The Ethics of Skepticism

[westphalia]

Let's presume for purposes of this thread that Penn & Teller produce evidence that the Sonoma Bigfoot footage was an elaborate hoax - a hoax that they themselves contrived. If we assume that the purpose of the hoax was to make fools out of the cryptozoological folks and the Bigfoot community, do you think that what they did was unethical?

Personally, I don't. I would have an issue with a critic or skeptic who tanked an experiment in order to prove a paranormal claim wrong, because such would presumably occur in a setting in which the claimant and the skeptic have agreed to certain safeguards to ensure honesty.

I don't have any problem at all with a skeptic who concocts UFO footage, a fake haunted house, a trap for a faith healer, or photos of Bigfoot, then puts them out in the public forum to catch the unwary, and prove the silliness of their beliefs.

 

[Quinn]

As someone whose 9th grade science project involved convincing my class that the UFO photos I was showing them were the most compelling ones currently available from the National Center for UFO Research, and then, once they had bought into it, revealing that they were actually created by throwing a pie pan into the air in the back yard while my dad snapped pictures of it... I approve.

And frankly, I think anyone who seriously claims it's unethical is a whiner.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

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

 

[Ausmerican]

And frankly, I think anyone who seriously claims it's unethical is a whiner.

I would add that anyone who thinks it is unethical probably was taken in by the footage and now feels stupid. Is it unethical for 2 men whose entire livelihood is tricking people to trick people? Not even a little bit.

 

[blutoski]

I would add that anyone who thinks it is unethical probably was taken in by the footage and now feels stupid. Is it unethical for 2 men whose entire livelihood is tricking people to trick people? Not even a little bit.

Whoah, whoah... actually there's some element of hypocricy on their part... and on many levels, at that.


Their primary complaint against, say, Geller and his kind is that a true magician is up front about the whole performance being an illusion, whereas, if somebody neglects to mention that it's a trick, this is the hallmark of a scumbag.

Their defense for what they themselves describe as unethical is that it's in the victims' best interest to learn a lesson by example.



There was a bit of a shmozzle a few years ago when the Snopes website invented an urban legend out of whole cloth and released it on the Internet via web and mail, as an experiment in tracking a meme's propagation and mutation. There are some who feel this was inaproppriate.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Whoah, whoah... actually there's some element of hypocricy on their part... and on many levels, at that.


Their primary complaint against, say, Geller and his kind is that a true magician is up front about the whole performance being an illusion, whereas, if somebody neglects to mention that it's a trick, this is the hallmark of a scumbag.

Their defense for what they themselves describe as unethical is that it's in the victims' best interest to learn a lesson by example.



There was a bit of a shmozzle a few years ago when the Snopes website invented an urban legend out of whole cloth and released it on the Internet via web and mail, as an experiment in tracking a meme's propagation and mutation. There are some who feel this was inaproppriate.

Escuse me, I think you may not be recognizing the distinction between a hoax, and a fraud.

 

[blutoski]

Escuse me, I think you may not be recognizing the distinction between a hoax, and a fraud.

You mean the anonymity?

A lot of hoaxes are still fraud, if the hoax benefits the hoaxer, especially financially or in the enhancement of their standing.

eg: if I put olive oil on a statue of the Virgin, but nobody knows who did it, it crosses the line to fraud if I get interviewed by media, or start soliciting donations. I'm sure those crop circle makers who sell aerial photos of their work, but don't take credit for it, are committing fraud.

By the same token, if Snopes is really claiming they're doing valuable research by releasing a meme into the wild, it could be fraud. Regardless, even hoaxes are unethical if they incur costs on their victims.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You mean the anonymity?

A lot of hoaxes are still fraud, if the hoax benefits the hoaxer, especially financially or in the enhancement of their standing.

eg: if I put olive oil on a statue of the Virgin, but nobody knows who did it, it crosses the line to fraud if I get interviewed by media, or start soliciting donations. I'm sure those crop circle makers who sell aerial photos of their work, but don't take credit for it, are committing fraud.

