Debunking the debunkers

[Piggy]

Well, I think there are valid studies showing evidence of psi.

What are they? Funny how no one in mainstream science seems to have heard of them.

Its very easy to say there is no evidence for psi while not presenting reasons why you think all the successful experiments are not valid.

What successful experiments?

If psi weren't bunk, it would, by now, have some theoretical basis, some acceptable body of work to point to.

But it does not. And this is not because there's some conspiracy against it. The reason psi is fringe and has always been fringe and has no coherent theory to support it... is that it's bunk.

 

[RichardR]

"Appeal to authority" is how science works...

Absolute nonsense. In science the data are important - the person presenting the data is irrelevant.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Again, Steven, the "organized skeptical movement" is absolutely established. I don't know why you think it's imaginary. One of them is paying for this forum.

Oh, I agree. But T'ai's use of those terms is something that I do find to be a straw man. In his definition, the organized skeptical movement seems to be a kind of cult, every bit a dogmatic and faith based as any of the religions it claims to have risen above.

Steven

 

[blutoski]

Authors, conjurers, scientists. Who are also skeptics.

Mm. I think we'll have to disagree about this. Take Nickell, for example. All he does is debunkings, and write books about them. It's hard to say that he's a 'professional author' who just happens to write about nothing but skepticism. I'd say he's a professional skeptic. He says he's a professional skeptic (It's on his business cards). You're not just arguing with my opinion here. That's how I composed my list. Also consider Hyman - just because he does magic in his skeptical lectures doesn't make him a magician 'doing skepticism on the side'. He selects tricks that have meaning in his lectures.

I just don't buy your "lay skepticism" category. (And why choose the religious term rather than "amateur" anyway?)

I'm not too hung up on the terminology, though. The point is that there are millions of people who are very interested in the goals of skepticism, but aren't quite up to speed on the values. I see it a lot on the list. Examples of misunderstanding include these beliefs:

• that there is a logical fallacy called "argument from authority"
• that skepticism is an atheistic political movement
• that skepticism is not linked to a moral system (humanism)
• that science has all the answers

There are others, but these are starting points.

Skepticism is skepticism. It's not some professional or academic discipline that requires a degree.

No, but it is a specific movement with specific goals. There are lay skeptics who are ignorant of this, and also there are pseudoskeptics who are either ignorant of the movement's objectives or disagree with them, and want skepticism to be something else.

Get real.

My comments are an attempt to understand skepticism. My feeling is that many people are floating around in an imaginary 'skepticism' and I'm trying to help them 'get real' so that skepticism can benefit.

 

[Piggy]

Mm. I think we'll have to disagree about this. Take Nickell, for example. All he does is debunkings, and write books about them. It's hard to say that he's a 'professional author' who just happens to write about nothing but skepticism. I'd say he's a professional skeptic. He says he's a professional skeptic (It's on his business cards). You're not just arguing with my opinion here. That's how I composed my list. Also consider Hyman - just because he does magic in his skeptical lectures doesn't make him a magician 'doing skepticism on the side'. He selects tricks that have meaning in his lectures.

Fine. I just don't buy this "lay skeptic" bit.

that there is a logical fallacy called "argument from authority"

There is a logical fallacy refered to as "appeal to authority", and it's a genuine fallacy. It wasn't the most common one my students tended to use, but it's one we still had to deal with. And it's a classic.

that skepticism is an atheistic political movement

I see this charge falsely leveled at skeptics by non-skeptics. Don't see it much from skeptics. Of course, there are those -- such as myself -- who contend that if skepticism is rigorously applied, atheism is the natural conclusion.

But that's not because I think "I'm a skeptic, skepticism is atheistic, therefore I'm an atheist."

that skepticism is not linked to a moral system (humanism)

It's not linked to a moral system. You can call humanism a "moral system" if you like, but it sure doesn't seem like one to me. In any case, anyone can apply the tools of skepticism. There's no need to be a member of the humanist club or anything.

that science has all the answers

I haven't met anyone who believes this. My problem w/ most skeptics on this point is that they're unwilling to make certain particular rational conclusions because they believe that science, formal logic, and math define the boundaries of what can be said to be ruled out when it comes to matters of fact.

No, but it is a specific movement with specific goals. There are lay skeptics who are ignorant of this, and also there are pseudoskeptics who are either ignorant of the movement's objectives or disagree with them, and want skepticism to be something else.

