Particle physicist Brian Cox has angered many by mocking people who believe in ghosts and the afterlife. He did so on Twitter after learning that the BBC had received complaints that Infinite Monkey Cage, the Radio 4 show he hosts with comedian Robin Ince, was unbalanced in an episode dealing with the paranormal.
Prof Cox – a former keyboard player in 1990s pop groups before focusing on cosmology and becoming a star presenter on television (a sort of supernova) – responded to the criticism by Tweeting:
“Just heard we got complaints about lack of BBC balance about ghosts – there are some utter nobbers out there! Here is my official statement, which also has the benefit of being fact. There are no ghosts, so it would be silly to believe in them.”
Which, of course, demonstrates that Cox is himself an even bigger nobber than the people who have upset him. The term nobber, for those unfamiliar with slang, means extremely stupid.
Brian Cox is sceptical of the paranormal, as were the guests on the very entertaining programme that caused offence: psychologists Richard Wiseman and Bruce Hood, and actor and magician Andy Nyman. Which is fine, of course, and their views shouldn’t be taken too seriously; after all, the programme’s concept is to inject comedy into science and make it a fun subject to discuss.
The Twitter pronouncement, on the other hand, was delivered as a statement of fact, based on the assumption that Cox knows the truth of such matters better than anyone else. Has he become God? Does he believe that his scientific credentials are sufficient to allow him to pass judgment on other areas, in which he has no expertise? And what about the incredible theories of multiverses and quantum events that cosmologists ask us to accept? How would he feel if we all dismissed such ideas and labelled their originators as nobbers, just because we don’t understand them or find them difficult to explain?.
While I realise that ghost sightings and hauntings are open to many different interpretations, there’s really no doubt that people report seeing them. Endeavouring to understand the phenomenon of apparitions – both of the dead and the living – has engaged the intellects of many scientists every bit as gifted as Cox over the centuries, and his dismissal of the subject is, to say the least, unscientific. Even a BBC source told the Daily Telegraph that, although the physicist was entitled to his views, “to call people ‘nobbers’ is just a little offensive.”
I suggest Brian Cox shows greater respect in future for those whose views differ from his own, and a good starting point would be to become better acquainted with the best parapsychological literature and those who have taken the trouble to conduct research.
A good starting point would be to acquaint himself with the opinions of British scientist Peter Sturrock, whose research in nuclear physics at Engand’s Atomic Energy Research Establishment led, in time, to a long association with Stanford University, California, where he was appointed Professor of Engineering and Applied Physics in its School of Engineering and its Physics Department. Since 1961, Sturrock has worked primarily on plasma physics, solar physics and astrophysics, as well as gravity research and studying the history and philosophy of science. He has 300 scientific papers to his name, most in solar physics in which he is a towering figure.
Does Sturrock believe in ghosts? I don’t know, but he has studied a range of paranormal phenomena and is open-minded about many of them. His interest in the role of anomalies in the progress of science led him to Chair the Founding Committee of the Society for Scientific Exploration and he has served as its president since 1982.The recipient of numerous scientific awards, Sturrock keeps an open mind on the paranormal for very good reasons: he has experienced an unusual phenomenon – notably a UFO sighting – at first hand.
Wikipedia’s extensive biography of Sturrock tells us that his interest in UFOs began when he employed Dr Jacques Vallee on a research project and learned that he had authored a number of books on UFOs. Sturrock, we are told, ‘felt a professional obligation to at least peruse Vallee’s books’ which led him to research the subject further. Though this story is true, it was not the start of his interest in the subject. That occurred on an autumn day in 1947 – the year the word ‘flying saucer’ was coined – when he was a student at Cambridge and saw an unidentified flying object: an experience he has since described as ‘very disturbing’. It was, he says, his ‘first encounter with an unorthodox world that does not conform to the orthodox, neatly packaged, world of conventional science.’
Sturrock knows from personal experience how closed minded many scientists are. So he has been doubly courageous not only in pursuing his interest in the paranormal but also in expressing his views on the subect in his books, A Tale of Two Sciences: Memoirs of a Dissident Scientist and The UFO Enigma.
Brian Cox’s contributions to litereature, on the other hand, appear to be largely confined to his co-authored books based on his television series, Wonders of the Solar System and Wonders of the Universe. If you want a starry-eyed account of astrophysics, Cox is your man. If you’d prefer a sensible discussion about unusual phenomena and scientists’ attitudes to them, Sturrock is undoubtedly the person you should turn to. [Just click on the appropriate images below, depending on whether you are UK or USA-based. One is a Blue-Ray disk.]
