I wonder if skepticism is developing an image problem.
To those whose views are challenged by an evidence-based and critical approach, could it be that skeptics appear to be the "nasty party" in the battle of ideas?
Is it the case that to those whose cherished views are being questioned, skepticism comes across with Tebbitite stridency?
Do Woo communities now feel as exposed as those in industrial towns who were hit by "economic realities"?
Is skepticism getting a reputation for arrogance and smugness?
Is it enough just to be right?
Thoughts?
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
74 comments:
I think you may be right. Some of the campaigns although totally justified and accurate may come across as a little aggressive to those who hold the beliefs dear. Do you remember finding out Santa was not real? It was upsetting wasn't it? We are asking a lot of people to realise numerous things are not real by looking at evidence. I know it is in their best interest and definitely the way forward, but yes to those who have not yet learned the ways of skepticism we could easily have an air of arrogance or smugness. We are right about EVERYTHING! Well, we are in that we learn to have an open mind and use evidence to adapt our beliefs. I have had this discussion with other skeptics, how we need to be careful not to alienate those at the beginning of the learning curve, those people who see evidence and alter their beliefs for the first time. It is the beginning of a skeptical approach, but they need to learn to apply this method to other areas over time, we cannot expect a over night change in belief system. (I may have gone off topic, sorry).
Yes, I think this is a serious issue. Skeptics frequently come across as paternalistic puritans - for example, when trying to stop other people from doing wicked things like using homeopathy.
It's quite similar to the image problem that atheism has. No longer are atheists content to be correct in disbelieving in a god, but now they need everybody else to see how wrong they are as well. 'Brights' who see atheism as being an evangelical movement rather than simply a rejection of an idea have done serious damage to the idea of atheism.
A similar thing appears to be happening to skeptics. The 10:23 protest, I think, was a sign of this. The underlying motive was to stop Boots from carrying sugar pills and labeling them as "homeopathic". But why should we care if other people want to take sugar pills? Let them make their mistakes, and stop trying to inform everybody else about how mistaken they are.
While no doubt some skeptics and the like can be very forthright (and some downright rude) in the expression of their beliefs I think the communication of skepticism does suffer from some issues.
Mainly that skepticism holds that "people are entitled to their own opinions and not their own facts".
Most people when talking about anything would present their position as an opinion - if someone comes along and says "your opinions wrong" that violates basic social ettiquete.
Perhaps skepticism is simply incompatable with social norms that seem to include respecting someone elses beliefs and opinions?
Or more generally because it is essentially a negative outlook: it's about denbunking and showing people they are wrong - so people might be bound to consider it negatively.
Hello.
I don't identify as a skeptic but I am committed to evidence based research and campaigning. The reason I don't call myself a skeptic is I think it suggests a 'neutrality' and 'objectivity' that nobody possesses. Skeptics are passionate about some issues, and motivated to question/criticise things which interest or worry them.
It is impossible to be universally skeptical, unless you are a philosopher, like that pure skeptic I met at westminster skeptics in the pub. But you can be sure he does not campaign. He just ponders.
Once you put your hat in the political ring you become partisan in some way.
So I am a feminist, a socialist and an anti-racist, who is interested in a range of issues. I value the work skeptics do, and I do my own skeptical campaigning.
e.g. I have set up www.objectwatchwordpress.com to investigate what I think is dodgy research and justification for a feminist campaign against the sex industry.
I don't feel the need to organise around 'skepticism' myself. Though I am fine with people who do.
Sounds like your heading back to your opening point last night re the point of requesting evidence from people when, because of the source, it's likely to be discounted anyway.
Unfortunately, in the unlikely (IMHO) event that a woo merchant did come up with something concrete and provable they would have to shout a lot louder to be heard due to the poor quality of trials, misinformation, poor interpretation and plain lies on which they have relied for so long.
I'm not arrogant enough to suppose that nothing of value will ever come out of the myriad of woo out there. I hope scientists and skeptics aren't either, but that shouldn't stop them when coming across the same old, tired discredited bullshit from saying "Please sod off and try harder, and if you're not going to try then don't come back"
I've been trying to arrange my thoughts on this for a while, but it's one of the discussions I find more infuriating.
Your final question - "Is it enough just to be right?" - can be answered with a fairly straight-forward "No", I think. It would be foolish to genuinely give no heed at all to the way we present our case, and assume that we'll win every significant battle solely by being right.
But I do get twitchy when people go on too much about how smug and cocky skeptics are - the demeanour of the scientific proponents shouldn't be relevant when discussing the evidence for, say, homeopathy, and it often seems that these accusations are reactionary ad hominem attacks when someone doesn't actually have any solid ground to defend their cherished beliefs that are being questioned.
Having said that, the ease with which I can feel myself becoming defensive and nervy when skeptics are accused of smugness should give me pause to think how believers might react when accused of believing in something stupid.
I don't think there's much use to skeptical activism if it doesn't give any consideration to things like outreach and approachability, and stops dead at the border of empirical data.
Or, another way to think about it: it's possible to be both a skeptic and a sensitive, compassionate person. Evidence can be assessed and presented in your role as the former; you can find ways to discuss and criticise beliefs with people without just calling them all idiots as the latter.
I don't think being right is enough.
It seems that any approach, whether hard nosed or softly, softly will fail more often than not. People just don't like to hear that their worldview may be different to reality.
I think the key is education (particularly science). Once the principles of critical thinking, good science etc are understood it is much easier (though still not a given) to criticise one's OWN beliefs and assumptions. This can still be difficult but much more likely to succeed than being told by other people that you are wrong.
Though campaigns like 10:23 have tried to educate they still come across as "we say you're wrong".
But there's also research, I seem to remember reading, that the softly, softly approach tends to reinforce beliefs. So good science based education in our schools may be the only way to ever "promote" skepticism and critical thinking effectively.
The term "woo" is an example of the problem - it hardly indicates an open mind to use a perjorative term when simply using their term should suffice.
On the why skeptics are annoying bit - firstly they can't spell (and I've read all the post hoc rationalisation explaining how it's different and better than plain old faschioned scepticism) and secondly they do not allow for philosophic doubt only for scientific questioning. It is a one club approach to thinking.
At its best skepticism has challenged the credulous and the exploiters of credulity. At its worst it has been as ideological as any religion or politics.
All this plus of course skeptics don;t appreciate magic.
Any criticism perceived as being overly negative, aggressive or unkind may have the opposite effect to that intended by the critic. It's difficult, though, to criticise ideas without coming across as being negative. I wrote a rather waffly post about online debate and criticism that included some ponderings as to whether individuals should be given more leeway than organisations (particularly individuals who might be considered to be private rather than public figures - I don't think that, say, media nutritionists who make their fortune from giving unreliable advice should be given a free pass).
One problem with criticising organisations or individuals with a commercial interest in CAM is that those who have been convinced by them may feel that criticism of someone they trust - and much skepticism involves criticising such people for giving untrustworthy advice - is an indirect criticism of themselves for placing their trust in that person. If it were me, I imagine that I would feel pretty defensive.
I'm going to have to disagree with Sam B:
Skeptics frequently come across as paternalistic puritans - for example, when trying to stop other people from doing wicked things like using homeopathy.
I don't see any sceptics trying to stop people "doing wicked things like using homeopathy": I see sceptics trying to prevent the state supporting evidenceless policy and action and influential organisations from using it's position of perceived authority to promote evidenceless "remedies".
As far as I know most sceptics are ready, willing and able to let people decide their own fate. What these people don't have the right to do is impose their choice of fate on other people. As for influencing others, both sceptics and the CAM (etc.) movements are as free as each other in try to do what they can, and the subjects are free to make their own mind up.
Sure, we could all just hold our hands up and say "caveat emptor" and let people get on with it, and just sit idly back and watch the likes of What's The Harm and Jenny McCarthy Body Count blossom, secure and smug in the knowledge that we weren't presumptuous enough to opine in the presence of other people, or present them with pesky facts about reality that made them feel bad.
I have long been in two minds about this. But I must admit the smugness and self-righteous ignorance of many peddlers of alternative "medicine" does not bring out the best in me.
