Where do we go from here?

[athon]

Daniel Loxton (for those who don't know him, he's the editor of Junior Skeptic mag, and one of the great skeptic communicators in our time) wrote this article on the future directions of skepticism.

I seriously think it needs reading and absorbing by anybody who feels any sort of involvement with skeptical communication, especially in light of some recent threads in this sub-forum. Loxton's arguments here echo my own perfectly.

We're entering a new phase of skeptical communication. We need direction, and to keep in mind we're not in it to defeat an enemy or see victory. Success will be measured differently to the numbers of the defeated. The dragon, as such, can't be slain. But we still need to attack it. And to do that, we need to think about what we're doing.

Athon

 

[Tressa]

If you're in the car or at work you can listen to it:

http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticality/063_skepticality.mp3

A though provoking and moving piece of work.

 

[remirol]

Daniel Loxton (for those who don't know him, he's the editor of Junior Skeptic mag, and one of the great skeptic communicators in our time) wrote (URL trimmed because I'm a new user and can't post URLs) on the future directions of skepticism.

...

We're entering a new phase of skeptical communication. We need direction, and to keep in mind we're not in it to defeat an enemy or see victory. Success will be measured differently to the numbers of the defeated. The dragon, as such, can't be slain. But we still need to attack it. And to do that, we need to think about what we're doing.

Hmm. I would want to qualify some of his statements and rephrase them in terms of what's actually happening. He says, for example: "The answer is simple: homeopathy, packaged along with the other alternative medicine” modalities, out-marketed its critics."

While his statement is true -- it also leaves out a key "why" that we cannot ignore if we are to be effective. Consider, for example, a new fictional product: Homeopathic Butt Itch Remedy, now with catnip! The people who use this product have a problem they are looking for a solution to: itchy butt. Homeopathy offers a solution, and the solution's effectiveness is not 0%; it's identical to the placebo effect, and that shouldn't be ignored.

Skepticism steps up to the plate and says "Catnip Butt Itch Remedy is a bunch of bunk", and lays out a full round of simply-phrased science to prove it. The consumer now says "If this is bunk, then what can _YOU_ do to help me?", and our response is then "Nothing; you'll have to scratch it every so often until it quits." Our "nothing" is actually less effective than a placebo, and this is something we can never overcome... and this is how skepticism gets out-marketed. If you wanted to be extreme about it, you could even point out that belief may be a better choice for the consumer, since with belief they get a miniscule chance of relief, while with skepticism they get none.

The point here: People's willingness to purchase hope cannot be underestimated. Sometimes they may even realize that they're purchasing nothing but hope, but there is not a particularly effective counter for "I can spare the money, and sure, maybe this doesn't work but I've wasted money on worse; at least I'm doing _something_."

This, then, may be the real challenge facing skepticism: How do we provide hope? Where science provides hope, bunk methods rapidly fade away; witness the explosive growth of penicillin use, of the polio vaccine... the examples are too numerous to list, because when something _works_, you don't have to market it; you just say "It works. See?".

Obviously a scientific solution is ideal if available. But for many things (itchy butt?) a scientific solution is _not_ available. That might be where we should begin: figuring out how to provide hope while discouraging people from wasting money on things that are meaningless.

 

[Eck]

Thought provoking and moving indeed. Well worth the read, (or listen).

I'm still digesting the article, and have a feeling I'll be thinking about it for a bit, I just wanted to say thank you for posting this.

 

[athon]

...


Hmm. I would want to qualify some of his statements and rephrase them in terms of what's actually happening. He says, for example: "The answer is simple: homeopathy, packaged along with the other alternative medicine” modalities, out-marketed its critics."

While his statement is true -- it also leaves out a key "why" that we cannot ignore if we are to be effective. Consider, for example, a new fictional product: Homeopathic Butt Itch Remedy, now with catnip! The people who use this product have a problem they are looking for a solution to: itchy butt. Homeopathy offers a solution, and the solution's effectiveness is not 0%; it's identical to the placebo effect, and that shouldn't be ignored.

Skepticism steps up to the plate and says "Catnip Butt Itch Remedy is a bunch of bunk", and lays out a full round of simply-phrased science to prove it. The consumer now says "If this is bunk, then what can _YOU_ do to help me?", and our response is then "Nothing; you'll have to scratch it every so often until it quits." Our "nothing" is actually less effective than a placebo, and this is something we can never overcome... and this is how skepticism gets out-marketed. If you wanted to be extreme about it, you could even point out that belief may be a better choice for the consumer, since with belief they get a miniscule chance of relief, while with skepticism they get none.

The point here: People's willingness to purchase hope cannot be underestimated. Sometimes they may even realize that they're purchasing nothing but hope, but there is not a particularly effective counter for "I can spare the money, and sure, maybe this doesn't work but I've wasted money on worse; at least I'm doing _something_."

This, then, may be the real challenge facing skepticism: How do we provide hope? Where science provides hope, bunk methods rapidly fade away; witness the explosive growth of penicillin use, of the polio vaccine... the examples are too numerous to list, because when something _works_, you don't have to market it; you just say "It works. See?".