Or Cox could make contact with Prof Bernard Carr, a professor of mathematics and astronomy at Queen Mary University, London, or Prof Archie Roy, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, the British Interplanetary Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Both are past presidents of the Society for Psychical Research with immense knowledge of the paranormal. I suggest, however, that Cox doesn’t open the discussion with the words, “Hello, nobber.”
I’m not alone in taking issue with Cox. For those interested in a far more academic – and amusing – response, SPR member and psychic investigator Chris Jensen Romer has provided one here.
Cox, I’m sorry to say, appears to have let his TV success go to his head. He is in danger of losing credibility and going the way of all supernovae: fading from sight very quickly. Still, he could always return to playing the keyboards.
33 Comments
“I suggest Brian Cox shows greater respect in future for those whose views differ from his own” and you title the article “Brian Cox is a nobber”. Are you serious?
What a load of cock.. Grow up.
What exactly do you mean by “paranormal”? I’ve never heard of Sturrock until this article, but at first blush it seems to be that he is open-minded about what is *normal*, not what is *paranormal*. If UFOs exist, they are normal; bound by the physical laws of the universe and subject to the same level of interrogation as anything else (barring apparent difficulties in observing them).
Paranormal things are, by definition, beyond *any* degree of scientific scrutiny. A serious scientist would not make a claim about their truth unless they were confused by the term.
A humble appreciation of ones limitations in the face of the vastness of the universe is not synonymous with a willingness to believe anything. A scientific approach is the only means we have for “knowing” anything — however tentative that knowledge might ultimately be.
I can’t apologise for his ad-hominem attacks, but if Mr. Cox is “sceptical about the paranormal” it’s because, as a scientist, he bloody well should be.
There is no reliable evidence for the existence of ghosts, therefore it is incredibly unlikely that they exist. Cox is correct.
Oh my, it’s a shame that this makes it into any sort of newsworthy article. This should be an example article of Logical Fallacies (strawman, appeal to quantum mechanics to name a few here). Please read all of the competing theories on ‘UFOs’ and ‘Ghosts’ and realise how little unbiased research you employ before getting upset over the comments of a critical thinker and a skeptic.Â
Isaac Newton believed in alchemy. I don’t see the point in appealing to Sturrock just because he is a scientist and believes in UFOs. It can still mean he’s completely wrong about UFOs.Â
“Does he believe that his scientific credentials are sufficient to allow him to pass judgment on other areas, in which he has no expertise?”
Everything comes down to physics in the end, so yes. When paranormal experts start contributing to actual science then maybe they will be taken seriously.Â
You’d think that after tens of thousands of years of human existence on this planet there would be something a bit more substantial than anecdotal accounts to support the existence of ghosts if they were real. The fact that there isn’t puts the probability that Brian Cox is right many orders of magnitude higher than any claims to the contrary. The complete lack of any concrete evidence should tell any rational thinking person everything they need to know.
Ghosts are only one of a number of phenomena known to mankind for which there is no agreed explanation. Such phenomena, eg sleep, imagination, hypnosis, the placebo effect, evidence strongly suggestive of reincarnation, telepathy (in all its various forms), obtaining verifiable knowledge at a distance, and a good deal more which likewise puzzle those who look into them, may eventually be brought within the paradigms of the sciences as currently known and understood. On the other hand, it is possible that expanded, or new, branches of science will need to be developed to accommodate them. This, historically, is the way mankind evolves its views of the world and its own place within it.
Therefore, let those with an interest in knowledge and understanding refrain from becoming excited about off-hand comments made thoughtlessly by someone apparently without a grasp of the subject under consideration, slight though that consideration might then have been, and apply themselves to evidence, reports, informed opinions, and considered comment based upon these. In this way progress in sorting ‘wheat from chaff’ may be made, and a better understanding of part of the human condition and environment achieved. Such a way of proceeding seems simple and obvious enough! Â
I can offer my own contribution to consideration of puzzling subjects, viz, a book – “God, Ghosts, and Independent Minds” by Newton Green, Penpress. Also via Amazon and Kindle, to help get anyone unsure where to turn for some basic information started upon their researches.Â
Newton Green. 23.1.’12
Yeah, only the Ghost Busters have the credentials to formulate opinions on such matters.
Did you try to undervaluate Prof. Cox by calling him a ‘Â former keyboard player’??Â
I think this don’t mean what you think it means!!Â
You are talking about a Physics Professor, who can play a instrument, too.Now I may ask you: Can you say the same about yourself?So: Where is the nobber now? Respect: You may earn it, or not.
You are a Nobber and Brian Cox is correct. There are no ghosts and that is a fact.
