Debunking the debunkers

[Richard]

Responding to the apparent rise and rise of ‘bunk’ - creationism, homeopathy, fad diets and bad science - a new movement of sceptics is mobilising to defend the world against an ‘attack on science’ in public life. But does this army of professional and armchair scientists and philosophers challenge strange ideas about health, the universe and everything to paint a rational picture of the world, or does it sometimes share them?

Read more...

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1884/

 

[Buckaroo]

Far from seeking rationalism, scepticism is increasingly a search for authority. There are no clear ideas about why it is wrong to believe in a god that does not exist, nor why it is wrong to believe that aliens have landed in Area 51, other than it is simply not true, and may therefore give somebody who doesn’t deserve it some kind of authority or influence.

Stuff.

Where science once sought to explain the natural world, it is now more a tool of introspection. The role of science has been diminished to providing narcissistic comfort from the terrifying nightmares it constructs about how we are bad for ourselves.

Nonsense.

 

[blutoski]

Responding to the apparent rise and rise of ‘bunk’ - creationism, homeopathy, fad diets and bad science - a new movement of sceptics is mobilising to defend the world against an ‘attack on science’ in public life. But does this army of professional and armchair scientists and philosophers challenge strange ideas about health, the universe and everything to paint a rational picture of the world, or does it sometimes share them?

Read more...

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1884/

Thanks, Richard.

I actually think it's beneficial to see what uninterested third-parties think about Skepticism as a 'movement'. I have a love/hate relationship with Spiked!Online, in that I agree enthusiastically with some of their editorialists, but completely disagree with others. This article is by an author I usually agree with.

Consider this, though:

It’s as though the world’s ills could be explained by the cynical exploitation of the general public’s scientific illiteracy by a network of agendas.

I think this is exactly what a lot of skeptics believe!

Another thing that's worth noting when soliciting opinions about outsiders is the difference between what we're trying to say versus the message that is being received. If they're getting a completely wrong impression about Skeptics, well, that's a problem that only Skeptics can solve. It's no use pouting about how dumb they are for misreading our crappy PR. The point of PR is to make the message understood.

I do agree with the previous poster that that third-to-last and second-to-last paragraphs go off the rails a bit about what science is 'about'.

However, I like the concluding paragraph:

Sceptics and rationalists ought to be taking a look at their own ideas to find out why they fail to find purchase in the public imagination. Putting science and rationalism back on the map is going to take more than PR, angry rants about stupid religious people, or teaching kids that ‘science is cool’. We don’t need a police force to protect us from bad ideas. We just need better ideas.

Total agreement.

 

[Beth]

I agree, he goes too far, but I think the following quote is accurate:

The idea that we need to be told what we can believe is a theme throughout the sceptical movement.

Further, while I don't think it's a universally accepted skeptical priniciple, certainly many skeptics seem to feel this way:

This idea that the self, its autonomy, and consciousness are illusions allows sceptics to reduce humans to mindless beings which lack an understanding of their own interests and therefore need to be controlled.

To me, that attitude is not significantly different from the religions many skeptics would like to eliminate. To me, it often comes across as "Repent sinner. Renouce your previous beliefs and accept ours."

 

[Piggy]

To me, that attitude is not significantly different from the religions many skeptics would like to eliminate. To me, it often comes across as "Repent sinner. Renouce your previous beliefs and accept ours."

The skeptic does not ask anyone to adopt a belief.

The skeptic recommends that we all at least take the time to objectively examine what we think is true.

And the skeptic has the stones to call b**ls**t on obvious hokum, regardless of whether it's fashionable, or unfashionable, to do so.

 

[Ashles]

To me, that attitude is not significantly different from the religions many skeptics would like to eliminate. To me, it often comes across as "Repent sinner. Renouce your previous beliefs and accept ours."

Yet to me it often comes across as some people seem to be almost outraged that their beliefs should be even questioned.

Further, while I don't think it's a universally accepted skeptical priniciple, certainly many skeptics seem to feel this way:

I am unsure where you get such an impression.
On this board I have always had the overriding impression that the vast majority of skeptics think that everyone is entirely entitled to believe whatever they wish, just that in many cases there is no particular evidence for that belief.
Sure you may find exceptions but then that would be the case in any group amd isn't particularly useful to forward any argument.

 

[Grimoire]

I agree, he goes too far, but I think the following quote is accurate:

The idea that we need to be told what we can believe is a theme throughout the sceptical movement.

