Were early fire walking critics skeptics?

Question

Fire walking is the process of creating extremely hot coals (up to 1100 degrees F) and walking across the coals without being burned.  In the past, it was used as a spiritual ritual to prove faith and as a seminal event which defined the passage to adulthood.

Before it became a well known phenomenon, the western world considered fire walking to be a fraud or some sort of trick that involved placing chemicals on the feet to prevent them being burned.  Even when viewing fire walking first hand, many people would not accept that there was any way that a person could walk across the coals without being burned.  

In recent times, it has become commonly used in motivational seminars and team building techniques.  Nearly anyone can perform fire walking if they learn how to do it and have the courage and confidence to do it.

Do you believe that fire walking is real?  Were the early critics of fire walking skeptics or deniers?  How do you define the difference between skeptics and deniers?

John · Accepted Answer

Fire walking is a good example to talk about. Whether it be fire walking, or the probability wave equation in quantum mechanics, you can usually find people who support one view and those who don't. Or there may be multiple views.  

Skepticism is a necessary part of scientific investigation, according to the scientific method. Without it, science can't advance at all since there would be no way of discerning conjecture from fact. But if taken to the extreme (e.g., cynicism, or denial for denial's sake), science cannot proceed either since claims of new knowledge would not be investigated. But the latter is not skepticism, despite that many would lump them together. 

Skepticism is simply the requirement that all claims be backed up by sufficient evidence -- confirmible, reproducible, scientific evidence -- else there is little reason to accept them. A denier is simply someone who doesn't want to be bothered. And it may be the case that a skeptic is approached for the 100th time with the same old same old and dismisses it -- is this being a "denier"?  Well, I'm sure some say it would. To me, it's just being practical. If it's the same old same old, it's already been investigated for all intents and purposes.

But what of fire walking? It can certainly be investigated scientifically, quite readily with in fact, which makes it somewhat of a bad example if you want to relate it to the paranormal. And fire walking has been investigated and it can be understood quite readily in terms of thermodynamics and heat transfer (two engineering concepts near and dear to my heart).

So were the early fire walking critics "skeptics"?  Well, they were certainly skeptical, which they should be if they are approaching this scientifically. A skeptic approach should be taken to everything, even theories that turn out to be completely correct. And skepticism with fire walking does play a key role, because deceptive techniques CAN be used. In fact, there are preparations one can make to their feet to make the walk a bit more comfortable, and this is often done, though it would not be known except for a skeptical investigation.

Sorry for the length, but you asked a good question and sometimes I get going.  :)

psiexploration · Answer

Yes. While skeptics speculated on how this "trick" was accomplished and were satisfied with their own untested and unsupported ideas some people (let's call them scientist) went to the trouble to investigate the phenomena first hand and experiment.
This actually bothering to engage in science resulted in the discovery of how fire walking is done by normal people without injury.

Obviously fire walking is real and isn't only used by magicians.

They were deniers which today is equivalent to the term skeptic.
The only word for the original meaning of the word skeptic today would be scientist.
For example parapsychologist engage in research, publish in peer reviewed science journals and qualified people critique the research and improvements are made and science continue to improve.
While they are "skeptical" of their results and experiments they do not deny the evidence or the standards of or conventions of science.

There was a time that skeptic did not mean denier but thanks to the efforts of Pseudo Skeptic organizations like the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (which wisely dropped scientific from their name) the terms denier,disbeliever, and skeptic have the same meaning in common English language usage.

Psiexploration

? · Answer

easily the final government of the church do gets a commission a gross sales..the 1st Presidency, Quorum of 12 apostles and that i don't understand relating to the quorum of the seventy. yet final reported interior the Eighties the final government have been given paid $70,000 a 12 months, considerately under maximum Ceo of agencies and Televangelists. Bishops, Stake Presidents etc are not paid by utilising the church. source Mormon company Empire 1985 united statesa.'s Saints 1984

Dr. NG · Answer

Yes they were skeptics and rightly so fire walking is a trick.That's not to say you're wrong about the temperature or Western attitudes for it.As with many things we think are paranormal once we understand the physics and chemistry.It's not all that mysterious.Anyone is able to fire walk over 1100 degree wood coals.Is anyone able to fire walk over say 1100 degree anthracite or steel ball bearings?

Pascha · Answer

I haven't tried it myself, but I've known people who claim to have done it.  Trick or not, it is based on scientific principles.   It seems impossible, but there appears to be a rational explanation for it.   
Nonetheless, I would not try it.   If risks are to be taken, I would rather take them where something useful would be accomplished.

Were early fire walking critics skeptics?

5 Answers