The Ethics of Skepticism

[digithead]

It is already very well known that people can be fooled.

P&T might as well show to the world that 2 + 2 = 4.

Well, given that remedial math is taught in my university and many others, a little refresher course on the basics probably couldn't hurt...

However, what they were showing isn't remedial, they were showing how people through their own gullibility and/or wishful thinking will believe anything that remotely supports their position regardless of how farfetched it is. To claim that P&T were unethical and were using the "ends justifies the means" to support what they did is wrong.

And while I may not have posted often on this site, I've been lurking on it for several years now, so I guess it's my turn to bang my head against the wall and tell you: You didn't answer my question, how else would you have done it?

 

[T'ai Chi]

To claim that P&T were unethical and were using the "ends justifies the means" to support what they did is wrong.

To claim that they showed anything interesting/surprising is wrong.

And while I may not have posted often on this site, I've been lurking on it for several years now, so I guess it's my turn to bang my head against the wall and tell you: You didn't answer my question, how else would you have done it?

Others commenting on P&T doesn't mean people have to reply to your questions, or even read your questions.

 

[digithead]

To claim that they showed anything interesting/surprising is wrong.

Well, since I didn't make that claim, I guess I wasn't wrong. And stating that something is interesting/surprising is a matter of opinion not fact.

So if you don't find what they did interesting or surprising, again, how would you do it better?

Others commenting on P&T doesn't mean people have to reply to your questions, or even read your questions.

Since you responded to my post, I'll make the supposition that you read my question. Whether you want to answer them or not is entirely up to you...

And given your history on this board, this will probably digress into a semantics debate that I could care less about...

Have a nice day...

 

[T'ai Chi]

Well, since I didn't make that claim, I guess I wasn't wrong.

To claim that P&T were unethical and were using the "ends justifies the means" to support what they did is wrong.

Since I didn't make the claim that P&T are unethical, I guess I wasn't wrong.

Please flirt with someone else. I'm not interested.

 

[Euromutt]

It is already very well known that people can be fooled.

P&T might as well show to the world that 2 + 2 = 4.

I think that's very much open to discussion, but I'll leave that aside for the moment. Do I understand correctly, T'ai Chi, that your comment "the end justifies the means" has no other basis than that P & T were, in your opinion, stating the obvious? Is it unethical to point something which is already generally known to be true?

Oh, scratch that; apparently you weren't claiming that P & T were doing anything unethical. In which case, it's entirely unclear what point, if any, you were trying to make, especially given the topic of this thread. Let us know when you actually do say something.

 

[Tricky]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Carlos hoax yet. This was done with the blessing and support of James Randi. I think it is one of the greatest blows against psychics ever delivered. Not only ethical but laudable.

For Alvarez, the creation of the character "Carlos" was a performance/experiment to see how far he could take his creation, but his purpose was not to make people look foolish. He hoped to liberate them from a false belief. However, the result of the performance seemed to demonstrate how easy it is to create a cult from scratch and how, even when the truth is revealed to them, some still refuse to accept it. The "Carlos" hoax also demonstrated how gullible and uncritical the mass media are when covering paranormal or supernatural topics. Rather than having an interest in exposing the truth, the members of the media were obsessed with "Carlos" the phenomenon and transformed his character from a hoax to a myth. The character Alvarez had so arduously created was transmogrified by the press. The media didn't even need to do any research to have determined that "Carlos" was not genuine. The biggest clue was handed to them on a silver platter: "Carlos" performed for free. He offered crystals from Atlantis for sale, but took orders rather than cash. Every journalist should know that the first sign of an authentic fake guru is greed.

 

[hellaeon]

Deceiving people and telling them they are being deceived is fine.

Deceiving people and not telling them they are being deceived is not.

Boom ching

 

[T'ai Chi]

I think that's very much open to discussion, but I'll leave that aside for the moment.

You may leave it aside, but showing the already well known fact (for thousands of years) that people can be fooled, then saying 'See, they can be fooled!' is rather pointless.

It does make for good tv, I'm sure.

 

[digithead]

You may leave it aside, but showing the already well known fact (for thousands of years) that people can be fooled, then saying 'See, they can be fooled!' is rather pointless.

So, by extension, I guess you believe that any well known fact (for thousands of years) should never be taught, reinforced, demonstrated, or discussed because it is, in your words, "rather pointless"...

Or is it just the things you disagree with?

That seems rather closeminded for someone who's so critical of skeptics...

 

[MandosV]

I distinctly remember as a young adult seeing Geller proven a fraud. In those lonely adolescent days, that act of rationality was like a beacon or lighthouse for me. Acts that prove woo is what it is are necessary, if only for this rationale. And, since when is showing the truth unethical?

 

[Quinn]

It is already very well known that people can be fooled.