This is where you're definitely wrong. There are various skeptical organizations, but they're not in a unified front.

It's true that they do generally share certain goals, such as keeping religion out of the science class, but that's not unique to them, and it only stands to reason that skeptical organizations would, say, want bogus ideas like ID not to be taught to kids on the taxpayer's dime.

My comments are an attempt to understand skepticism. My feeling is that many people are floating around in an imaginary 'skepticism' and I'm trying to help them 'get real' so that skepticism can benefit.

I think you should come down to earth first before you try to help other people land.

 

[blutoski]

Absolute nonsense. In science the data are important - the person presenting the data is irrelevant.

I think this is a naiive view, and contrary to any course I've ever taken on the philosophy of science. And contrary to how I and other scientists do science.

I think science is better than other human endeavours like this, because in principle it's testable and repeatable. But realistically, we have to trust that the scientist is not fabricating his data, for example. We have to trust that the scientist is not 'file-drawer'ing his failures. This has been a problem in PSI - the data has not been available for others to examine at all, and skeptics now have a lack of trust in the experimenters themselves.

None of us can go and build a particle accelerator in our basement to test the results we read in Science. We're stuck trusting the magazine's editors, peer-reviewers, the authors themselves.

Futhermore, another aspect of the pseudoskeptic is somebody who actually thinks (s)he's qualified to review this data. That's part of the point I had earlier about the disctinction between skepticism versus woo: that skepticism cultivates a respect for expertise. I don't know how to interpret a lot of medical data: I don't understand the statistics. So I ask a statistician. Immediately, I have recognized an expert, and placed some trust in him. And that's on pretty much any paper. If it's a psychiatric issue, I ask my wife because she's a psychiatrist. If it's an internal medicine issue, I ask my friend Andrea because she's an internist.

A classic example of a pseudoskeptic is Neal Adams. Everything he does is a response to reading 'the data'. He's just bad at it, because he's not educated in these specific fields of geology, astrophysics, and so on. His conclusion is that all of science is wrong. His interview with the NESS was like listening to a slow-motion train wreck. It got progressively worse, because at every step he rejected the possibility that he should consult with an expert, opting instead for trusting his intelligence.

One aspect of pseudoscience is the absolute confidence in 'the data'. It's not realistic, and blows up in our faces when scientists are caught fabricating results. It's best to be realistic and acknowledge that the scientific community is a collection of people, some of whom know a lot more about what they're doing than others, and a lot more than outsiders, unfortunately.

However, that doesn't make it a preisthood, because there's one fundamental difference: in principle, the experiments can be repeated by anybody with the resources. The fact that others can call your bluff - and the fact that there are devastating repurcussions if you're caught lying - distinguishes science from religions. With religions, the claims are mostly untestable. Often suspiciously so.

 

[RichardR]

None of us can go and build a particle accelerator in our basement to test the results we read in Science. We're stuck trusting the magazine's editors, peer-reviewers, the authors themselves.

Agreed. But that doesn’t mean you’re appealing to authority. It means you trust the scientific method. And you trust it because the evidence suggests it works most of the time. And it works because if the data were wrong, some other scientist would have discovered this fact – regardless of who it was who presented the data in the first place.

Futhermore, another aspect of the pseudoskeptic is somebody who actually thinks (s)he's qualified to review this data.

Agreed again. But the other qualified people reviewing the data are looking at the data, not the credentials of the original person who presented it.

 

[blutoski]

There is a logical fallacy refered to as "appeal to authority", and it's a genuine fallacy. It wasn't the most common one my students tended to use, but it's one we still had to deal with. And it's a classic.

Incorrect. It's the most common logical fallacy applied by skeptics when an expert tells them they're wrong. It is often confused with the real fallacy: argument from questionable authority.

The problem is that it's taken on a life of its own, because so many pseudoskeptics up and ran with it, and put it on their websites. Now, other skeptics are falling for it.

It's a type of sour grapes, in my opinion.

I see this charge falsely leveled at skeptics by non-skeptics. Don't see it much from skeptics. Of course, there are those -- such as myself -- who contend that if skepticism is rigorously applied, atheism is the natural conclusion.

But that's not because I think "I'm a skeptic, skepticism is atheistic, therefore I'm an atheist."