I disagree. That is not the theme throughout the sceptical movement. Believe what you want, but if you wish to make rules in our society, or make a claim that, if wrong could cause someone to come to harm, then you had better have the evidence to show that you did your homework.

Further, while I don't think it's a universally accepted skeptical priniciple, certainly many skeptics seem to feel this way:

Perhaps some do. But I think it is far too strong a statement, to the point of being incorrect.

To me, that attitude is not significantly different from the religions many skeptics would like to eliminate. To me, it often comes across as "Repent sinner. Renouce your previous beliefs and accept ours."

Yes, we want people to renounce religion. But not through scare tactics, or lies, or empty promises, but with rational, reasonable thought. If they want to continue believing their superstitions, then that is there perogative, just don't attempt to force your beliefs on me. Don't make laws based on religious morals. Don't spend public moneys on faith based medicine.

It is regrettable that it sometimes comes across as being preachy or high horsed. Sceptics are people too, and sometimes they can be emotional.

 

[Apathia]

What happens when a technique, the technique of skeprical inquiry, becomes a movement and an -ism?

The article makes ponts that skeptic by skeptic can consider as they inquire about themselves. That's good.
Fotunately the movement doesn't have a monolithic meme or a creed.
Since it contains many differnt personalities going about different lifestyles, many different attitudes show up on this board, including the hostile ones.

On that count, God have mercy on any "better ideas" that are posted here!

 

[T'ai Chi]

The skeptic recommends that we all at least take the time to objectively examine what we think is true.

You've confused someone who is skeptical with a person who is in the organized skeptical movement. Most people who are skeptical (and most everyone is skeptical of some thing, so logically we can call most people skeptics) probably do not go around recommending in various media what other people should believe. That is something people in movements do.

And pseudoskeptics probably do not objectively examine their own skepticism.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You've confused someone who is skeptical with a person who is in the organized skeptical movement. Most people who are skeptical (and most everyone is skeptical of some thing, so logically we can call most people skeptics) probably do not go around recommending in various media what other people should believe. That is something people in movements do.

And pseudoskeptics probably do not objectively examine their own skepticism.

I get it now. The "organized skeptical movement" is just a big straw man you've constructed. The same seems to be true of your "pseudo-skeptics". I suspect that you are upset that most of your posts are picked apart with logic so you've decided to define those who disagree with your assertions about god as being members of some homogeneous "movement" defined by irrational beliefs.

Interesting

Steven

 

[RichardR]

From the link:

Far from seeking rationalism, scepticism is increasingly a search for authority.

Nonsense.

 

[Piggy]

Most people who are skeptical (and most everyone is skeptical of some thing, so logically we can call most people skeptics) probably do not go around recommending in various media what other people should believe. That is something people in movements do.

There is no logical correlation between being involved in organizations and minding other people's business. Someone who is a member of skeptics' organizations might advocate that others be skeptical, or s/he may not. Someone who is not a member of any skeptics' organizations might advocate that others be skeptical, or s/he may not.

In any case, skepticism is a way of approaching knowledge, not a set of beliefs.

Evangelical Xians, for example, push their beliefs on others. Being evangelical, they think that God wants them to convert everyone, and that doing so is the ultimate kindness and the highest act of love.

Skeptics who are public about their skepticism recommend the benefits of questioning opinions, investigating assertions, testing claims, and not believing in ideas that have no evidence to support them. Others are free to listen or not. There is a marketplace of ideas out there, and skeptics are rightfully involved in it.

The record shows, however, that skepticism works. It gets results, it leads to greater understanding, and concrete progress. That's not an opinion -- that's the record.

Religion and superstition produce nothing, except to comfort the minds of believers. If that's your goal, then that's your choice. But don't expect skeptics to shut up in order to keep you comfortable.

 

[CFLarsen]

The skeptic does not ask anyone to adopt a belief.

The skeptic recommends that we all at least take the time to objectively examine what we think is true.

And the skeptic has the stones to call b**ls**t on obvious hokum, regardless of whether it's fashionable, or unfashionable, to do so.

The skeptic demands that you question what skeptics say. Skeptics don't say: "Believe us, or perish." Skeptics say: "Here's a natural explanation. I challenge you to see if I am wrong. In fact, I would love to be proven wrong, as long as we find out what the truth is. But you got to prove it. Not just say I am wrong."