P&T might as well show to the world that 2 + 2 = 4.

Yes... if everyone believed that 2 + 2 = 4 for those other people, but not for them.

 

[petre]

Is speeding unethical?

Is it unethical for a police officer to speed in order to catch up to a speeder and issue a ticket? After all, he is doing so for personal gain.

 

[kieran]

It's very instructive, but it was not mutual, and therefore the instructive value is merely a post hoc rationalization for gaining personal benefit at somebody else's cost. Only the other person is entitled to say whether the cost was 'worth it', and they should be consulted before-the-fact to permit them to opt out of the project.

Disclosure and transparency are basic tenets of research ethics.

"Disclosure" and "transparency" are basic tenets at the end of the experiment. Taken to the extreme, you are arguing against the very principle of the double blind trial. In that, the participants do not know what is real and what is fake, this is revealed after the results have been gathered.

Unfortunately "disclosure" and "transparency" are not the basic tenets of true fraudsters. They sit back indefinitely and watch as their fraud is used as evidence of the paranormal. It seems that a very effective way of illustrating that this is happening is to perpetrate a fraud, let the "usual suspects" declare that they know this is a genuine phenomenon like all "the others", and then declare the fraud (with evidence). Anything less and these "usual suspects" will say (as they do), "We would have been fooled by your attempt at fraud. We would have seen through it. All these other ones are genuine, your fake is a fake."

 

[R.Mackey]

Hi all, I felt I had to de-lurk for this one, after visiting for about a year. Let me know if I've got this right.

Isn't attacking the "ethics" of a demonstration just a belaboured ad hominem attack?

The focus of something like Penn & Teller's little Bigfoot stunt is the evidence. Evidence needs to stand alone, to be so unambiguous and verifiable that it doesn't matter whether or not we trust the source. If that evidence is inconclusive, such that we start weighing its merits on the basis of somebody's personal or professional ethics, then we haven't proved anything. Likewise, if an infamous Bigfoot hoaxer one day toddled out of the backcountry with a genuine, living, breathing sasquatch in tow, none of that past bad behavior would alter the facts.

So, I guess I don't see the point of the ethical debate, except as a sideshow.

Regardless, I think the ethical question of a hoax can be decided by a simple test -- when does the experimenter / hoaxer benefit? P&T or psychology researchers don't gain anything until the experiment ends and the hoax is revealed. A charlatan, on the other hand, stands to lose if the truth is ever known. Seems pretty clear to me.

Or an even simpler test: Who was hurt by P&T's experiment? Anyone?

 

[kitakaze]

Or an even simpler test: Who was hurt by P&T's experiment? Anyone?

Just a couple off the top of my head- Matt Moneymaker's, erm, credibility was (further) hurt and uhh...oh yeah, Rodney found it abhorrent (if not actually hurt). Welcome, BTW.

 

[kitakaze]

Pardon? Would you mind making yourself more plain?

Just for the record, ImaginalDisc, we're in agreement on the lesson taught but P&T's alleged hoax. That said, will I make myself more plain? Absolutely. Anyone who makes the implication that all those who consider the possibility of the existence of bigfoot to be a woo is either uninformed or intentionally deluding themselves.

I never called bigfoot believers idiots. If you would like to put words in my mouth, do it elsewhere.

No, you didn't. Nor did I say you did. I did imply the example dialogue you used was weak, though.

 

[Euromutt]

You may leave it aside, but showing the already well known fact (for thousands of years) that people can be fooled, then saying 'See, they can be fooled!' is rather pointless.

The reason I preferred to leave it aside was because whether or not an action is pointless has no bearing as to whether or not it's ethical. Which is, after all, the topic of this thread. But since you insist on belaboring the point...

Yes... if everyone believed that 2 + 2 = 4 for those other people, but not for them.

Quinn hits the nail on the head: sure, everybody knows "people" in general can be fooled, but who hasn't at some point thought, upon hearing of some hoax, trick or scam perpetrated upon someone else, that he himself was way too smart to fall something that obvious? We have words for this kind of thinking, words like "complacency" and "hubris," and most human cultures have many homilies involving a character being rudely (but rightly) shaken out of that hubris. The lesson is not that "people can be fooled," but that you, too, are not too smart to be fooled.

 

[blutoski]

"Disclosure" and "transparency" are basic tenets at the end of the experiment. Taken to the extreme, you are arguing against the very principle of the double blind trial. In that, the participants do not know what is real and what is fake, this is revealed after the results have been gathered.

I am not arguing against the principle of the double-blind trial. I am enforcing both its mechanism *and* the ethical rules that surround it. See my previous posting:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1594100#post1594100

If patients are not informed *in advance* that they will be in an experiment, we're moving into Mengele territory. Consent is the key issue of the Tuskegee disaster.