“Brian Cox is sceptical of the paranormal,
as were the guests on the very entertaining programme”
Sceptical… is spelled skeptical.
Thank you for trying to teach me how to spell. But where I live (England – where English originated!) sceptical and scepticism are spelt with a “c” not a “k” – and hopefully always will be 🙂
Thank you for trying to teach me how to spell. But where I live (England – where English originated!) sceptical and scepticism are spelt with a “c” not a “k” – and hopefully always will be 🙂
Some of these comments below are quite ignorant and indicative of the general biased and uninformed opinion to the ‘paranormal’ that many people hold. Along with the obvious blind worship of Brian Cox (who I actually like – but that doesn’t mean he’s right or has sufficient knowledge on everything!)
Antipathy wrote: ‘You’d think that after tens of thousands of years of human existence on this planet there would be something a bit more substantial than anecdotal accounts to support the existence of ghosts if they were real. The fact that there isn’t puts the probability that Brian Cox is right many orders of magnitude higher than any claims to the contrary. The complete lack of any concrete evidence should tell any rational thinking person everything they need to know.’
This is short-sighted thinking. A large part of what is current science started off as human anecdotes then moved onto something more substantial and explainable. The fact that there have been anecdotal accounts for thosuands of years suggests there is something going on, not the other way around. I think what we call ghosts do ‘exist’ but I wouldn’t pretend to know that or know what they are. And because there isn’t any concrete evidence now, doesn’t mean there won’t be any in the future.
Scott Malthouse wrote: ‘Isaac Newton believed in alchemy. I don’t see the point in appealing to Sturrock just because he is a scientist and believes in UFOs. It can still mean he’s completely wrong about UFOs.’
And Brian Cox might be completely wrong about ghosts.
He continued by quoting your question: “Does he believe that his scientific credentials are sufficient to allow him to pass judgment on other areas, in which he has no expertise?” and observed: “Everything comes down to physics in the end, so yes. When paranormal experts start contributing to actual science then maybe they will be taken seriously.”
No it doesn’t, there are too many branches of physics in existence for him to pass judgement on. His assertions that there is no ‘woo woo’ only shows his lack of knowledge and bias against that area. And if you want Scientists that contribute to research related to the paranormal I suggest you start off with the work by Dean Radin.
Shuckster wrote: ‘I can’t apologise for his ad-hominem attacks, but if Mr. Cox is “sceptical about the paranormal” it’s because, as a scientist, he bloody well should be.’
Yeah, he can be sceptical of the paranormal, but he should be more informed about the research, as a true scientist would be, before making the sort of pronouncements he makes.
Â
Correct. The burden of proof lies with you, not with Prof. Cox.
A six-year old can state the same thing as him and be just as right, no scientific or other type of background required, just like I don’t need a PhD in geology to state the fact that the Earth’s core is not made out of gummy bears.
So far there have been no credible evidence of the existence of any ‘ghosts’, therefore anyone stating that they don’t exist is right until proven otherwise.
“There are no ghosts and that is a
fact belief.”Damn. This was a huge waste of time. Choose your battles people, go do the lawn.
Brian Cox ftw 🙂
Oh, suddenly my old posting that i thought got eaten by an internet ghost or something, has returned.
Can remove this or the one about doing the lawn. Either kind of sum up my opinions quite nicely.
The way I see it, paranormal activity certainly doesn’t classify as a science, and
that’s really the issue here. I think he is acknowledging the field, excessively, by
referring to representatives as being “experts”. In a field with no defined facts, no physical evidence or proof of it’s own existence, it must be nice to have an expert to clear things up 🙂
I’m inclined to repeat Brian’s “mistake” of stating: What you are seeing is not paranormal activity as you might be searching for, it’s various random energy fluctuations coming as a result of activity in and around our planet perhaps assisted by local ‘wonders’ and so on, which create some spectacular natural events that to the beholder can seem totally otherworldly.
It just makes a lot of sense.
Should you then later turn out to be correct, you guys clearly got the right to make up a name for the science-branch. But I wouldn’t hold my breath, well, depends on whether or not you also got the ‘afterlife’ figured out?
Dr Brian Cox is an extremely, talented intelligent and beautiful individual who speaks the truth as did his mentor Dr Carl Sagan before he! People have a need to believe they are not alone due to simple fright of the unknown and prefer to hang on to a man made fictitious god and ghosts, that do not exist this is proven through physics, and math is a universal language even beyond our universe, it follows rules…
Real scientists long ago gave up researching the “paranormal” and now study the crackpots who make the claims. Its no coincidence that only people who believe in ghosts “see” ghosts.
