Article

In Defense of Ghost Stories

This movie, I think, illustrates two different, but related and important points for me — first regarding the nature of my attitude towards critical thought and the spirit of this blog itself, and second a (perhaps poignant) point about how I as a kid viewed the moral authority of a movie like Ghost Busters in relation to my world view.

The other night we were privileged to enjoy a couple hours of peace and quiet while the girl slept. My wife and I, reverting to our pre-parental state of freedom opted to spend the time watching a movie on television. Blame the impending Halloween media blitz, but the best we could find on the tube at that particular hour was the classic from our youths, the 1984 paranormal classic Ghost Busters (Internet Movie Database Entry) directed by Ivan Reitman.

For those unfamiliar with the premise of this particular movie, or for the benefit of those too young to appreciate satire from the 1980s, the summary of the plot is as follows: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis play the roles of three (often bumbling) paranormal “scientists” at New York City’s Columbia University. The trio is shown to be studying all manner of phenomena including (but presumably not limited to) psychic powers, ESP, and (of course) ghosts. As the the first act of the movie draws to a close, the researchers are in the process of losing their jobs and being expelled from their labs, and, in the manner of all things Hollywood, about to begin the process of turning their fruitless research into a small enterprise in spectral investigation and removal: the Ghostbusters. Meanwhile, the city is inexplicably becoming infested with ghosts, apparitions, and ancient demi-gods and so the boys, their gadgets, and their quick-witted skills are put to the test taking care of the problem and ultimately saving the city from imminent destruction.

This movie, I think, illustrates two different, but related and important points for me — first regarding the nature of my attitude towards critical thought and the spirit of this blog itself, and second a (perhaps poignant) point about how I as a kid viewed the moral authority of a movie like Ghost Busters in relation to my world view.

The first point is something of a clarification for the state of this blog, and it relates directly to a statement I wrote in the (original) introduction. If you haven’t read the About page, and you are just stumbling here from a Google search and wondering what this blog is, who I am, or why a “skeptic” is writing positively about a ghost movie — read it. The statement is stashed about halfway down the page and reads: For my own reasons, I don’t want to deny them their childhood or rob them of their innocence. I imagine that this might be my greatest source of criticism. My thoughts on critical thinking are not necessarily (at least in front of kids) about tossing out religion, turning the lights onto the paranormal, grounding UFOs, or pulling the beard off of Santa in the mall. Yes, this is a big part of skepticism for adults — and a big part of my own interaction with my world. But when raising kids the value of these things in making the universe a mysterious and unifying whole is very important.

This is where Ghost Busters comes in to play. As I write this, this blog is still young and this is the first time I’ve made this point in a post. But I’ll likely make it again. My argument for raising critical thinkers is NOT about denying children access to culture, even if I myself am selective and critical of the plausibility of pieces of that culture. In raising critical thinking kids I wholeheartedly believe they should be exposed to a maximum of culture (including pseudoscience, science, myth, fact, fiction, and all manner of belief) if for no other reason than it provides them with a well-grounded starting point for making their own judgments about those aspects of culture. Raising critically thinking kids, after all, is not about making them “capital-S” Skeptics, but rather about teaching them to question the validity of information presented to them.

I would simply say that this is the root philosophy of the skep/dad blog: teaching kids skills for independence, integrity, and imagination — and that indoctrination fits nowhere within those modus operandi. But, yet again, I digress.

My second point, as I promised, is about how I as a kid viewed the moral authority of a movie like Ghost Busters in relation to my world view.

This idea occurred to me quite clearly as I was re-watching the movie the other night, and (having not seen it in years) approached the plight (and folly) of the trio of researchers with a completely new (and perhaps skeptical) perspective from that of my younger self.

As a kid I could not understand the opposition to the Ghost Busters — and here I’m referring to opposition from within their own fictionalized world. That is to say, inside the story, why did they get fired from their jobs? Why were people making fun of them? Why was the guy from the EPA trying so hard to shut them down? Were they not, after all, just providing a much needed service to the city? How could people be so blind? I suppose as a kid I asked these questions because, simply, in my mind ghosts were a reality. Plain and simple. Heck, with a little help from my parents I could have probably set up a franchise in my hometown (at the age of nine, no less!)

As an adult skeptic, I see that the movie is satirical comedy. Of course they were fired! No respectable University would let such vapid research progress uncontested. No reputable organization or business would fund investigation into such paranormal pursuits. And certainly no honest publication would give traction to the findings of such study. That is simply not how science works. At best, the ‘researchers’ represented classic Hollywood science, bumbling nerds struggling in isolation against all odds with wacky inventions spanning multiple disciplines, without focus or grounded motive. At worst, the ‘researchers’ represent quacks and charlatans, for obvious reasons. I need barely even mention what the real-world public perception would (or, at least, should) be of a business that ‘exterminated’ ghosts for a hefty fee and single-handedly represented the entire closed loop of that service: detection, removal, and storage. Of course people laughed at them. Of course government groups were trying to shut them down. We should have been cheering for that blow-hard from the EPA for being the one guy who seemed willing to stand up to men who more more likely to have been con artists than heroes.

So, what’s my point? Am I trying to debunk a movie that is widely understood to be a satire and a comedy? No. Am I suggesting that kids should be censored or corrected when it comes to movies like Ghost Busters or their modern equivalents? No, I don’t think so. As a kid, my ability to think about this critically was clouded by my own belief in ghosts, yes. But what was the role of that and similar movies in my eventual (perhaps inevitable) development as a critical thinker and a skeptic? I suppose it all comes back to that term I (not accidentally) used earlier on in this entry: moral authority. Fiction that can tug at us from two directions has, in my own opinion, an awesome ability to shape us as people. Ghost Busters tugs at us from two directions, certainly. One, it tugs at us from a comedic, heart-warming, feel-good perspective. We relate to the averageness of the players. But alternately, ask us (if only for a couple hours) to believe in and in some ways defend the moral authority of those same players in a rationally indefensible position. In the fictionalized world, this becomes easy but in the real world, most certainly not. After all, it is only because we become to know the trio of investigators that we trust they are not, in fact, con artists fooling the city with special effects and light shows.

As a kid, admittedly, this was lost on me. But as a (skeptical) parent I can see this as a learning opportunity. At worst, it will be a sheepish realization to be had later in life. At best, an exercise in critical thought to be shared over a bowl of popcorn.

The SkepDad Blog is meant to casually reflect on questions surrounding parenting and raising kids to become critical thinkers by asking questions and examining parenting ideas with a skeptical eye for facts and science. Each article is one dad's personal opinion, backed (where relevant) by literature and published research, or otherwise based on personal experiences and insights. SkepDad welcomes balanced discussion, comments, and ideas.

October 23, 2007 by Brad
Filed as: Meta-Skepdad, Thinking Back

Popularity: 17%

Posts and Pages that might have similar content:


On Writing a Blog Like This… >> I'll admit it. I started this thing with grand delusions of peppering a skep-themed domain with well thought-out essays and articles on raising critically thinking kids. It's not that such a blog is a bad idea -- it's still a

Guide >> This page will slowly evolve over time to be a central navigation point and operations guide for the skep/dad blog. Of course, that capacity will depend on the writing of articles, the linking of information, and the growth of the blog itself.

Sunday Reading: Freakonomics >> Sundays? What Have I Been Reading About Parenting? Don't know how many of you skeptical parents out there have picked up a copy of the pop-sociology book, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Levitt and Dubner.

 
Tags: , , ,

Comments

Leave a Reply