My heart goes out to the victims of this widespread deception and I think they should be treated with kindness and understanding, for being seriously ill can make you feel very scared and desperate. Many altmeds know this very well and that. What else then can you do then but tell them plainly and simply how wrong they are and how despicable their behaviour is?
At the risk of coming across a bit "strident" I think this is a non-issue.
At a most basic level, there is no easy way to disagree with someone's most fundamental principles. No amount of softening the blow will make it more appealing and no amount of accommodation will win converts.
There are two spheres where a rational approach to evidence causes the greatest problems - religion and "healing" - and because both are heavily dependant on "faith" to work they will always claim immunity from an evidence based review. We dont object to taking an evidence based approach on almost any other subject, so why should these two get special treatment?
Rational supporters of evidence based assessment do not, as far as I have ever experienced, claim to know everything. That is the basis of taking a sceptical approach.
It is not a PR problem in anything other than the fact this whole controversy is engineered by people who feel victimised by rationality.
Why should be it be acceptable for (for example) homoeopathy companies to sell products with misleading, if not outright false, claims?
Why should it be acceptable for religious to harangue passers-by in the street and tell my children they are going to hell?
The accommodation demanded of rational people is not one of equality. It is a demand that anyone who disagrees with people who have *nothing* but faith and personal belief to support their viewpoints keep quiet.
There is no way to politely tell someone who is convinced that the NHS should spend millions on sugar pills is wrong. There is no polite way to educate millions of people who are constantly subjected to homoeopathic claims in the newspapers and on TV. There is no polite way to silence those who argue that two people should be prevent living in a loving relationship because their invisible friend says it is wrong.
There may be a reputation regarding arrogance and smugness, but to an extent this comes from being correct more often than not. The scientific method works. Evidence based research has enriched the life of humanity as a whole.
The PR battle is not one that needs to be fought, not least because it is already lost. Rationality can never compete with mythical magic in the world of PR. Why degrade the position, just to accommodate people who are wrong?
I hope sceptics remain strong, I think we all need them, BUT elly says sceptics don'y get magic, I thought I was one, but I mustn;t be. i love magic:)
Or more generally because it is essentially a negative outlook: it's about denbunking and showing people they are wrong - so people might be bound to consider it negatively.
Scepticism isn't about "showing people they are wrong" it's concerned with doubt; interrogating claims to discern their worth. By all means the latter may entail the former but it's not a given. Too many "sceptics", I think, see their job as one of opposing preset enemies. This is a limitation - penning the doubtful into certain battlefields - and a danger - leading to vapid assumptions of falsity (here's a blinkered example). Perhaps sceptics would be better off as hard-nosed Lone Rangers; beating a path across societal badlands with their trusty, er - critical faculties.
A significant problem is that skeptics naturally assume that the message itself is going to be offensive to many people, therefore the mode of communication is irrelevant. People will be angry either way, so there needs to be little thought given to 'how' you discuss an issue. I find the logic in this approach rather strained, to say the least.
Science communication is a complicated field to understand. It's full of variables, and it's easy to fall into patterns of bold generalisation. The truth is, however, that in a population there are some who will never be reached. There are some with values that mean they are open to being challenged, if it's presented in a non-threatening way. And it's difficult to know who is who simply by what they say. As such, communication needs to be done better than a random crap-shoot where the media is dismissed as insignificant in light of the message. Good research and evaluation of outreach methods are vital if skepticism is to make good on their demands for effective public education.
Is skepticism about being negative? It's certainly about challenging ideas and beliefs - and some people will always get defensive when challenged and feel attacked.
In the case of atheism, homeopathy, chiropractic's myriad of uses, iridology etc the onus should be on the 'believers' to offer evidence. Dawkin's giant teapot in space doesn't need to be disproved by me - if you belief in it you really need to show me why.
My feeling is that culturally and historically they have somewhat 'got away' with pretty woolly explanations. As skeptics get more vocal, media spreads ideas etc purveyors of woo find themselves having to justify themselves in more detail - this is a good thing but is inevitably going to be seen as a challenge to the status quo and therefore confrontational.
Individuals may have their failings in how they pass this on -but that is just a matter of passionate people doing what they do - and the same can be seen in people on the other side of the arguments.
I think the argument that the "image problem" of sceptics might be largely down to the way that many conduct themselves is, I think, missing the main point. I've no doubt there are polemical, argumentative types that just love the controversy, who do appear arrogant. However, the very position of a sceptic, which is fundamentally a rationalist viewpoint about not accepting the validity of claims without verifiable evidence, is bound to bring it into conflict with people and organisations that are not founded on that basis.
I sincerely think that the problem that many in faith communities (which includes religions, but also many aspects of politics, medicine, sport, nationalism and so on) is not so much that those following rationalist systems don’t believe what they do, but the very challenge itself. Fundamentally, the very standards of rational scepticism challenge these faith communities are required to provide is often wholly incompatible with the very nature of their belief systems. For instance, challenging a fundamental Christian on producing objective evidence of the Biblical stories which they believe is always likely to be seen as aggressive by the former. I do not believe there is any way of avoiding this short of not engaging in the dialogue in the first place. Much the same could be said of many of the Marxists who dominated the student political thinking during the 1970s when I was at University.
Of course the sceptic could always choose not to challenge unsupported belief systems. Indeed I suspect many of the beliefs and practices are benign. However, as we all, know, belief systems tend to intrude into the real world trailing with them a spurious authority imposed on others. Abrahamic religions, with their inherited justification of the subjugation of nature, tolerance of slavery and the lessons of collective punishment from the Old Testament played a very profound role in history in the last two millennia. To these we can add the damage done by more modern, secular, faiths such as the anti-vax fundamentalists, the anti-HIV theory fundamentalists. It’s simply not possible to keep quiet under such circumstances.
I suppose a sort of truce can be reached, where the belief system retains its mutually socially acceptable elements without challenging the myths (we are maybe seeing this with Anglicism and the migration of many of those at political extremes into something rather more consensual based on social justice). However, there will always be those that push the boundaries.
I would finally add that some of those now headlined as sceptics are maybe not that at all. I love reading Christopher Hitchens, and I wish him the best in recovering from cancer. However, given his almost messianic support for Marxism in the past his attitude to smoking would not, to me, place him as a sceptic at all, but rather as a polemicist who currently shares some of the targets. I could point to others, but just being against particular faith systems does not automatically place anybody as a sceptic in the philosophical sense.
@ SamB
You say:
"But why should we care if other people want to take sugar pills? Let them make their mistakes, and stop trying to inform everybody else about how mistaken they are."
Homeopaths don't just sell sugar pills for insomnia, they also tell people there is no need to get vaccinated against malaria, they tell people that their pills cure aids better than the standard treatment, they tell them their medicines are very effective against any kind of eczema - and people die because of all this.
Other altmeds tell people with cancer that mainstream treatments will only make their condition worse. They tell diabetics that they should stop taking their medication.
They tell people all kinds of dangerous nonsense, causing them to suffer needlessly and even die.
How far will you go in allowing people to "make their own mistakes" I wonder.
Re skeptic forums:
I think that there's a danger that if such forums become 'echo chambers', views may become more extreme. If people start from a position of skepticism and join a forum of like-minded people, they may well become more strident. As Stuart Sutherland writes in Irrationality:
"The individual conforms to the group, but something considerably surprising happens to the group as a whole. [...] In practice, if the members’ attitudes are biased in one direction, simply by interacting together their attitudes become even more biased in the same direction."
I think that having a resident contrarian (or perhaps several) can be helpful - there is one on a forum I am a member of who spends a good deal of time criticising regulars for being complacent (e.g., when posters seem to lapse into the "look how stupid folk are - aren't other people irrational" mode) and is quick to jump on anyone who calls newcomers/CAM advocates 'trolls'.
The 'forum police' also come in handy. Naomi Mc left a comment on one of my blogposts: "I think that the groupthink and misogyny are important points and often, I have found, go together. Some forums and message boards can be dominated by regulars who are then upset by a newcomer particularly one who doesn’t conform to the ‘culture’ of the board. If that culture is aggressively critical then there are those that will find it exclusionary or offensive but the regulars will defend it as the nature of debate."