I apprecaite that, but my point is that skepticism as a movement was not founded to push the atheist cause. There are atheist organizations to do this. However, in my role within organized skepticism, it is a daily task to remind some members of this, because they don't seem to have the initiative to just up and form their own society. Several skeptical organizations have been destroyed by this conflict.

It's not linked to a moral system. You can call humanism a "moral system" if you like, but it sure doesn't seem like one to me. In any case, anyone can apply the tools of skepticism. There's no need to be a member of the humanist club or anything.

I'm talking about skepticism as a movement. CSICOP was founded by Paul Kurtz who also founded the CFI. Skeptical Inquirer Magazine is the sister publication of Free Inquiry Magazine, which is the publication of CFI. CFI is a humanist organization.

And humanism is explicitly a moral system. That's exactly what it is. And its formal establishment in conjunction with Skepticism was intentional in order to promote both scientific naturalism and humanism as a replacement for the worldly explanations and moral systems of religions.

And this is intentional. Look at the article in the original post: the author is saying that skepticism would capture the imagination a lot better if it has something to answer more than just technical scientific questions. It does! But lay skeptics are not aware that humanism is part of the movement.

I see posts on the JREF forum saying things like: "We should think about having something to replace the ethical and moral codes of religion, not just telling people they should drop them. Let's put our heads together and think about this." Yeah, way to reinvent the wheel.

I haven't met anyone who believes this [that science has all the answers]. My problem w/ most skeptics on this point is that they're unwilling to make certain particular rational conclusions because they believe that science, formal logic, and math define the boundaries of what can be said to be ruled out when it comes to matters of fact.

Well, we'll have to disagree on this. The confidence that science can solve all problems is a religion unto itself inside skepticism. The actual term for this belief system is 'scientism' and there is a logical fallacy tied to it called 'the naturalistic fallacy'.

This is where you're definitely wrong. There are various skeptical organizations, but they're not in a unified front.

It's true that they do generally share certain goals, such as keeping religion out of the science class, but that's not unique to them, and it only stands to reason that skeptical organizations would, say, want bogus ideas like ID not to be taught to kids on the taxpayer's dime.[/quote]

Not united, but none of them are dedicated to '******** on bibles', as The Atheist claims they should be. They almost always share the same core values of opening dialogue with non-skeptics, rather than slinging mud.

Also: my impression is that outside the organized societies, there are no goals at all. I did a quick attempt a few weeks ago to get the JREF Forum members to figure out what, exactly, they want to do, and the sound of crickets was deafening. You can't have results without action. You can't have action without a plan. You can't have a plan without objectives. JREF has these things. CSICOP has these things. CFI has these things.

I think you should come down to earth first before you try to help other people land.

I'd prefer not to get personal.

Here's something to think about: there's an active thread that's a good example - Million Dollar Challenge

Quick synopsis (paraphrasing):

• woo posts: "why a delay with my challenge application"
• pseudoskeptics post a mix of "You're a loony" to "Hey, according to his website, he's a 911 conspiracy nut!"
• pseudoskeptics post "Then he's a total loony - hey, you're a total loony!"
• skeptic posts "Actually, his website says he debated against 911 conpiracies"
• pseudoskeptic posts "I emailed his employer, and they say the organization he claims to be a member of doesn't exist anymore - he's a liar!"
• woo posts "the organization has changed names - here's the official website"
• skeptic posts "James Randi has asked us to stop interacting with him - we've received his application. It was delayed in the mail."
• skeptic posts "Remember: the JREF forum is not part of the JREF"

This is a typical interaction between pseudoskeptics and non-skeptics. This type of experience leads the public to believe that actual skeptics are crackpots who do superficial confirmation-seeking research to reinforce their a priori beliefs, and love to lob insults.

I'm not sure I can say they're wrong.

And here we have an outsider (the author who wrote the article linked in the OP) who's gone through the trouble of putting his views in writing, and our response is to reject it as 'wrong'. It should be setting off alarm bells! But no, we're happy being misunderstood, apparently.

 

[blutoski]

Agreed. But that doesn’t mean you’re appealing to authority. It means you trust the scientific method. And you trust it because the evidence suggests it works most of the time. And it works because if the data were wrong, some other scientist would have discovered this fact – regardless of who it was who presented the data in the first place.

