people who hold differing opinions. The following is a selection (Note that these editorials are in German):
- About mummies and scientists (3/2001): How can we actually evaluate the quality of dubious claims? Simple criteria fail very often, so we have to make the effort and look into the claims more closely. However, this is worthwile — because even weak claims often lead to related areas with many fascinating and well-supported facts.
- Errors are the way to improvement (2/2002): Nobody is able to find the faults in one's own beliefs and opinions. Therefore it is essential for your own understanding to have your position questioned by others critically, and not only to accept criticism open-heartedly, but to seek it actively.
- Primeval Germanic people, shamans and other „outlanders“ (4/2002): Prejudices agains foreign or past cultures cannot only be found in pseudo-archaeological writings, but unfortunately also in popular accounts of “normal” archaeology.
- Thanks for all the chocolate (2/2003): A personal account of my enthusiasm for the work for Skeptiker — and what is necessary to make not a society newsletter, but an interesting magazine.
- Ghosts in music and in newspapers (3/2003): Beware of simple, monocausal explanations for “paranormal” or anomalistic phenomena, even when the explanation is naturalistic and therefore meets your own preferences — it may still not be the correct solution!
Due to different opinions about fair communication and the quality of the work, conflicts continued to erupt. At the end of 2003, during a board meeting at which I could not be present, this eventually lead to my dismissal from the position as voluntary editor-in-chief of Skeptiker, a position into which I had invested much enthusiasm, energy and time up to the last moment. It was suggested that I could continue to help out with some minor tasks, however, after many attacks against me (some of them public) and without a flexible and responsible position, any further volunteering for the GWUP did not make sense, even though the departure from this interesting activity was very difficult and sad for me.
However, my interest in anomalistic topics has not decreased despite these personally very disappointing developments. To cover also this field besides my many other hobbys and activities, I am now member of the Society for Anomalistics (Gesellschaft für Anomalistik), a research society whose members study extraordinary human experiences from a multidisciplinary natural and social scientific perspective. We deliberately try to attract people with different opinions. I certainly do not agree with all opinions held by other members, but due to the open, friendly and constructive atmosphere I learn about new and interesting aspects — and others take suggestions from me.
© Stephan Matthiesen 2005, 2006. This text can be distributed freely as long as my name and a link to this page are preserved. If you want a revised or extended version, please feel free to contact me.