I think this ties in with Giagia's comment on Twitter (that there's a very "male", combative element to the skeptic movement). The forum police can highlight, e.g., language that may contribute to an atmosphere that is not inclusive. This gives the offending posters a chance to reflect on how they come across, and it gives those who may be offended the opportunity to speak their mind without having to fear raising the issue. I'm very much in favour of the navel-gazing threads started by the forum police on boards that I'm a member of.
I feel it's important to accept that you can't influence everyone's opinion; but that you can influence the opinion of some people.
The next step is just good writing craft. First you have to decide whether you are trying to influence anyone's opinion or not. You might just be trying to put correct information out there and make it findable by the uninformed. Or you might be trying to influence the opinions of people who are ready to be influenced; or you might be trying to make something happen or stop it happening, in which case your audience is those who can achieve that, and those who can make them.
You think carefully about who your audience is, and particularly about the members of it who might be influence-able, and you try to put yourself in their position. This is an imaginative leap.
Then you consider the 'look' of what you are saying. Does it have an air of calm authority? If you use ridicule, how does it work? If you are trying to seperate the influenceable from the un-influenceable, where are you drawing that line?
You can also consider whether any of the un-influencable (like the truly fraudulent) will think you enough of a threat to attack you, or whether they may change what they are doing because they think you'll influence other people. That's a big win, but it can happen. If you want it to actually happen, you have to leave them somewhere to go, which may mean some real compromise. Like not condemning something still wrong but less immediately harmful. Or at least not treating it as important.
But there are lots of people out there writing for different audiences and there's nothing wrong with having a wide range of approaches. Any of them may influence someone. Especially if time or events change their minds as well.
If Skepticism has a fault, it's this tendency to be overcritical and allow itself to be browbeaten into holding back for fear of offending the woo practitioners.
So some people are offended by the term woo?, so what?
The "I'm offended" line of argument is just a fancy way of shutting down debate.
I personally am offended by ignorance or people telling me I'll be tortured for an eternity but I don't spend time arguing about that offense, I argue against ignorance and ridiculous statements.
The idea that we can appease practitioners of woo, if we were just a little more considerate of their feelings is simply perpetuating the notion that some beliefs are deserving of privilege, it doesn't help the problem.
Interesting post.
We all have our own views and biases. Usually, to set a balanced bar for evidence, we need to actually set a higher bar for our own viewpoints than we do for others to result in a balanced position.
To do so requires remarkable honesty and humility. (Richard Feynman's lecture on cargo cult science includes a good discussion on this) And, unfortunately, in many sceptical circles, this honesty and humility can be lacking. There are many dangers from this - both on a personal level and from tribal groupthink.
Curiously, I've seen this from two sides. I have a conventional sceptic viewpoints on most topics - medicine, religion, evolution - and have posted on sceptic forums discussing these things.
I have also posted on the same forums about climate change, where I have a less conventional viewpoint, but quite a complex and nuanced view which causes me to question some of the evidence behind the more catastrophic projections. For doing this I am immediately labelled a denier, accused of holding views that I do not hold (my critics rarely listen long enough to understand my position), and any kind of reasoned debate becomes impossible.
Notably, this tribal behaviour comes from a minority - but very vocal - group of sceptics that probably does more to harm the movement than it does to help. Humility in knowledge and understanding should be a cornerstone of rational scepticism. It is important that the (perhaps quieter) majority or understand this are not drowned out by a minority who do not.
And my thanks, Jack of Kent, for being one of the thoughtful majority willing to speak out about it.
i think there are a great many people out there who will experience the message "you may be mistaken" as intolerably offensive and abusive, no matter how politely or straightforwardly it is expressed, because they are dispositionally incapable of engaging in the kind of critical self-appraisal that others would regard as commonplace and unthreatening.
I'm sure there's room for the softly softly approach, but I say balls!
You heard correctly: balls.
I shall mince no words, couch no terms, frame no arguments and beat around neither bushes, copses nor other small plant-based groupings. If you're disagreeing with peoples strongly held beliefs they'll see you as threatening no matter how much stroking and patting you give them.
People need to be 'told', they crave boundaries or they'll spin of into crazy self-absorption and need a good yank of the chain once in a while. If you're being an idiot you deserve to be told, and told to stop it! Now!
@Blu_Matt
The actual amount of NHS money that's spent on 'alternative medicine' (which I agree is utter garbage, for the record) is absolutely miniscule: for instance, ~£4m/year on homeopathy out of a total budget of over £100 billion. It's utterly specious to argue that those opposed to homeopathy on the NHS are motivated by budgetary concerns. Yes, it's annoying, but how much does it harm everybody else? And since the NHS is a compulsory scheme, it seems quite unjust to deny people the placebo that they want if it's within reason cost-wise.
@beatis
Skeptics should by all means try to expose these lies, but to try and remove somebody's choice to make a mistake is bad on quite a few levels. 10:23 was fun and dandy from a "look, these things are a joke" point of view, but its stated purpose was to pressurize Boots into withdrawing homeopathic sugar pills from its shelves. My view is that we should try to use the evidence to argue that homepathy (and alt medicine in general) is rubbish, but not to try to stop them from being able to use it if they decide that they want to. To answer your question, I would allow an informed person to make a mistake that ends up killing them, if they have all of the information and that is their choice.
If I say I believe something and I tell you why, you then have reasons with which to argue and debate. If I say that something is true without giving reasons for why I think that, you have to make your own reason up for that view such as I think I know everything, or I have a hidden political agenda for saying what I am saying.
Daniel Loxton, the editor of Junior Skeptic magazine (the kids’ science periodical bound inside Skeptic magazine), posted some “skeptic fails” on Twitter last year. I reposted them with some additional comment here. Some are perhaps relevant to this post.
"Skeptic Fail 5: Using ad hominems. Ad hominems are as ugly and offputting coming from us as from anyone else."
"Skeptic Fail 7: Thinking we are inherently smarter than paranormal or pseudoscientific believers."
"Skeptic Fail 10: Thinking that disrespect and mockery are ever effective outreach. At best, superiority entertains the base."
I'm sure people have seen examples of these skeptic fails and I think that they contribute to the perception that skeptics are arrogant and smug.
To answer your questions: yes, yes, maybe, yes, no. Is the skeptic reputation for smugness, arrogance, and stridency well-earned, though? I doubt it.
It's perhaps also worth pointing out that for every example of a skeptic fail, there is probably an example of a spurious claim of 'vitriol' intended to distract from discussion of the issues. I rather like this comment: “in some quarters it seems as if there is a Knee-Jerk dictionary that defines vitriol as 'someone who disagrees with me using science and my own words to do it'”.
At some point, someone will probably ask what the solution is. I don't know the answer. Perhaps we should make every effort to be humble - in the same way that Feynman said scientists should 'bend over backwards' to be utterly honest.
I'm not sure whether this would help, but what I do know is that stridency is not included by Robert Cialdini among the 'weapons of influence' that can be used to persuade (see his book Influence: Science and Practice).
@bengoldacre
I think you're right. And I think there are pretty equal numbers of those people on the sceptic/non-sceptic divide.
Sam B wrote: The actual amount of NHS money that's spent on 'alternative medicine' (which I agree is utter garbage, for the record) is absolutely miniscule: for instance, ~£4m/year on homeopathy out of a total budget of over £100 billion. It's utterly specious to argue that those opposed to homeopathy on the NHS are motivated by budgetary concerns.
And I mentioned budget concern where? I was talking of a more—if you'll excuse the word—holistic concern regarding policy not always based on evidence: NHS homeopathy is one, sure, but there's also drug policy and the sacking of David Nutt, education, the Singh libel case, censorship, GM, IP, crime, school meals, etc., all of which are within the purview of sceptics (notwithstanding individuals' own priorities).
Both skeptics and non sceptics must accept that any idea they espouse may be questioned. For example, I do not question that sceptics are often factually right in their deconstruction of pseudoscientific nonsense. However, I would sometimes question the high esteem with which sceptics hold their own logic. For example, in his book, Ben Goldacre points out that placebos are potentially medically effective. Moreover, as far as I know, placebos don't have side or withdrawal effects. However, a placebo's effectiveness is largely a function of how much the person believes in its effectiveness. So by saying alternative therapies don't work, skeptics are potentially making them less effective. This curious interaction between human biology and human belief system, in my mind, creates a puzzling paradox. I often ask myself the question, "if somebody believes something is helpful, what is the gain in telling them otherwise?"