I'm pretty sure this is precisely an appeal to authority. When other scientists say "I tried to replicate it, but succeeded/failed," we review this scientist's credentials to see if he's really qualified to do this replication. There may be more than one expert involved. The 'authority' may be the College of Physicians and Surgeons, or the Academy of Sciences. JAMA, CMAJ, JAPA. It's not always just one person.

Agreed again. But the other qualified people reviewing the data are looking at the data, not the credentials of the original person who presented it.

This does not refute my claim: science depends on identifying authorities and laying some trust upon them. Whether it's the presenter of this particular claim, or the people reviewing it (who acquired their reputations from making previous claims) is not important: we're not doing the experiment ourselves, just laying back and letting experts examine it, and we'll trust their findings.

 

[blutoski]

There is a logical fallacy refered to as "appeal to authority", and it's a genuine fallacy. It wasn't the most common one my students tended to use, but it's one we still had to deal with. And it's a classic.

I don't normally go to WikiPedia for academic stuff, but their entry on Appeal to Authority is pretty good. First of all, they identify that it is an 'argument type'. That is: it is a legitemate argument format.

However, if you scroll down, they do point out that there are circumstances where an argument can be invalid: specifically if the authority is not cited for his expertise in the field, but for some other reason. This is the logical fallacy of argument from questionable authority.

Further down, they have Conditions for a legitemate argument from authority, which is consistent with what I learned during courses about scientific methodology.

I should point out that this entry does confess that they are not using universally accepted taxonomy. The taxonomic system I learned placed Argument From Authority as an argument type (a legitemate tool of critical thinking), and Argument from Questionable Authority as a fallacy.

 

[blutoski]

Oh, I agree. But T'ai's use of those terms is something that I do find to be a straw man. In his definition, the organized skeptical movement seems to be a kind of cult, every bit a dogmatic and faith based as any of the religions it claims to have risen above.

He raises a good point though. I have spent some time thinking about it, and I have classified skeptics into subcategories. This is just tentative, of course.

• formal skeptics / activities guided by the Big Five
• pseudoskeptics / activities complicate the Big Five, but mostly aligned
• lay skeptics / no activities, but mostly aligned
• crackpots who say they're skeptics / activities complicate Big Five, non-aligned

 

[blutoski]

I should point out that this entry does confess that they are not using universally accepted taxonomy. The taxonomic system I learned placed Argument From Authority as an argument type (a legitemate tool of critical thinking), and Argument from Questionable Authority as a fallacy.

I also went to Atheism Web, and they break it down like this:

• Legitimate Appeal to Authority
• Appeal to Unqualified Authority
• Appeal to Anonymous Authority

This is more aligned with the taxonomy I learned.

 

[Z]

Well, you can certainly appeal to a qualified authority, as long as you realize that even the most qualified authorities can be wrong, and that even authorities can be outshined by amateurs.

 

[blutoski]

Well, you can certainly appeal to a qualified authority, as long as you realize that even the most qualified authorities can be wrong,

Obviously. And my point is that that's how science works, and that's something skeptics should be encouraging. Instead, pseudoskeptics are falling into the cargo cult trap of "everybody's equally qualified," which is a principle completely hostile to the institution of science, and utterly undermines it.

One of the important aspects of the Dover trial was the court's distinctions about who was - and was not - an expert in the biological sciences.

and that even authorities can be outshined by amateurs.

Not in this day and age.

In fact, this is the tired salespitch of the crackpot, and should raise alarms.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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."

Anyone who suggests to someone that the person's ideas are flawed is going come across this way. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with whether the person's ideas are actually flawed or not.

~~ Paul

 

[RichardR]

I'm pretty sure this is precisely an appeal to authority. When other scientists say "I tried to replicate it, but succeeded/failed," we review this scientist's credentials to see if he's really qualified to do this replication.

They may do that as well, but ultimately if an experiment cannot be replicated the original results are discredited regardless of who was the bigger authority. Surely you can't really think the ultimate arbiter in this case is which scientist had the best credentials? What about when Benveniste couldn't replicate his "memory of water" experiment? Benveniste was a respected scientist up to that point - his results were disgarded when a non scientist and therefore non-authority (Randi - with help admittedly) showed he was wrong. And surely we all remember that an obscure clerk at the Swiss patent office turned physics upside-down a century ago? Was he an authority before publishing? I think not.

This does not refute my claim: science depends on identifying authorities and laying some trust upon them.

Yes, but they look at the data.