You've confused someone who is skeptical with a person who is in the organized skeptical movement. Most people who are skeptical (and most everyone is skeptical of some thing, so logically we can call most people skeptics) probably do not go around recommending in various media what other people should believe. That is something people in movements do.

And pseudoskeptics probably do not objectively examine their own skepticism.

Since you consistently refuse to tell us just what you mean by "organized skeptical movement", your criticism cannot be taken seriously.

Who are skeptics? Who are pseudoskeptics? Why?

You don't explain. You merely throw out these words, as if they have a meaning. They don't, because you refuse to explain what you mean.

 

[davidsmith73]

The skeptic demands that you question what skeptics say.

Thats right. But what does that make you? You failed to address the flaws in the article you published in SkepticReport on the PEAR remote viewing experiments. Either you did not understand the flaw (honest mistake but sloppy scepticism) or you knew about the flaw but chose not to say anything (dishonesty) or you did not really read the article and eagerly published it to satisfy a personal agenda to debunk psi (psuedoscepticism). Which one is it? I would take all this back if you could show where I have gone wrong on the other thread.

I'm not saying there is nothing valid in that article, I agree with some points. Its the inclusion of serious factual errors in sceptical articles that just clouds the waters in the whole debate over psi. Its very rare that a pseudosceptic will write a critique that is completely erroneous. Errors and distortions are usually made covertly, amongst valid criticism. That way it usually goes unnoticed but the damage is done.

And of course, the same thing happens on the "believers" side, probably more frequently and with a more damaging effect.

 

[Piggy]

Its the inclusion of serious factual errors in sceptical articles that just clouds the waters in the whole debate over psi.

The debate seems pretty clear to me. There's no evidence for psi, and there's a valid naturalistic model of reality that disallows it. No clouds there.

Its very rare that a pseudosceptic will write a critique that is completely erroneous. Errors and distortions are usually made covertly, amongst valid criticism. That way it usually goes unnoticed but the damage is done.

What's a pseudoskeptic? That term was used by another poster, but I don't know what it's supposed to mean.

 

[davidsmith73]

The debate seems pretty clear to me. There's no evidence for psi, and there's a valid naturalistic model of reality that disallows it. No clouds there.

I was talking about the real debate.

What's a pseudoskeptic? That term was used by another poster, but I don't know what it's supposed to mean.

It refers to someone who calls themselves a sceptic but who isn't. For example, someone who consistently makes errors or distortions of truth in critiques of psi phenomena.

 

[Araneus]

It refers to someone who calls themselves a sceptic but who isn't. For example, someone who consistently makes errors or distortions of truth in critiques of psi phenomena.

It's a bit unfair to label somebody "pseudo" simply because they make errors. You wouldn't call someone a "pseudomusician" just because they don't play every piece of music perfectly.

Somebody with no respect for the truth who refuses to accept criticism or correct their errors might qualify, but in that case they probably wouldn't be calling themselves a "skeptic" in the first place.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The skeptic demands that you question what skeptics say. Skeptics don't say: "Believe us, or perish." Skeptics say: "Here's a natural explanation. I challenge you to see if I am wrong. In fact, I would love to be proven wrong, as long as we find out what the truth is. But you got to prove it. Not just say I am wrong."

Well stated. It's been my experience that most skeptics, like myself, respond to people telling them what to believe rather than telling others what to believe. Personally, I've been told on many occasions that I need to believe in X religion yet I have never told anyone that they should be an atheist. I will defend my position when asked about it or engaged in debate but that is not the same thing as preaching about it. It's been my experience that the great majority of reasonable skeptics behave the same way.

Steven

 

[davidsmith73]

It's a bit unfair to label somebody "pseudo" simply because they make errors. You wouldn't call someone a "pseudomusician" just because they don't play every piece of music perfectly.

Somebody with no respect for the truth who refuses to accept criticism or correct their errors might qualify, but in that case they probably wouldn't be calling themselves a "skeptic" in the first place.

Sorry. Yes I agree. I meant to say knowingly make errors.

 

[CLD]

Who are pseudoskeptics?

Psuedoskeptics are generally people who don't understand what skepticism is. Sometimes they are people only pretending to be skeptics. Some may even truly believe they are skeptics.

Such as these guys...

"Skeptical? You’ll Fit Right in to TAPS

One of the very few original shows broadcast by the Sci-Fi network, Ghost Hunters shows viewers the skeptic’s side of paranormal investigations."

Because these guys purport to separate "real" spooks from "false" spooks, they call themselves skeptics.