I'm not convinced that it is valid to treat skeptics as one group and non-skeptics as another. People tend to be skeptical about particular subjects but could be on the non-skeptic 'side' on other subjects. I'm thinking in particular about 'woo' skepticism and climate change skepticism. Although a lot of (self-proclaimed) climate-change skeptics do seem to be more belief-based rather than just challenging evidence.
Most people who call themselves skeptics are not; in fact many are the opposite. Many skeptic blogs, for instance, regularly post blatant misinformation without any sources or references, as if their "skepticism" somehow proves they are right. Other "skeptics" love cherry-picking evidence to the point that they make themselves complete fools with it. And some people just love to be naysayers, even if all evidence is against them.
Surely skepticism is a method by which issues are analysed. I would think that the conclusions that one draws and the way that they are delivered are separate issues.
Maybe this is the problem; in a superficial discussion we focus on the conclusion rather than how we got there.
I think the important thing isn't so much what you say as how you encourage third parties to spin it.
For example, IMO, the 10:23 campaign did a good job of branding itself. It came across as cheeky, cheerful disrespect (with a serious underlying message).
Sad though it may be, gently taking the mickey out of someone is a vastly more effective strategy than engaging them in serious debate. Not because it makes the point any better, but because it is looked on more kindly by the framers in the media.
I don't really call myself a sceptic as a label - although I attend SitP and am fascinated by the discourse and community. jdc325 has pointed out the worrying ease at which these can become echo chambers, and I suppose I just want to avoid being a part of that - although I normally agree with the sceptical collective, I find avoiding a label helps me avoid the temptation to have a knee-jerk reaction to things (within the limits of only being human, after all).
And I normally don't describe myself as 'a sceptic' in public, unless it's to correct flawed (normally pejorative) views on 'sceptics' (e.g. 'only interested in debunking', 'cynics', 'atheists', 'heavy drinkers'), in which case a spot of reminding people that being a 'sceptic' doesn't imply a huge well of knowledge or some assumed importance; you don't earn the title after 7 years of study, it's only a method, a filter and approach for how one approaches the myriad of events in life.
But because this never comes up in my working life, I suppose it's a bit easier for me to distance myself from the negative view of scepticism from those outside. I'd imagine that if I was working in media, law or science, I'd find scepticism to be a much more prominent & active part of my personality/discourse. Perhaps.
But the sceptical mindset is invaluable, and rational, evidence-based discussion (however 'hurtful' to prior beliefs) must continue.
Very interesting questions, indeed!
As co-founder of and project leader for 10:23 on behalf of Merseyside Skeptics Society, I have a couple of points to make about the event earlier this year, and personally about activism.
Firstly it makes us proud that the event made such a deep and lasting impact, such that it is being used to explore some aspects of the conversation in this thread.
The objective of getting Boots to remove HPY from its shelves was chosen because we felt it was something that non-skeptics could rally around and provide a solid platform for them to understand the arguments.
It was good for publicity too.. Participants were given back up materials to maximise this effect. The participating community surpassed any expectation on television, radio, print and virtual print. It worked.
We took some reasonable criticism for targeting Boots.
getting back to the topic under discussion, imagine the case of someone seeking out information, for example on homeopathy, for the first time. Without the efforts of skeptical bloggers and activists of various flavours creating huge amounts of skeptical content about these specific topics where would that person end up?
Genuine publicity is really important because someone might put more belief in what appears in a notable publication such as a newspaper rather than an individual's blog. Getting headlines requires a certain amount of aggression and very specific stories.
A number of people tweeted after 10:23 that there was indeed a side effect to taking an "overdose" of HPY. That being a feeling of smug satisfaction. I think we can all be a bit too smug from time to time, but our voice is not yet loud enough for such filtration to be an issue, in my personal opinion. There's a lot of catching up to do.
I say shout louder and longer. Make them hear you. We are not trying to convert believers. We are creating an information environment for those who ask the questions.
Wait till you hear what's happening Sunday 6th February next year. :-)
Sorry for the length of this post. Good thread Jack.
When someone identifies themself specifically as doubting things that presumably the gullible masses all believe, it does have a certain smug ring to it.
Not to say there aren't plenty of things we believe purely out of cognitive biases or contagion or propaganda, and that it doesn't make sense to have people who speciallize in ferreting them out. Also it makes sense to have people who specialize in investigating remarkable claims.
The problem may in part be that identifying them as "skeptics" focuses on their preoccupation with doubting (which presumably every rational person does), rather than their positive contribution.
Ed Yong recently said that he doesn't self-identify as a skeptic because of the image. His contributions are generally so positive that I don't generally apply that label to him either. I thought of Martin Gardner mostly as a mathematician, lay philosopher, and humorist.
So I think there is definitely something to the negative marketing implications of the term "skeptic" as a stereotype of someone who contributes mostly only doubting rather than positive information.
A rebranding that focused on the positive contribution of "skeptics" rather than just their inclination to doubt would be an interesting idea to consider.
Before when skeptics and atheists were silent the uniformed and willfully ignorant just burned us at the stake. They would ridicule us and legislate away our rights because they said we weren't good citizens. Now that we have finally gained enough momentum to stand up to them they whine and moan like children that we've hurt their precious feelings. Screw their feelings. If you believe in patently absurd magical bullshit and want to force everyone else to too then you need to be ridiculed. You need to have your unquestioned beliefs pointed out and laughed at. Reason clearly does not work with those who eschew it in favor of faith, aka belief without knowledge.
The difference between a believer and a skeptic is the skeptic welcomes differing opinions based on reason. The believer on the other hand feels threatened by opinions that conflict with their own because they know their beliefs will not stand up to even the most cursory of examinations by a skeptical mind.
They have built this fragile tower of belief and prop it up by leaning on others with the same unsteady beliefs. They think because their beliefs are supported by billions of others with the same faulty beliefs they are somehow right. But if you isolate them and poke at the weak spots their tower of babel comes crashing down. The problem is they can't even accept the fact that their house of cards has crumbled and instead act as if nothing happened. Nothing gets to them because the are masters at self delusion.
No matter what we do they will always feel persecuted even when they themselves are the ones doing the persecuting. Trying not to hurt the feelings of people so self deluded they refuse to question themselves is like Pres. Obama trying to work with the Republicans; it's a no win situation. If you are conciliatory they take it as weakness and attack. If you stand up to them and take away the stick they are beating you with they moan about their rights to beat you being taken away.
The only reason you hear these complaints of skeptics being too acerbic is because we are winning.
I'm reading the replies here again and sensing a certain trend.
Regarding the putative image problem of skeptics, I'm not sure that it is a problem that would be solved by philosophical defenses of skepticism or defenses of the pursuit of reason and so on.
Again, I think it is more about emphasizing the positive contributions of skeptics rather than listing the reasons they believe they are smarter than everyone else who doesn't self-identify as a skeptic. Somehow that tack seems a bit counterproductive. Most people assume that doubting is rational, without making it a profession or avocation. Whether they actually do it well is another question of course.
The "arrogance and smugness" says it all for me. So many prominent sceptics come across (to me) as unprepared to countenance the possibility that they may be wrong -- i.e. they are auto-unsceptical sceptics.
Does the problem also have something to do with the rise of the "climate change sceptic"?
Most interviews/debates involving established climate scientists and "climate change sceptics" tend to degenerate somewhat, which can't help the image of either side (although it does very successfully sow the seeds of doubt that hold up political action on climate change.)
Here's one example, where Prof. Andrew Watson and Marc Morano get absolutely nowhere on Newsnight. The interview finishes with Watson calling Morano an "asshole" on air.
Scientists are generally very bad at PR. They are also very bad at explaining things. Perhaps they need some people in between them and the media. you know like spin doctors.
The Manner of the Message
Nobody criticising cherished beliefs will ever entirely get rid of the accusation that there is something wrong with their demeanour or mode of expression. We have, or have had, the concepts of the “uppity black”, the “strident woman” or the “gay agenda” all arising out of a reaction against expressions of quite reasonable points of view. As there are so many ways of expressing the same point of view it’s very easy, when you don’t like that point of view, to pretend that whoever put the point of view forward has just picked the wrong way. If “it’s not what you’re saying, it’s how you’re saying it” were true then there would be way of saying that would satisfy. If it was “what you’re saying” per se then there would be no way of saying that would satisfy.