 

[blutoski]

They may do that as well, but ultimately if an experiment cannot be replicated the original results are discredited regardless of who was the bigger authority. Surely you can't really think the ultimate arbiter in this case is which scientist had the best credentials? What about when Benveniste couldn't replicate his "memory of water" experiment? Benveniste was a respected scientist up to that point - his results were disgarded when a non scientist and therefore non-authority (Randi - with help admittedly) showed he was wrong.

That would be because Benveniste was not an authority on homeopathy. There is no such thing. Again: I provided links about the scientific meaning of 'authority'. One factor is that there has to be widespread acceptance that the field of study exists, the second that the field of study has recognized experts. There is currently neither within Homeopathy. Benveniste is an authority on immunology, and remained so after the homeopathy failure.


Consequently, this is a good example of what we're looking at: Randi is respected because he's an authority on debunking. He does it well. I pay money for his books because I respect his opinion more highly than that of many others, and especially so in the two fields of magic and debunking, where he is an expert. However, I have personally caught him making errors on scientific issues. He is not an authority on chemistry.

And surely we all remember that an obscure clerk at the Swiss patent office turned physics upside-down a century ago? Was he an authority before publishing? I think not.

Sure he was. People exaggerate what 'a clerk at the swiss patent office' meant: he was hired because he was a PhD student in electromagnetic physics. In those days, the job of a patent office was to rigorously examine applications for their scientifc validity - he was not in the typing pool. Specifically, his responsibility was to take over the examination and testing of electromagnetic devices. He completed his PhD during this period.

While the concept of some uneducated maverick overthrowing German physics is romantic, it is not what happened in the case of Einstein. He was already a renowned authority on electromagnetics, which is why his four articles were rushed into publication. You have to appreciate that not many people were involved in this type of research at the time, so it didn't take much to be one of the principal authorities on the subject.

Yes, but they look at the data.

Again: no. I've never read a single paper on geology. I just accept that Gould is telling the truth when he talks about the subject. All scientists are like this: when geologists meet with microbiologists and quantum physicists, they don't assume they're lying and wade through each other's publications. They trust that somebody along the way would have blown the whistle, and they cite the publication until they hear otherwise.

If somebody told me that the were confident evolution was true because they've actually read the umpteen thousand papers on the subject, I would know I was talking to a liar.

 

[RichardR]

That would be because Benveniste was not an authority on homeopathy.

Oh come on - he was a scientist; Randi wasn't. And the paper wasn't on homeopathy:

...started with a liquid containing - not an ordinary acid - but antibodies, which make a type of white blood cell (called basophils), give off molecules called histamines. They then mixed one part of antibody solution with nine parts of antibody - free liquid, and repeated the process 120 times. Incredibly, as reported, the basophil cells kept responding to the liquid even though according to existing knowledge, it no longer contained antibodies.

- Sounds like immunology to me. Certainly, Benveniste was the authority here, Randi not. Benveniste work was rejected because it could not be replicated, not because Randi was an authority on debunking.

However, I have personally caught [Randi] making errors on scientific issues. He is not an authority on chemistry.

Precisely - you found errors in his data. You have just confirmed my point.

Sure he was. People exaggerate what 'a clerk at the swiss patent office' meant: he was hired because he was a PhD student in electromagnetic physics.

Yes - a PhD student. He wasn't an authority at that point. No more than any other student. His paper was accepted because it was good. You can't seriously be suggesting Einstein's paper was accepted because he was known to be such an authority at the time? Come on.

Again: no. I've never read a single paper on geology. I just accept that Gould is telling the truth when he talks about the subject. All scientists are like this: when geologists meet with microbiologists and quantum physicists, they don't assume they're lying and wade through each other's publications. They trust that somebody along the way would have blown the whistle, and they cite the publication until they hear otherwise.

If somebody told me that the were confident evolution was true because they've actually read the umpteen thousand papers on the subject, I would know I was talking to a liar.

Yes. And once more, you accept their conclusions because you trust the peer review/replication process that insures the data have been checked.

 

[blutoski]

Oh come on - he was a scientist; Randi wasn't. And the paper wasn't on homeopathy:

- Sounds like immunology to me. Certainly, Benveniste was the authority here, Randi not. Benveniste work was rejected because it could not be replicated, not because Randi was an authority on debunking.