That’s a fascinating observation, Michael. You’ve obviously studied the subject deeply. Please share with us your evidence that only people who believe in ghosts see them. A failure to do so, of course, will confirm that it is just your belief, and is not based on scientific research.
I’m an open minded sceptic (and no, that isn’t an oxymoron), and believe Brian to have been very arrogant and unscientific with his use of the word “fact”. He is basing his OPINION on a lack of tangible evidence, believing this to be the scientific way. However, saying that you don’t believe something due to a lack of tangible evidence UNTIL such time there IS tangible evidence, which is my stance, is quite different to arrogantly dismissing the POSSIBILITY of such evidence EVER coming to light. Much of the paranormal could very well be science we just don’t yet understand. Pre-1960s, many of those people who said there would one day be a man stood on the moon would have been called whatever cultural equivalent of “nobber” there was at the time.
Speaking of his use of the word “nobber”, well I take that with a pinch of salt. This is just Brian living up to the trendy image he has among young people. His ex-pop star status and boyish good looks have got him where he is. I bet there are hundreds of corduroy patch jacketed, bald middle-aged professors far more qualified to host his TV show. However, we live in a culture of celebrity, and Brian is just the flavour of the month. And this fleeting period in the affections of the public will be over a lot sooner if he doesn’t reign in the ego and the arrogance, that’s for certain.
Supporting research into inexplicable events is not bad science – if we already knew all the answers, there would not be as much fun in the research. Paranormal incidents are just occurrences that have not yet been understood and explained through human abilities.
This seems to be too personal, and comparing credentials which is beside the point, with frequent reference to Cox’s pop-star past and apparently brisk rise to fame, but he did a number of Horizon documentaries prior to establishing himself as a TV favourite, and he has earned his status as a research scientist first and a celebrity second through work in particle physics, not in cosmology as stated here.
I think you need to read a book by Cox’s hero, in terms of science education – Carl Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World” (particularly the chapter ‘The Dragon in the Garage’) – to learn why scientists don’t treat ghosts as science; they are untestable, and those making claims for the existence of Ghosts, UFOs and God will always move the goalposts regarding what constitutes evidence – Gods, angels, demons and fairies have always exploited the gaps in human knowledge, limited to scales of magnitude. As the scales expand to the quantum and cosmic – well, predictably – they now live in other dimensions and universes as opposed to up mountains, in volcanoes or under the sea where humanity could not explore in the earliest moments of civilisation.
Religion was the old way of explaining the world and our origins, but it has been replaced by something much more democratic and capable of self-correction – science.
Bertrand Russell got it right – the paranormal and supernatural are just more celestial teapots. You can’t disprove them, but there’s not a shred of positive, reproducible evidence for them, and the onus of proof lays with the one making the claim for something. As such, they remain unscientific hypotheses. I think Cox was just annoyed with the more credulous crowd who just don’t understand how we know the things we do. To say his remarks are offensive and he should respect people’s views, well that’s a fallacy of the false mean: it supposes the views have equal weight, whereas one has the full power of 2500 years of scientific and philosophical endeavour, and the other is just wishful thinking without a scrap of evidence. The BBC seem to think being offensive about the beliefs of the credulous is politically inconvenient. It is, but that’s just tough. Science doesn’t take people’s feelings into account. That’s not its job as a descriptive model of reality.
Also, scientists don’t ask us to accept quantum theory. They don’t need to. They just explain it and defy anyone to prove quantum theory wrong. The same goes for evolution and the heliocentric model of the Solar System.
Lastly: ”Cox, I’m sorry to say, appears to have let his TV success go to his head. He is in danger of losing credibility and going the way of all supernovae: fading from sight very quickly. Still, he could always return to playing the keyboards.”
Meow…
 I think it worth drawing your attention, Tom, to my recent Blog (28 April) headlined “Nobel Prize winning scientist on psi” in which I reported on the views of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Prof Brian Josephson on the subject of psychic phenomena. He was participating in a Society for Psychical Research (SPR) Study Day at which Prof Bernard Carr, professor of mathematics and astronomy at Queen Mary University, London, and a past president of the SPR, was also a speaker. They are both scientists whose work and views deserve as much – probably more – respect than that which Prof Cox enjoys, and their views on paranormal phenomena are very different to his. I don’t, therefore, believe we should accept a scientist’s judgment on subjects with which he or she is largely unfamiliar, purely on the basis that they are very knowledgeable about other subjects – and my criticism of Cox is based on his arrogance in dismissing ghosts as non-existent, without providing evidence to back up his claim.