Most criticism of the “tone”/”manner”/”stridency” of skeptics/new atheists etc. is dishonest. You can establish it just by asking the critics to outline a way of saying that would be acceptable. I asked Dave about the Simon Singh case ( here: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/03/bca-v-singh-full-court-of-appeal.html,). Dave was pushing the “he said it in the wrong way” angle. So the question arose:
”What is the (or a) right way to express in a Guardian article the opinion that the treatments had no evidence to back them up but that the BCA promoted them?”
If what Simon had written was written in a bad way then there must exist a better way. What better way was there? How could Simon have expressed his point of view in a way that would have been acceptable to Dave? Dave didn’t say. I think that is because there was no “manner” in which Simon could have expressed his opinion that would have been acceptable to Dave. The “manner” was not objectionable, the opinions were.
@bhanderglessen tweeted “Problem is not PR or tone, it’s the vary fact of casting doubt on cherished beliefs. There’s no remedy.”
I’d agree that there is no “silver-bullet” cure. There is a way of alleviating the problem: call them on it. Allegation: “you’re smug”, response: “how can I say what I think without being smug”? Allegation: “the term “woo” is deliberately insulting”, response: “what word would you suggest to cover diverse poorly corroborated and often refuted theories with little empirical content used to relieve people of their money”? etc..etc…
(1/2)
"There may be a reputation regarding arrogance and smugness, but to an extent this comes from being correct more often than not. The scientific method works. Evidence based research has enriched the life of humanity as a whole.
The PR battle is not one that needs to be fought, not least because it is already lost. Rationality can never compete with mythical magic in the world of PR. Why degrade the position, just to accommodate people who are wrong?"
This is as far as I care, a textbook definition of "smug". Regardless of the validity of your argument or otherwise, I now perceive you as arrogant, and I would avoid speaking to at social events. You may be a charming person; you may be having an off day. But I don't know; my first impression has been formed and it isn't favourable. I'm now unlikely to listen to the rest of your argument.
It really boils down to what is the point of Skepticism: sitting around saying "I'm so right", with your pub friends nodding in agreement, or actually effecting real change?
At present Skepticism has an appearance of more of a social club and echo chamber than an effective agitator for lasting change; sure, you get the occasional media stunt and campaign, but it appears to focus more on the form of campaigning than bringing about change. You "overdosed" on homeopathic pills; so what? Did Boots stop stocking them?
Skepticism risks turning into the very thing it decries: a placebo that makes you feel better about yourself, without actually changing anything. Frankly, who cares if you're right if it doesn't achieve anything?
Real political change requires persuasion. Persuasion requires humility. According to a QC: "It is much easier to persuade people who believe you are helping them. Avoid being seen as a gladiator. It is difficult to persuade people who believe you are locked in a contest with them."
(2/2)
Going round telling people that they and their entire worldview are wrong and that you are right is just going to invite bloody-mindedness. People don't like to be wrong. The key is to show them they are wrong in such a way that they avoid having to lose face. To be persuasive, it helps to be liked. Aggressive promotion of a cause, no matter how "right" it is, doesn't do you any favours. Many people, intelligent and decent, believe homeopathy, chiro etc. work based on personal experience. They are unlikely to be shifted in this view if they come across an arrogant smuggard who is dismissive of their experiences based on hanging around a pub with a few scientists and reading some blogs. Even less so if you insult them by calling them quacks. Nobody wants to side with the obnoxious loudmouth, especially if he isn't himself medically qualified.
The more you look like a partisan cause, the less likely you are to win. "Skepticism" should be about calling for a level playing field. If you just show yourself as partisan (and having cliquey jargon such as "woo" only adds to this), then you're going to switch a lot of people off. Of course a "quack" can win a debate with a Skeptic: they look like a touchy-feely caring sort, and probably are sincere in their beliefs. You just look like a bully by appearing more interested in showing that they are wrong than helping people.
Of course there are some who will be unwilling to shift in their views no matter what you do. That's just life. Contain them and move on. But there are plenty who would be willing to change their mind, if only they were treated with a bit of respect. Skepticism risks forgetting this.
If you want to be a blogging circle and a bunch of mates who meet in the pub every week, fine. Go for it. If you want to be another Masonic-esque society boasting of superior knowledge of the world, fine. If you want to be a bunch of young fogeys complaining about how the world has got it all wrong, fine.
If you want to actually change something, start by changing your attitudes. Most "quacks" are not "bad people". Many are deeply sincere and altruistic. They're just wrong on the current evidence we have. Change comes from humility and tolerance. Skepticism at present has the appearance of lacking both.
(3/3)
Of course there are some who will be unwilling to shift in their views no matter what you do. That's just life. Contain them and move on. But there are plenty who would be willing to change their mind, if only they were treated with a bit of respect. Skepticism risks forgetting this.
If you want to be a blogging circle and a bunch of mates who meet in the pub every week, fine. Go for it. If you want to be another Masonic-esque society boasting of superior knowledge of the world, fine. If you want to be a bunch of young fogeys complaining about how the world has got it all wrong, fine.
If you want to actually change something, start by changing your attitudes. Most "quacks" are not "bad people". Many are deeply sincere and altruistic. They're just wrong on the current evidence we have. Change comes from humility and tolerance. Skepticism at present has the appearance of lacking both.
A few years ago I became involved in a "ghost investigation group" - invited to join them to advise on scientific methods for collecting evidence, which I understood to be being done from a sceptical starting point.
Instead, I quickly found that they already had a belief in ghosts and were looking for how to find evidence to support their beliefs.
I struggled for a while pointing out time and time again why the "proof" they were so proud of was scientifically irrelevant, and trying to advise them on how to approach collecting evidence to give it some validity - until I realised the fundamental problem; there is/was no theoretical basis of what ghosts are in order to determine what evidence could be used to assess it's validity.
Further, I realised during a OuiJa session while watching a woman clearly push a glass about that she probably had no clue she was moving the glass and honestly believed it was something else - and that it was important for her to be able to believe that. This was one of the first times I chose not to produce evidence of the failiure of the experiment to the people involved and just quietly ignore it instead.
I know many peoples religious beliefs give then comfort and security and purpose in life and in many ways, I envy that, however I seem incapable of 'belief' in anything - including what my eyes see, mind thinks etc. (perhaps I believe I'm typing this for a moment)
Sure, there are things I don't question all the time (eg will gravity cause something to drop), but even those things I tend to feel I have to test from time to time at least, just in case the rules have changed and I didn't get the memo.
I try to maintain humility and respect for people who can/do believe things, but that does tend to slip when I see people exploiting others beliefs. I also struggle to maintain respect when I see people wasting huge amounts of efforts based on beliefs for which they have no good evidence (moon landing hoax believers etc), and particularly when bad evidence or no evidence is being promulgated as 'facts' or 'the truth' to try to convince others to believe too.
I'm usually quite happy to let others believe what they wish, but if they are seeking to convince others to accept their meme/dogma, I struggle to resist challenging them for evidence.
I suppose the question is, does belief in non-evidence based ideas cause harm and does everyone have a responsibility to try to prevent harm happening to/spreading to others? If it causes harm and we have a moral obligation to intercede, the question is then how to do so without self defeating?
Belief isn't changed by facts/evidence/logic. It exists without those - presenting them is liable to alienate and strengthen the need for belief.
So yes, I agree sceptics need to consider how they are seen and how they act, and that includes applying the same strict criteria to their own "beliefs" and evidence too and not overstating confidence in beliefs being wrong.
As someone who told his sister about Santa when she was 5 I'm not sure I'm in the best place to comment but:
Skepticism is fundamentally a moral question. Excuse some philosophy Jack, but if we allow that morality means bringing about states of the world that are good (making people happy, curing disease etc). Then science, practically science in particular is a morally important endeavour. If we want to cure polio then it is *immoral* for us to do it in a way that wont work just as surely as if we were to spend the money on booze and hookers.