Obviously a scientific solution is ideal if available. But for many things (itchy butt?) a scientific solution is _not_ available. That might be where we should begin: figuring out how to provide hope while discouraging people from wasting money on things that are meaningless.

This is all very true. From what I gather, Daniel isn't commenting on the approach to take, as such, but rather that we must keep that discussion open and ongoing and not be put off by the fact that 'science can't offer the hope that pseudoscience can'.

I feel that in some ways, the first era of skeptical communication has run its course. The first generation, as such, have done the groundwork but it is easy to feel that since it didn't change the world, we now can only shrug and isolate ourselves again. The next generation needs to decide on what to do and how to do it, and provide a means of checking to see if we're effective. This is just as hard as founding skeptical communities in the first place. But stepping back and dusting our hands now would be an insult to all of the effort those before us have committed.

Athon

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

But for many things (itchy butt?) a scientific solution is _not_ available. That might be where we should begin: figuring out how to provide hope while discouraging people from wasting money on things that are meaningless.

I hope I don't come across as flippant because you make a great point about replacing hope, but your butt itch example, depending on cause, does have solutions - a bidet or wet wipes, Preparation H, medicated talcum powder or antihisemines.

I'm of the opinion that we need to work on how we replace hope, but it doesn't hurt the cause if we try and explain to people that there are scientific solutions to things and they shouldn't waste their time - even if it's something like explaining how they'll get the same results with a cold if they treat the symptoms and let their body work on it that they think they're getting from Airborne or a hemeopathic concoction.

 

[remirol]

I hope I don't come across as flippant because you make a great point about replacing hope, but your butt itch example, depending on cause, does have solutions - a bidet or wet wipes, Preparation H, medicated talcum powder or antihisemines.

It was of course intended to be a generic, arbitrary example.

I'm of the opinion that we need to work on how we replace hope, but it doesn't hurt the cause if we try and explain to people that there are scientific solutions to things and they shouldn't waste their time - even if it's something like explaining how they'll get the same results with a cold if they treat the symptoms and let their body work on it that they think they're getting from Airborne or a hemeopathic concoction.

This is unfortunately where the placebo effect may come into play. Some people may actually experience an improvement after taking (insert homeopathic muck here), even though the source of the improvement is solely due to their own attitude towards the cold, and they could've done nothing or just taken some over-the-counter standard stuff and gotten the same effect -- as long as they had the same attitude.

Or worse, they take an antihistamine _and_ the homeopathic concoction, and then turn around and think that the homeopathic glop was the cause. :/

Your original comment is true; there _are_ a great deal of scientifically-validated solutions out there for a great variety of causes, even butt itch.* I'm just pondering whether there may be a better way to approach it... or if there's a way to do so that instills actual hope, even in cases where nothing can be done.

* The girlfriend is heading to her friend's baby shower tomorrow, and purchased a basket of "useful things" as a gift. One of those things was a tube of "Butt Paste"; hence the off-the-cuff example, because the package is just amusing and tended to stick in my head.

 

[skepticality]

I am absolutely sure that Dan has seen this discussion, and if not, he will now since I am going to make sure he does.

Myself and Swoopy were so glad he recorded that essay for us to put on Skepticality. I think it 'reads' better to hear it read by him more than just the 'read' of it. It comes off the way it 'should' in my opinion.

 

[Loxton]

Thanks, everyone, for the kind words. I had hoped this piece might spur some discussion, but I've been genuinely surprised by how much response it has generated in forums, emails, and blogs (mostly very positive, I'm delighted to say). It seems to have struck a chord with many people.

I'm really excited by that, and inspired. It seems to me a very good sign!

I think—I hope—that we're coming into a very exciting period for skepticism, a period of renewed resolution, redoubled activism, and new horizons. It's my hope that we'll increasingly focus, not on new tackling wider new topics in the same way, but on innovative communication and investigation in our traditional subject areas.

(Is my essay relevant to other controversial recent threads on this forum? I suppose so, in this way: the JREF is the skeptical organization focussed with the greatest fidelity and activist vigor on our traditional paranormal concerns—and it has my tremendous admiration because of it.)

 

[Tobermory]

...
The point here: People's willingness to purchase hope cannot be underestimated. Sometimes they may even realize that they're purchasing nothing but hope, but there is not a particularly effective counter for "I can spare the money, and sure, maybe this doesn't work but I've wasted money on worse; at least I'm doing _something_."

I absolutely love the quote above. In my world, hope is the antidote for so many evils. And I often do the irrational and the illogical in order to find (or buy) just a tiny taste of hope. But that doesn't make me any less skeptical in the end. It just makes me understand why so many people choose to believe in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary.

 

[Kiless]

On behalf of Mr Loxton, who cannot post urls.

The most recent Skeptics Dictionary newsletter features Bob Carroll's substantial critical consideration of "Where Do We Go From Here?":

http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter85.html

Carroll argues that "There is no 'we' to go anywhere," saying, "My ultimate position on this issue of direction is simple: if you don't like what others are doing, don't imitate them."