As an immunologist, the answer is: no, that was not immunology. He was using antibodies, sure, but he was testing the water memory hypothesis of homeopathy.

Precisely - you found errors in his data. You have just confirmed my point.

Mm... actually I found errors in his opinion. He had no data to speak of in this situation. Specifically, he misunderstood the difference between mass and weight. However, more to the point: you seem to have accepted this as true without reading the details of my claim. ie: without reviewing my supporting data. You accepted this perhaps because you trust me. Have you not proven my point?

Yes - a PhD student. He wasn't an authority at that point. No more than any other student. His paper was accepted because it was good. You can't seriously be suggesting Einstein's paper was accepted because he was known to be such an authority at the time? Come on.

No, Einstein had completed his PhD before he submitted his papers. They were postdocs, technically. He was one of maybe five people in the country with a PhD in this subject. It was the reason he was hired into his role at the patent office: he was considered an authority on eletromagnetics.

Yes. And once more, you accept their conclusions because you trust the peer review/replication process that insures the data have been checked.

Yeeessss... and this refutes my claim how? Why would you accept the word of the reviewers? They're completely anonymous! You must have confidence in the publication, right? That's why I listed, say JAMA, as an 'authority' in medicine. Every claim is about somebody somewhere and data. The point is that you, me, every scientist, and in principle, skeptics, should recognize and encourage the principle of expertise.

Some pseudoskeptics don't encourage the recognition of expertise because they have a problem with authority. This makes things hard for those of us who want to promote a scientific worldview.

Regadless, the central point was that the article's author was not off-base when he says that skepticism - as an organized movement that promotes the institution of science and scientific thinking - is trying to reverse the postmodernist trend that states that all points of view are equal. Indeed it is! The fact that there are experts is what makes our society work, and is the backbone of science as an institution.

 

[RichardR]

As an immunologist, the answer is: no, that was not immunology. He was using antibodies, sure, but he was testing the water memory hypothesis of homeopathy.

No he wasn't. The results were an accident - they initially surprised even Benveniste.

Your point here is absurd. Benveniste was head of allergy and inflammation immunology at the French biomedical research agency INSERM - and he put a diluted remedy through an allergy test. He was a scientist specializing in allergies testing allergies; Randi was a conjuror. Who was right? The scientist authority figure, of course, right? Oops no. Why? Because his data was bad.

Mm... actually I found errors in his opinion. He had no data to speak of in this situation. Specifically, he misunderstood the difference between mass and weight.

So did you decide he was wrong because he has no qualifications in chemistry, or because he made an error? Which?

However, more to the point: you seem to have accepted this as true without reading the details of my claim. ie: without reviewing my supporting data. You accepted this perhaps because you trust me. Have you not proven my point?

Don't be silly.

No, Einstein had completed his PhD before he submitted his papers. They were postdocs, technically. He was one of maybe five people in the country with a PhD in this subject. It was the reason he was hired into his role at the patent office

Wrong:

1902 23 June, [Einstein] starts provisional job at patent office: "Expert III Class." [Note - third class.]

[FONT=&quot]"In little more than eight months in 1905 he completed five papers that would change the world for ever. "[/FONT]

And then:

1906 15 Jan, all formalities completed, [Einstein] becomes a Ph.D

Also, In 1906, Einstein was promoted to technical examiner second class.

So, he was hardly hired because he was an authority.

It's almost unbelieveble that I'm actually having to argue that Einstein's papers were accepted because they were good, rather than because he was an authority.

Yeeessss... and this refutes my claim how? Why would you accept the word of the reviewers? They're completely anonymous! You must have confidence in the publication, right?

One more time - the reviewers / people attempting replication are looking at the DATA.

Some pseudoskeptics don't encourage the recognition of expertise because they have a problem with authority. This makes things hard for those of us who want to promote a scientific worldview.

Regadless, the central point was that the article's author was not off-base when he says that skepticism - as an organized movement that promotes the institution of science and scientific thinking - is trying to reverse the postmodernist trend that states that all points of view are equal. Indeed it is! The fact that there are experts is what makes our society work, and is the backbone of science as an institution.

Yes, experts. But your point was:

"Appeal to authority" is how science works..."

No it's not. I agree that non-experts should listen to the experts, and not make fools of themselves pretending they know more than they do. And that applies to scientists reading about subjects not in their area of expertise. But within a specialized area, the data counts.