It is vital then that skeptics not let themselves think that evangelism is somehow a bad thing. Yes, in a tolerant and liberal society we should never try and force others to agree with us, nor should we use the law to do anything other than reduce harm. And I do agree with Mill that we should never force people to do things purely for what we see as their own benefit, they may indeed have different ideas about what they want to do with their lives. However, this respect for other's *aims* should never interfere with us telling them as firmly and persuasively as we can that their *methods* are bad. If someone wants to protect their child we must respect that, but we shouldn't stop ourselves from telling them that not giving them MMR is totally the wrong way to do that.
On the question of offence, I dont think it's a useful metric. Whether we offend people or not is irrelevant, the only question is do we change them, do we make them make better decisions, do we help them live their lives more happily. And I dont think enough research on science communication has been done. Too often there are panel discussions and blog posts and pub meetings to discuss how to communicate science, all this dont by people working in university science departments, if you can commission research, why are you talking about it, find out. Go out, find a psychologist and ask them to study the effects on beliefs in urban myths and psudoscience that result from various kinds of intervention. Do people respond to offence by rebelling against it or by reflecting on it and changing their minds? Do people get convinced they're wrong by celebrities or studies? Are arguments or graphs more persuasive? And I'm not asking what do they say, of course they say that the person disagreeing with them is an ass, anything else would be to admit defeat, what are people's actual actions later in the day, do they keep their old beliefs or do they adopt the true one, or even better, do they go and look it up and find out for themselves?
But ultimately I dont think we can ever totally remove offensive from skepticism, exactly because of the moral element, it is always offensive to claim to be morally superior to someone (this is why the clergy are so intolerable to many people). There is no way to say to someone "I know you think you're doing the right thing, but you're wrong, the way you're acting is based on a false understanding of the world, and it's harming those around you" that isn't offensive. You can sugar coat the message, but ultimately nobody likes to be told they are wrong. The only question is how we say that to make them believe we're right (or even better, to make them believe they should find out for themselves).
We are in danger of misunderstanding the skeptical (sceptical) project.
The problem is described by Bertrand Russell in A History of Western Philosophy (p.243 pub. Unwin):
“The man of science says ‘I think it is so-and-so, but I am not sure.’ The man of intellectual curiosity says ‘I don’t know how it is, but I hope to find out.’ The philosophical Sceptic says ‘nobody knows, and nobody can know.’ It is this element of dogmatism that makes the philosophical system vulnerable.”
Modern scepticism combines the approach Russell ascribes to the men of science and of intellectual curiosity.
By contrast, a believer says ‘I think it is so-and-so, and therefore I neither need to nor do I question it.’
Intellectual freedom means that any person may hold a particular belief, and may speak of it.
This freedom is expressed in Evelyn Beatrice Hall's phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it ..."
The price of freedom is that no belief may be imposed upon another without their consent.
In a recent judgment, Lord Justice Laws responding to a submission made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, said that Britain would become a religious dictatorship if the views of a single faith were given a priority over others in legal matters.
(http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mcfarlane-relate-oral-judgment-29042010.pdf)
But, in order to give consent one must possess the facts and have the necessary skill to test them against conflicting opinion or opposing facts.
That skill should be the product of a thorough, well-rounded education.
But where do we look for the facts?
Do we rely on authority, be that of a God or of someone who purports to have been given that authority by a God?
The biblical criticism that grew out of the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries uncovered a miriad of internal inconsistencies and factual errors.
Do we turn to the works of great men?
The Renaissance was driven by a belief that 'truth' which over the intervening centuries had been corrupted, lay in the writings of the ancients.
The scientific project demonstrated that this belief was false; the ancients could be dramatically wrong in their assertions.
Science's success confirmed that in order to understand, one must enquire; that enquiry presumes doubt; that without doubt one would have need of enquiry.
The antiscience, anti-skeptical movement, what I call 'faux-romanticism' has taken up many of the attitudes of its late 18th century forebears.
These are described by Malraux in la Métamorphose des dieux (http://openlibrary.org/works/OL652873W/La_metamorphose_des_dieux):
"Among the characteristic attitudes of Romanticism were the following: ... a general exaltation of emotion over reason and of the senses over intellect; ... an emphasis upon imagination as a gateway to transcendent experience and spiritual truth; an obsessive interest in folk culture, national and ethnic cultural origins, and the medieval era; and a predilection for the exotic, the remote, the mysterious, the weird, the occult, the monstrous, the diseased, and even the satanic."
Reading the posts here there seems to be a willful misinterpretation of the word skeptic to mean cynic. Not to make a "no true Scotsman" argument but a "true skeptic" doesn't say something isn't true they just say, "Prove it."
My apologies:
In the above piece
"Science's success confirmed that in order to understand, one must enquire; that enquiry presumes doubt; that without doubt one would have need of enquiry."
should read
"Science's success confirmed that in order to understand, one must enquire; that enquiry presumes doubt; that without doubt one would have NO need of enquiry."
As for the the matter of persuasion:
IMO persuasion is not the purpose of scepticism (beyond 'self-persuasion') but of education.
Every person should be encouraged to doubt everything in order to distinguish for themselves those opinions are 'reasonable' from those that are demonstrably 'false'.
Failing to do that, they expose their ignorance or laziness knowingly and rightly to the justifiable ridicule of others.
This is paraphrased, but seems ad rem:
Hardcore believers: believe 2+2=5 because It Is Written. Somewhere. They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns.
Moderate believers: live their lives on the basis that 2+2=4. but go are regularly told that 2+2 once made 5, or will one day make 5, or in a very real and spiritual sense should make 5.
Moderate sceptics: know that 2+2=4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended.
Militant sceptics: “Oh for pity’s sake. HERE. Two pebbles. Two more pebbles. FOUR pebbles. What is WRONG with you people?”
AndyRussell, the example you show with Morano and Watson is an interesting one. But it raises more questions than it answers.
Firstly, you chose an example where a sceptic journalist is behaving badly. But this anecdote is not representative of all sceptics - and I can give a counterexample where people with the opposite view behave badly - such as Joe Romm viciously attacking people who disagree with him. It is wrong to assume all climate sceptics behave like Morano just as it would be wrong to assume all on the consensus side behave like Romm.
Morano and Romm are examples of the tribalism present in these debates. What (I think?) Jack of Kent is doing is saying that we need to get away from this type of arrogant debating style. I'm not sure if you disagree with Jack or not but if you do - if you suggest fighting fire with fire - surely that will just result in more tribalism, and more entrenched positions. The Romms and Moranos of this world operate in an echo chamber - they will not influence the way people think, they merely entrench the tribal and inward-looking nature of the debate. They will also put many more neutral people off from wanting to engage in the debate as they will not want to either be associated with, or the target of, such mud-slinging.
As a much more positive and constructive example of debate, here is a link to Bob Watson and Fred Singer debating climate on the BBC. Please note this time we have two scientists debating, rather than one scientist and one hack journalist. They have much to agree on and can identify points on which they politely disagree.
Even if you don't agree with the positions put by Watson / Singer, you can see this is a far more constructive approach than either Morano or Romm are likely to muster.
That said - a debate with journalists such as Morano and Romm is likely to get more views than a stuffy debate between scientists. Entertainment value and preaching to the choir can be very effective ways of building an audience. I have no doubt that is a factor also.
Benjamin Gray, your last paragraph in comment 2/3 hits the nail squarely on the head, and I think is worth repeating:
"If you want to actually change something, start by changing your attitudes. Most "quacks" are not "bad people". Many are deeply sincere and altruistic. They're just wrong on the current evidence we have. Change comes from humility and tolerance. Skepticism at present has the appearance of lacking both."
There is a tendency in the sceptical movement by some - not necessarily all, but by some - to demonise the other side of the debate, to create a Manichaean false dichotomy of good versus evil.
Once the opponent in the debate is successfully demonised (by association, if need be), the quality of the debate descends into arrogant dismissal rather than a rational discussion of the evidence.
If an individual behaves badly in a debate, it is right to call them out. But to demonise a group on that basis is the response of religion rather than a response from rational thinking.
I've found this discussion very useful.
The idea that skeptics (or sceptics) are arrogant or smug is a bit like the line we hear used about scientists working with the media - that they're poor communicators or live in Ivory Towers and are out of touch with the 'real world'. It's either used as a means to silence people, or applies to a minority.
Perhaps it's more helpful to focus on the problem behaviour (communication, arrogance) than pin it simply onto skepticism.
