At what point does Skepticism become cruel?

[Axenos]

I have been a long-time lurker of these forums and just recently registered.

Numerous times I have read of people delighting in informing people that have been "woo" influenced of their various skeptic beliefs.

I advocate that, but only to a point.

If someone is using "psychic" or other info purely for monetary gain, and to bilk the unwise, then by all means, expose them for what they are. I am a cynic by nature.

However, if some poor simpleton who will never really know any better is given information by a "psychic", for no money , that will put their mind at ease about something, then is it up to anyone to destroy that peace of mind by revealing the somewhat questionable nature of said information?

At what point does compassion for someone become overshadowed by the need to... shall we say illuminate and inform?

Regards All,

Axe

 

[Sherman Bay]

However, if some poor simpleton who will never really know any better is given information by a "psychic", for no money , that will put their mind at ease about something, then is it up to anyone to destroy that peace of mind by revealing the somewhat questionable nature of said information?

So you think deluding someone by giving them false hope that it is actually possible to talk to the dead is a good thing?

 

[Darat]

Compassion can go hand in hand with the truth so there is no need for the two to be divorced.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I just had a similar discussion in an audiophile forum. Somebody said something to the lines of "what does it matter if it doesn't work, as long as people feel their 300$ cables sound better?"

I answered: "So you think it is OK to cheat people, as long as they don't find out?"

Needless to say, there was no answer .

Hans

 

[Axenos]

So you think deluding someone by giving them false hope that it is actually possible to talk to the dead is a good thing?

No, I do not, but the key to this for me is " some poor simpleton who will not know any better ".

There are people who will not understand a logical argument, either by hard-headedness or simple lack of intelligence, and these are the people I am referring to.

The hard-heads I don't mind so much... but if someone of lower intelligence is reassured by dubious information, and will not truly understand a realistic argument, then should we "hurt" them by destroying their hope about something?

Axe

 

[Axenos]

I just had a similar discussion in an audiophile forum. Somebody said something to the lines of "what does it matter if it doesn't work, as long as people feel their 300$ cables sound better?"

I answered: "So you think it is OK to cheat people, as long as they don't find out?"

Needless to say, there was no answer .

Hans

Which I covered in this sentence: "If someone is using "psychic" or other info purely for monetary gain, and to bilk the unwise, then by all means, expose them for what they are. I am a cynic by nature."

The person is being bilked for money for a supposed "better" sound.

Axe

 

[T'ai Chi]

IMO it becomes somewhat cruel when

- members of skeptical movements try to become watchdogs of what people can and cannot think and do

- "witchhunts" and calling-outs (think Randi's Sylvia Browne clock and weekly tirade/commentary)

- a very, very distorted picture is painted of the opposition, such as using a picture of a terroist in an article that just talks about Muslims

and

-when movements categorize others not in the movement as lesser and stupid, such as what some think the Brights movement does just going by terminology they use

For the most part, I don't think it is cruel, but these are some things that might be close to being cruel.

 

[CFLarsen]

Which I covered in this sentence: "If someone is using "psychic" or other info purely for monetary gain, and to bilk the unwise, then by all means, expose them for what they are. I am a cynic by nature."

The person is being bilked for money for a supposed "better" sound.

Axe

But it is OK to lie to people, as long as they don't find out? Even if no money is involved?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

No, I do not, but the key to this for me is " some poor simpleton who will not know any better ".

There are people who will not understand a logical argument, either by hard-headedness or simple lack of intelligence, and these are the people I am referring to.

The hard-heads I don't mind so much... but if someone of lower intelligence is reassured by dubious information, and will not truly understand a realistic argument, then should we "hurt" them by destroying their hope about something?

Axe

The person fooling them is behaving unethically. Scepticism is only "cruel" if we target the wrong person. Ideally, though we encourage the development of critical thinking skills, we generaly don't blame the victims of scams and frauds. The blame lies squarely with the decievers.

 

[CFLarsen]

The person fooling them is behaving unethically. Scpeticism is only "cruel" if we target the wrong person. Ideally, though we encourage the development of critical thinking skills, we generaly don't blame the victims of scams and frauds. The blame lies squarely with the decievers.

But we do blame victims if they know they are being fooled, yet still continue to promote the scammers.

The only reason why these frauds can continue is because they are protected by their victims.

 

[pgwenthold]

No, I do not, but the key to this for me is " some poor simpleton who will not know any better ".

If that's what you think, then the biggest difference between you and me is that I tend to think that people aren't that stupid.

I am often called arrogant, but I try not to be so condescending to pretend that people are too stupid to "know better."

Maybe it's the teacher in me.

 

[Axenos]

But it is OK to lie to people, as long as they don't find out? Even if no money is involved?

It's definately not OK to lie to people.

Perhaps I should have made my original post clearer.

Sometimes people go out of their way to point out that something is "fake". If someone is not going to understand that, perhaps it would be better to "let sleeping dogs lie", as opposed to actively pursuing the chance to debunk something.

Axe

 

[tkingdoll]

So you think deluding someone by giving them false hope that it is actually possible to talk to the dead is a good thing?

It depends on the implications. For some people, that can be the only thing that gets them through the day - a tiny glimmer of hope that their loved one is not really gone may be the only thing between them and insanity. Should we take that away for a principle? Probably not, even if we could. And if we did, it would just be replaced with something else. Many people need emotional crutches that to skeptics do not appear rational. Their emotions are not rational though, and their circumstances may prohibit rational thought (extreme grief, for example).

However, what is a problem is when people are willing to exploit that desperation for hope, for financial gain, or attention, or whatever.