I responded to the thread entitled "the ethics of skepticism", not "the effectiveness of blinded experiments".

As an immunologist, I would just *loooove* to conduct ideal experiments where the patients are completely unaware that they are in an experiment. But then, I'd get arrested and reviled by my peers.

Disclosure and transparency in a double-blind experiment includes telling the patients that they are in a double-blind experiment, so they have the option of declining.




Mr. Mackey asked whether this discussion is an ad hominem attack, and that depends on the argument being made. If the argument is "the results should be dismissed because the experimenters are unethical," then this would be an ad hominem attack.

However, the question is: do the ends (providing a demonstration of how easy it is to manufacture these films) justify the means (lying to people, knowing that they will be embarassed when the stunt is exposed).

A question raised in their defense is: "how else are we supposed to demonstrate this?", but it assumes that we are *required* to demonstrate this. As skeptics, we may feel that it's important for others to share our view, but that doesn't mean we're obliged to bless the masses with our opinions, whether they want them or not.



We criticize the attitude of Martin Luther when he said it was OK to lie to non-believers, because the end result is that if you convert them - even dishonestly - you helped save their soul from eternal damnation.

I was hoping that Skeptics would offer the world something better.



MandosV asked "since when is showing the truth unethical?", and the answer is "it depends on how you did it".

One of the things about medicine that I have to accept is that a lot of medical 'truths' were not established with trials or experiments, or anything like that. Evidence Based Medicine is a movement that attempts to distinguish between these 'proven' techniques, versus those that are only practiced because we don't have a better idea. The reason there are big evidentiary holes is because so many experiments are simply not ethical to perform. The value of demonstrating their truth is exceeded by the value of maintaining an ethical standard.



Tricky: I'm pretty sure I mentioned the Carlos hoax. Another one Randi was involved with was Project Alpha.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

RE blutoski: There have been interesting, and I believe ethical, arguments made for triple-blind experiments. Not to say that such things like Tuskagee could not happen, but I view it as a bit of a baby and the bathwater issue.

Where is the line between making a point and unethical behavior? Would PT Barnum's "This way to the egress" be unethical? Was HG Wells' War of the Worlds radio play unethical?

P&T(1) put a video out on a website and made a claim on said website. The point of doing so was to observe the reaction of the BF (and I presume skeptic as well) community in regards to what was presented. Everyone had equal access to review the video and investigate the site itself.

They have now revealed (or at least made the claim) that they hoaxed the video and website. The is probably for multiple reasons, including, but not limited to: increasing viewing of this episode, chronicling the reactions of people when they found out it was a hoax, etc.



(1) Giving them provisional agreement until after the airing of the show occurs

 

[blutoski]

RE blutoski: There have been interesting, and I believe ethical, arguments made for triple-blind experiments. Not to say that such things like Tuskagee could not happen, but I view it as a bit of a baby and the bathwater issue.

Yes, I've read some of these. They're usually special circumstances, though. And what are retrospective studies, anyway?

Where is the line between making a point and unethical behavior? Would PT Barnum's "This way to the egress" be unethical? Was HG Wells' War of the Worlds radio play unethical?

At least, we have to demonstrate due diligence. Show a token concern for those who are affected. My approach is that when you get to a grey area with real consequences, you consult the stakeholders.

P&T(1) put a video out on a website and made a claim on said website. The point of doing so was to observe the reaction of the BF (and I presume skeptic as well) community in regards to what was presented. Everyone had equal access to review the video and investigate the site itself.

They have now revealed (or at least made the claim) that they hoaxed the video and website. The is probably for multiple reasons, including, but not limited to: increasing viewing of this episode, chronicling the reactions of people when they found out it was a hoax, etc.

Agreed, and it always depends on whether the perpetrator of the hoax applied due diligence: what are the realistic consequences? What are the benefits? As a whole, would it be worth it?

Here's what I'll do tonight: I'll pull the fire alarm in a crowded theatre. After the mayhem has subsided, I'll call it a lesson in critical thinking. Perhaps hand out leaflets on behalf of the JREF and the Skeptical society. Lecture them on how gullible they were. Strike a victory for reason by demonstrating how easy it is to catch people off guard. Why, they should all thank me, I suppose, but I'll have to politely decline if they want to give me money as a show of gratititude: I'm not in it for personal gain.

Obviously, you'd rather I didn't associate such a stupid stunt with the JREF. Why?

Well, it shows bad judgement on my part: the lesson is weak, consequences are too high, and the blowback against whomever I am pretending to represent is very costly in its own right.


Assuming that P&T did this hoax, I'm weighing toward the 'worth it' side myself, but I was concerned about the attitude of some of the posts: that claiming you're educating the unwashed masses was carte blanche to act like a prick.