There are things skeptics can do that would probably help a lot. Consulting the wide range of research and writing about engagement and sharing messages effectively from areas like education and health promotion is not current practice.
Perhaps those of us working in education or health could do more to make these resources more accessible?
It worries me that there's a minority of skeptics who interpret skepticism as being quite closed minded. If you decide you don't like particular areas of social science, different methodologies, areas of philosophy because you think it's not worthwhile this is a very limiting and indeed an arrogant view.
Linked to this is the practice (again of only some) skeptics of confusing debate with bullying and valuing a macho attack as some kind of 'win'. If you're trying to change people's minds but brag about how you've pwnd someone it gives the impression of being boorish and even elitist.
Such actions are not linked only to men and nor would I describe them as 'male', but there is the wider issue of excluding particular groups and this approach is something many women do feel is excluding. If you are making people who actually agree with you in general feel sidelined because of your manner it probably should be a wake up call that something needs to alter.
Having said all that what I like about skeptics is their willingness to ask questions and keenness to tackle some issues in imaginative ways.
Skeptics are a diverse bunch and it would be wrong to assume a. they all agree, b. they're a clearly identified/united organisation and c. they are activists - most (at this time) are not.
Perhaps the focus should be on what skeptics want to achieve and where they feel they could reflect and learn to be more effective?
Wow, "Jack", a lot of comments, so forgive me if I may inadvertently repeat a point already made.
Firstly, let me say I understand philosophical skepticism to be about a questioning frame of mind. So surely the philosophical skeptic has a danger of reducing him or herself to being a snide person who merely and continually chants, "Prove it!" In a world where many things cannot be conclusively proved, one way or another, such chants soon become tiresome and do not contribute to any debate. Even more so when those calling for proof would not understand any scientific attempt to set out that proof.
Perhaps we ought to rehabilitate agnosticism back into philosophical skepticism. Forget the religious connotations. I mean that we accept at the outside the Huxley idea that the absolute truth of some hypotheses is not or cannot be known. In his words, “Agnosticism is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle .... in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”
If we were all a little agnostic, we would know that there often no absolute “right” answer or conclusive proof. Maybe we would then approach debate with the humility, politeness and courtesy you have spoken about on Twitter in reference to this blog.
I actually wrote an article thing on the complete opposite side of the coin recently, as has been the case in the majority of my experiences.
http://brumskeptics.blogspot.com/2010/06/scepticism-human-element.html
"Moderate sceptics: know that 2+2=4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended.
Militant sceptics: “Oh for pity’s sake. HERE. Two pebbles. Two more pebbles. FOUR pebbles. What is WRONG with you people?”"
It's a basic of management that shouting at people is a very poor way of getting them to do things, so why is it suddenly seen as alright to get them to change their worldview?
More importantly, you've gone and said that something is "wrong with you", which is very different to "you are wrong". There's a complete lack of respect. Why should I listen to the opinions of someone who thinks that my disagreement is evidence of pathology?
Being polite gets you far further than shouting.
Like any other group of people, skeptics are only human and hence prone to what is called 'tribalism' - a strong sense of identity with and loyalty to one's tribe or group. One possible side-effect of such feeling is prejudice against those who are not members of one's group which can find expression as condescension or contempt or even outright hostility towards outsiders.
This raises two questions. The first is that while the human instinct to form 'tribal' groups may explain what happens, does it excuse such behaviour? The second - related - question is that if identifying oneself as a skeptic implies holding oneself to a higher standard of critical thought and objectivity than a non-skeptic, does it not also bind one to a higher standard of humility and attention to the limitations of current human knowledge when highlighting the perceived shortcomings of others??
Benjamin Gray wrote: It's a basic of management that shouting at people is a very poor way of getting them to do things, so why is it suddenly seen as alright to get them to change their worldview?
I'm sure it is. Who suggested that this was adequate/suitable behaviour?
I'm going to assume that you have taken the use of capitals there as the equivalent of "shouting" as per the norms of netiquette. Considering they were individual words rather than an entire sentence, I read it as emphasis in lieu of other markup. Randomly raising one's voice mid-sentence seems unnatural, but that just my impression. YMMV.
Benjamin Gray also wrote: More importantly, you've gone and said that something is "wrong with you", which is very different to "you are wrong". There's a complete lack of respect. Why should I listen to the opinions of someone who thinks that my disagreement is evidence of pathology?
I have "gone and said" nothing of the sort. I presented a slightly modified version of a meme that seemed apropos for further discussion, within the confines of the OP.
Admittedly, I failed to source the original. There you go. Mea culpa.
Although—in defence of the idea behind it—how come it is the person who thinks 2+2=4 that raises your ire, rather than the 2+2=5 positions? Simply because it's perceived as "loud"? In that case, I suppose one should be thankful that numbers don't usually have capital varieties.
And did the accusation of any kind of pathological behaviour come from? I think perhaps you're reading far too much into it. But hey—again—YMMV.
Spence
I picked the Andrew Watson/Marc Morano example because, for me, it represents the extreme of what JoK's blogpost was concerned about (plus another point).
It is very argumentative, both sides come away looking bad and nothing is achieved.
Further, it highlights the issue that the person being presented as a "sceptic" probably employed very little skepticism in arriving at their conclusion. If this level of analysis is accepted by the media in the case of climate science then it has worrying implications for other fields.
I agree it raises questions. I've no idea how Watson should have dealt with Morano.
The video also amuses me cos he done called him an asshole!
I would hazard that most people's encounters with skepticism consists of reading jokey articles poking fun at people with very strange beliefs. Suggesting that "skepticism" has an image problem assumes a public image.
Blu_Matt/Benjamin Gray
"And did the accusation of any kind of pathological behaviour come from?"
I would say that some, for example Tredinnick, are pathological. Benjamin is quite right that calling Tredinnick "pathological" or saying that there is "something wrong" with him is unlikely to persuade Tredinnick. But we don't have to persuade Treddinick If we persuaded the people who voted for Tredinnick we would have succeeded.
Persuading those liable to give credence to woo/irrationalism/fraud can often best be achieved by facing those people with the facts put as plainly and forcibly as possible. We have had centuries of quiet, reasoned and calm disputes of the Catholic Church’s claim to moral authority. What has persuaded, and continues to persuade, many who would give ground to that claim is not gentle PR persuasion but:
“For fuck’s sake these people covered up child rape!”
I think that, quite neatly, chimes in with "here's two pebbles, here's another two..."
Andyrussell,
I understand the point you were making - but I explained why your reasoning seems a little unconvincing to me. Perhaps I did not communicate my ideas well enough, which have developed a little further since reading your latest response.
1. Your line of reasoning could prove anything. In any category of argument, there are always some people who "behave badly". Therefore, if there existed a group I did not like for some reason, all I would need to do would be to find a bad one and cite that as an example. I gave Romm as a counterexample to show bad behaviour on the other side of the coin, and to illustrate that finding one bad example is not representative of a group. Your evidence here is weak and is not really evidence of anything other than one simple fact: in any polemic debate, on any side, there will be "assholes". This is all I feel that you demonstrated with your example.
2. Just to be clear, there is definitely a distinct sceptic "movement". There are even conferences - such as TAM and skepticon - where people in the movement get together and share ideas. Furthermore, I do not believe the public is likely to confuse Marc Morano with this sceptic movement, which I think is probably more the focus of Jack of Kent's point. I guess I'm an optimist but I generally think people are quite savvy. I subscribe to the "you can fool some of the people some of the time" type line but generally people will see through spin and bluster, and I expect very few would confuse Morano with the sceptic movement.
More importantly, there are no shortage of examples of the type of arrogance and dismissive arguments from within the sceptic movement; so there is really no need to find a scapegoat outside of the movement. I stress again that this comes from a vocal minority, but a vocal minority can shape perceptions.
So perhaps I did not express myself well, but I do not think your argument is terribly convincing for the above reasons. If you could somehow demonstrate that people are prone to confusing Morano as representative of the larger sceptic movement then you may be able to construct a case, but until then I think your claim is really a hasty generalisation.