The hypothesis that Axenos puts forward, about a simpleton being reassured by lies because he knows no better, is a dilemma that does not just apply to woo issues. It could apply to, say, propoganda material by a political party. Or many other scenarios.

I guess a few questions arise from this:

1) Is society as a whole disadvantaged by allowing misinformation to be commonplace? (i.e. to paraphrase the Vulcan saying, do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?)

2) Does an individual have the right to tell another person the facts?

3) Does an individual have the right to ignore the facts?

4) Are facts more important than individual happiness?

You cannot tell people what to think, or believe, or feel. And neither should you. Equally, you cannot force adults to be educated or to educate themselves.

The problem for me, which is what I think Axenos is touching on, is that as a skeptic, I would prefer to know the facts even if it means sacrificing the comfort I might get from a particular belief. And it would be very easy for me to assume that everyone else feels that way. I think, however, that many, many people do not feel that way. Further, I would suggest that they feel the exact opposite, and would take the comfort of ignorance over the harshness of the facts. Which is why more people are not skeptics.

 

[Axenos]

tkingdoll has hit on it, somewhat clearer than I could.

Thanks tkingdoll,

Axe

 

[T'ai Chi]

It's definately not OK to lie to people.

How does this square with the fact that we've all lied at one time or another, and parents lie to children, and magicians and actors and CGI lie to their audience?

 

[tkingdoll]

No worries.

I should clarify, that I believe that the needs of society do outweigh the needs of the individual, and that where possible all individuals should strive to apply some critical thinking to their lives.

However, that is an idealistic viewpoint, as plenty of people simply aren't interested in applying any critical thinking whatsoever and you can't and shouldn't force them to. There will always be woo because some people love it.

Critical thinking should be taught in schools, that way we would have less widespread acceptance of dodgy claims.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Don't people want "facts" though? It's uncertainty that's scary.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's definately not OK to lie to people.

Perhaps I should have made my original post clearer.

Sometimes people go out of their way to point out that something is "fake". If someone is not going to understand that, perhaps it would be better to "let sleeping dogs lie", as opposed to actively pursuing the chance to debunk something.

Axe

Perhaps. But it always comes down to this: Telling people that they can talk to their dead loved ones is - as far as we know, of course - a lie. The "psychic" may or may not be aware that he is just cold-reading the poor mark, but nevertheless: Spirit communication doesn't happen.

Do I think it's OK to tell a child who has just lost his mother that the mother is in Heaven (a nice place, by all accounts)? Yeah, probably. The child is not an adult, and we can't expect children to understand the implications of death. If that helps the child overcoming his grief, fine by me. When he grows up, he will hopefully recognize the lie for what it was: A help.

But being an adult is very much about facing the sometimes harsh realities of life. So far, we have not seen any evidence that people are able to communicate with us when they are dead. We do not help adults by lying to them.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

How does this square with the fact that we've all lied at one time or another, and parents lie to children, and magicians and actors and CGI lie to their audience?

Maybe your parents have lied to you, but mine never did. I thank them for it often, because it helped me to trust them.

As for actors and magicians, you are simply wrong. No one goes to Braveheart thinking that Mel Gibson is William Wallace. It's a performance. Mr. Randi always used to caution his audeince that his performance is merely elaborate and clever tricks, not mystical forces.

 

[Stellafane]

I have been a long-time lurker of these forums and just recently registered.

Numerous times I have read of people delighting in informing people that have been "woo" influenced of their various skeptic beliefs.

I advocate that, but only to a point.

If someone is using "psychic" or other info purely for monetary gain, and to bilk the unwise, then by all means, expose them for what they are. I am a cynic by nature.

However, if some poor simpleton who will never really know any better is given information by a "psychic", for no money , that will put their mind at ease about something, then is it up to anyone to destroy that peace of mind by revealing the somewhat questionable nature of said information?

At what point does compassion for someone become overshadowed by the need to... shall we say illuminate and inform?

Regards All,

Axe

Hi Axenos. If I understand your point correctly, it's a modified form of the "what's the harm?" argument: Why not let the "poor simpletons" believe that psychics are real, if it makes them feel better and doesn't cost them any money? If so, it's an argument for which I have very little sympathy. To see why, I suggest you read the "Psychics and missing people" thread in this forum, if you haven't already. As you'll see, in many cases these self-proclaimed psychics (Carla Baron, for instance) offer free assistance to find missing people. But the fact that they don't charge money in no way mitigates or excuses the damage they cause to the families of the missing: emotional trauma, time wasted by police following false leads, divisiveness between friends and family members, casting guilt on the innocent, and so on. Sure, they sometimes make the victims' families feel better (at least temporarily). But it's a false, and untimately cruel hope.

And how do you determine whether or not someone is a "poor simpleton" and thus should not be told the truth? Are you prepared to sit in judgement of another person's intellectual capacity, and decide they aren't worth bothering about? What if said "poor simpleton" still manages to acquire a position of authority and influence over others? Do you want them making decisions based upon a psychic's advice? Bear in mind, not too long ago a "poor simpleton" managed to became arguably the most powerful person on earth, capable of launching a nuclear attack that would have affected the lives of every living person -- and his decisions were at least partially influenced and advised by an astrologer. Can you even imagine the potential harm that situation might have caused?

Finally, tolerating a belief in psychic ability makes it easier for those psychic frauds who do bilk people out of money to operate. Is a "poor simpleton" going to accept that psychics are only effective if they don't charge for their services? Even a "simpleton" will understand that doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, but I have a very difficult time condoning any form of a "what's the harm?" argument. Because in the end, it always contributes to some type of harm eventually. And I can't believe that ultimately, we're all not better served by the truth.

ETA to fix last line, with was 180 degrees in the wrong direction.