You quote from Carl Sagan’s book, which gives reasons why “scientists don’t treat ghosts as science”. I will, in response, provide three quotes from Carl Sagan who, whilst being seen as a voice for the sceptical movement, expressed views which are very relevant to Cox’s attitude to ghosts. They come from a book by Winston Wu, “Debunking PseudoSkeptic Arguments of Paranormal Debunkers”, which I recommend you read. They are:
1. “…The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them — the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you’re sensible, you’ll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status.” – Carl Sagan
2. “People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for skeptics to get the attention of bright, curious, intelligent people is to belittle or condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs.” – Carl Sagan
3. “The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there’s no place for it in the endeavor of science.” – Carl Sagan
Perhaps Prof Cox will reflect on his hero’s opinions and, in future, behave more like a dispassionate scientist and less like a TV celebrity when asked about subjects outside his field of knowledge.
I am with Tom on this one. Go and believe in your Ghosts Roy.Â
I would have to say that his statement is based on observation. He has observed in his life that when someone says they saw a ghost, they believe in them. When someone doesn’t believe in a ghost, they don’t say that they saw one. He used a basic scientific concept called observation.
 Hi Tom,
definitely worth re-reading the last few pages of Demon Haunted World. As I recall Sagan was actually quite generous to parapsychology there; it certainly interested him. And was he not likewise generous about reincarnation, believing Ian Stevenson’s Twenty Cases Suggestive of … should be properly examined regardless of our inherent scepticism about such things? Have not got my copy to hand, but I have a rather good volume of interviews with Sagan which I can cite from if you want…
cj x
Whilst I do object to the overall tone of this piece, which does come off as being catty and mean (as Tom says), I have to agree that Brian Cox’s phrasing was ill-advised to post on a public forum, for someone in the pulic eye. However, the exact, or at least exact in spirit, phrase has probably been repeated in private exchanges of many people and accepted or even agreed with. I don’t see this as “arrogance” due to fame or ego, but just as I said above – ill advised for one in the public eye to share on a forum such as Twitter – which in fact points to fame having in no way gone to his head as the consequences of a statement like that on Twitter hasn’t even occurred to him. Also, in this instant-communication age, we don’t always have the time to properly think through and correctly phrase responses before they are out there in their full 140-character glory for the world to see (proof in point as I read back what I’ve typed to the end of the next paragraph.
Â
But the reason I chose this comment to reply on is that Ryan’s reply to Roy is a little inaccurate considering you’re trying to correct inaccuracies. Ryan’s statement is based on basic human nature of “If I can see it, then I must believe in it”. I’m sure Brian Cox (to bring it back to the subject-person in the thread) believed in the sun long before he understood the science behind how and why and where it exists, because he could see it. However, eminent scientists did not believe in blackholes until there was some proof of their existence, precisely because they could not observe them as a first basic proof they were there – they were only being told by someone that they believed they existed. Whilst they have been proved wrong, it does not mean they were wrong in scientific principle, to not believe in something there was no observable evidence of to any degree. So, it doesn’t mean he won’t be proved wrong, perhaps in his lifetime, making him feel “a proper nobber”, but currently with the burden of proof being on existence, he is possibly right.
Â
By the way, the choice of the term “nobber” by him is due to where he is from rather than a reflection of his level of “hipness” or popularity, generally or with the young. It’s an equivalent of “Don’t be daft” or any such usual term from your area and/or generation (I just recently called someone a wazzok, a word I haven’t used in over 20 years, when something they said caused such a deep reaction in me, I had no other recourse. I should also point out that it was a friend, done in friendly terms and I fully explained why I said it, knowing he already agreed with the summation, if he knew the word. I don’t hurl 20 year old insults at just anyone – but it may be the first word that comes to mind when something affects me emotionally)
Â
However, what the responses of the author to negative comments has seemed to show is that if you disagree with his views, you will receive short and sarcastic thrift from him. Perhaps a case of physician heal thyself, Roy?
Â
And this is the point I choose to share, that I too am a skeptic believer, of many things, and subscribe to the theory that just because we don’t understand it now, doesn’t mean we won’t ever. I mean to say – communication instantly with people from all around the world whom you’ve never met? That’s voodoo magic…. well it was until it became science fiction….. well it was until it became science fact … and then everyday life:)Â Â
Cox should understand. Scientists understand only about 4% of the universe. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5eonFu1Bi4&feature=player_embedded
with all respect Brian Cox is a great brilliant man just saying not to insult him but im not agreeing with him
Yes, there are ghosts…and goblins, and gremlins, and fairies, and invisible monsters under the bed. Like seriously. Believe in ghosts? Fine. But then let’s have some consistency, shall we. If it’s okay to make the bold claim that fairies aren’t real, then it’s okay to make the bold claim that ghosts aren’t either.