As for how to deal with Morano, I would say move away from tribalism, and the tribes (represented by the likes of Romm and Morano) will find they are without support. They won't disappear, but they will whither and become more and more marginalised. I think this is an approach the likes of Drs Judith Curry and Mike Hulme are promoting. But while tribalism remains a central pillar of the climate science debate, the likes of Morano will flourish.
I think the entertainment value of tribalism is going to make that difficult though. Pulling up a bag of popcorn and watching the likes of Morano / Romm, or reading Pharyngula take Ken Hovind appart, can be entertaining. I suspect we agree on that point as well, judging by your reaction to Morano being called an asshole :^)
Cripes, what a fantastic response! I've been blogging about this a bit too recently. As a lot of people have said above, it's difficult to explain why people shouldn't believe something without implying that we think they're less intelligent. For example, just today James Le Fanu wrote in the Telegraph: "the [anti-homeopathy] campaign itself smacks of Dawkinsite arrogance, which supposes "science" alone has all the answers and portrays its critics as necessarily irrational and superstitious."
This is such a sweeping and irrelevant generalisation that it would be nice to be able to ignore it. Unfortunately, now that the smug, arrogant skeptic has become such a stereotype, it's going to be difficult to shake off that image.
"I would say that some, for example Tredinnick, are pathological. Benjamin is quite right that calling Tredinnick "pathological" or saying that there is "something wrong" with him is unlikely to persuade Tredinnick. But we don't have to persuade Treddinick If we persuaded the people who voted for Tredinnick we would have succeeded."
I don't disagree with you on that at all. In fact, I said pretty much the same in my earlier comments. My point was that there are plenty of others though who will listen to persuasion. It doesn't do any favours to suggest that they are mad.
That being said, telling people that their MP is a pathological lunatic or "quack" would probably jar with their perception of him being a hard-working, honest and decent person. To that extent, getting personal is going to backfire.
Spence
Assuming that you're the same Spence, I'm getting slight de ja vu from the last exchange we had over on my blog! I'm afraid that I don't really know what argument you think I'm making.
I think the Watson/Morano clip shows both sides behaving relatively badly (although I think you've guessed with side I sympathise with!) I'm not trying to point score against the climate change "skeptics" here.
As for the wider use of the term skeptic/sceptic, I would suspect that it gets used more often in the media in relation to climate change than other context. (I've not done any investigation into this, I'd happily be proved wrong.) This seemed relevant to JoK's post.
"Is it enough just to be right?"
In a recent blog you said that skepticism gets facts and then liberalism is applied to that: contrast that with the statements above about homeopathy. There is clearly little evidence to support its efficacy, but to say that Boots/the NHS shouldn't use homeopathy requires a political and moral judgment about the role of private companies/the health service. Those are judgments that can't be made by evidence alone. While some skeptics pretend that they can skepticism will suffer from an image of paternalism.
Andyrussell, yes it is the same Spence. My posts are in response to your question above
"Does the problem also have something to do with the rise of the "climate change sceptic"?"
I am explaining why I do not think that this is the case, by demonstrating what I consider to be logical flaws in your case. I'll accept it doesn't read terribly well - I spent too long studying predicate calculus and modal logic in uni, which makes for very structured, formalised, long winded and dull debates.
I think Vicky above does a much better job of summarising the issue (albeit with an anecdote). When seeking an exemplar of arrogance in the sceptic community, the journalist doesn't say "Morano-ite" or "Moncktonite" or even "Dyson-esque", he chooses Dawkins.
Having read a few articles by James Le Fanu I am far from impressed by his commentary on science, but even amongst atheist, sceptical scientists that I work with (all of whom recognise the quality of Dawkins work on evolution), many consider Dawkins to be arrogant. And Dawkins is better known to them than any outspoken climate sceptic you care to name.
"Is skepticism getting a reputation for arrogance and smugness?"
In my opinion, it gained this reputation a long time ago. The 10^23 campaign cemented it.
I decided to back off the community, as much as I may agree with it at times, because I felt that the word 'skepticism' was no longer valid - 'cynicism' was more accurate much of the time.
This not for those of a sensitive disposition.
Regarding the accusation that might be summarised as 'sceptics need better manners', might I direct readers to this web site:
http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/feature_article098.htm
which I found via PZ Myer's wonderful site:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/attempted_intimidation_by_a_qu.php
"I Love the Smell of Napalm in the Morning...
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Friday, July 2nd, 2010
I've got a copy of the Doctor's Data v Barrett Federal lawsuit attached to this article. Be careful when you handle it - it's HOT...
I was kind of mad at Darryl Hickok, the head of Doctor's Data laboratory a few months ago, for not walking out and legally punching sleazebag Stephen Barrett, and his minions, in the face over their obvious intent to destroy Doctor's Data, and hence, a whole host of great US Doctors, with their activities.
For, as I constantly point out to people, there is only one way to deal with Barrett and his slimy ilk - you have to, so to speak, slap them, and whack them, and kick them, and stomp them, yank their pants down and paddle them publicly - every time. It is the only thing that works."
More on the Doctors Data v. Stephen Barrett litigation.
For an introduction to Quackwatch I would recommend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackwatch
Doctors Data speaks for itself - you can go to their website here:
http://www.doctorsdata.com/home.asp
I have been looking around the web for more information about the CEO of Doctors Data Inc., Darrell Hickok.
I have located a paper entitled "Trace Element Analysis in Hair: Factors Determining Accuracy, Precision, and Reliability"
It was published in Alternative Medicine Review Vol. 6 Number 5 (2001)
The authors listed at the head of the paper are:
Dean A. Bass, PhD - Technical Director, Doctors Data Inc.
more here: http://www.msd.anl.gov/personnel/bass/
Darrell Hickok - CEO, Doctors Data Inc.
David Quig, PhD - VP Scientific Support, Doctors Data Inc.
more here: http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/198.cfm
Karen Urek BS, MT (ASCP) - VP Operations, Doctors Data Inc.
Urek has published papers with Quig, but I have found little more on her. Wikipedia, in an article entitled 'Medical Laboratory Scientist' tells us that,
"Clinical Laboratory Scientists who are certified and in good standing with the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) are entitled to use the credential "MLS" after their names. Formerly before the merger between ASCP and the National Credentialing Agency for Laboratory Personnel (NCA), Medical Laboratory Scientists certified by (ASCP) were entitled to use the credential "MT" (for Medical Technologist)"
As for Darrell Hickok, he appears to be just plain 'Mr.' Hickok, which begs the question 'what exactly was his contribution to the work presented in this particular paper'?
I'm pretty sure that its impossible for skeptics to act in any manner that would make those who's beliefs they criticize feel positively about them- or even neutrally.
There's just no nice way of telling someone that their entire belief structure is founded on factually incorrect claims.
I'm willing to believe that skepticism can be expressed more or less gently, but the fact that there is a widespread view of skeptics as jerks is inadequate evidence that they're actually behaving inappropriately or ineffectively. This state of affairs is what we would expect either way.
Faced with the accusation that some skeptics come off as arrogant, we hear some counter responses to the effect that people are too stupid to be persuaded from their superstitions. In other words, our hubris is not really hubris at all if we know we're right.
To me this is an evasion not an argument. The issue isn't most importantly about the folks who believe dumb things and perhaps can't be persuaded otherwise, as valid as that perspective might be.
The issue is most importantly about what a "debunking" mindset does to the process of inquiry in the mind of the skeptic.
It reinforces the temptation to assume we're right, to use our intelligence to defend our position and ridicule alternatives, and to defend an established position rather than investigate the issue.
While there are plenty of traps that people fall into that lead to "superstition," there are also traps that even the super-intelligent and scientifically literate (and sometimes especially those folks!) can also fall into. Some of the biggest boners have been made by some of the brightest people. We not only need to look at the evidence, we also need to examine the biases in our own thinking that skew our interpretation of evidence, even when we know we are right.
That's to me what distinguishes a principled skeptic from someone who is just skeptical about other people's dumb beliefs.
The "debunkers" who impress me most are not the ones who are the best at making other people look silly (although I do find them entertaining), the ones that impress me the most are the ones who actually understand the reasoning behind extraordinary or mistaken claims, who can show why someone might reasonably believe them without being crazy or stupid in order to credibly show that they understand the claim, and THEN explain why that interpretation is most likely wrong, or why it is wrong in principle.
Post a Comment