By the same token, if Snopes is really claiming they're doing valuable research by releasing a meme into the wild, it could be fraud. Regardless, even hoaxes are unethical if they incur costs on their victims.

If I engage in a hoax, and later admit to it, reveal how it was done, and use it as an example of how evidence can be fabricated, is that instructive or not?

 

[blutoski]

If I engage in a hoax, and later admit to it, reveal how it was done, and use it as an example of how evidence can be fabricated, is that instructive or not?

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.

 

[mumchup]

There was a bit of a shmozzle a few years ago when the Snopes website invented an urban legend out of whole cloth and released it on the Internet via web and mail, as an experiment in tracking a meme's propagation and mutation. There are some who feel this was inaproppriate.

I remember this. Snopes made up a few of their own urban legends and put a page on their site that was a True/False quiz. They clearly explained that the stories were fake and yet they started showing up in inboxes as true. One of them (can't remember, something about pirates, IIRC) showed up on an Urban Legend TV show.

As far as the P&T hoax is concerned, I don't have any problems with it as long as they fess up. The only problem I can see is that in the end, just like the Snopes thing, some people will only remember the video and not that it was exposed as a hoax.

 

[blutoski]

I remember this. Snopes made up a few of their own urban legends and put a page on their site that was a True/False quiz. They clearly explained that the stories were fake and yet they started showing up in inboxes as true. One of them (can't remember, something about pirates, IIRC) showed up on an Urban Legend TV show.

As far as the P&T hoax is concerned, I don't have any problems with it as long as they fess up. The only problem I can see is that in the end, just like the Snopes thing, some people will only remember the video and not that it was exposed as a hoax.

I have a second concern, which is that the public will see skeptics as unconscionable liars. Some of the literature I read after the Snopes fiasco came across as: "Now we know that skeptics will say something, and later, if proven wrong beyond any credible defense, they'll just laugh and say it was only a test."

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It's very instructive, but it was not mutual...

Please explain how a hoax can be "mutual"?

"I'm about to falsify evidence of a large antrhopoid ape. Even though it is fake, please regard it as correct, and embrace it, so I may illustrate how foolish your adherence to this contemporary myth is."

 

[blutoski]

Please explain how a hoax can be "mutual"?

I didn't say it was. I doubt it can be.

"I'm about to falsify evidence of a large antrhopoid ape. Even though it is fake, please regard it as correct, and embrace it, so I may illustrate how foolish your adherence to this contemporary myth is."

I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I didn't say it was. I doubt it can be.




I don't understand what you're getting at.

In order for a hoax to demostrate how ridiculous crop circles, bigfoot, or these other baseless modern myths are, the hoaxer must fool people, before revealing it's a hoax.

 

[Nancarrow]

Disclosure and transparency are basic tenets of research ethics.

I agree. So it's probably a good thing Penn and Teller are entertainers, not researchers!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

blutoski,

I think you don't understand the purpose of a hoax, conducted to expose errors in judgement. Allow me to show you a fictional conversation between a woo, and a skeptic about bigfoot.

Woo: Bigfoot is real. Look at all the plaster footprints, and video tapes of bigfoot which have been collected over the years.

Skeptic: The videos and footprints often show completely contradictory types of creatures. All the body hairs which have been collected have been shown to come from other, less mysterious animals. People who claim to have seen bigfoot are either liars, or are sadly mistaken, because there is no evidence bigfoot exists.

Woo: You can't prove that tape X, my favorite bigfoot video, is a forgery.

Skeptic: That's true, I can't prove that particular tape is a forgery. However, I can demonstrate that I can make a very similar tape, with trickery.

Skeptic makes the tape, and informs Woo every step of the way.

Skeptic: Here you go.

Woo: Ha! that's ridiculous, no one would ever believe in that obvious fake.

Skeptic: You only disbelieve it's the real thing, because you watched me make it. if you were unaware that it was a hoax, you would probably have fallen for it, just as you fell for tape X.

Woo: You can't prove that!

Woo is both right, and wrong. I can't unconvince him that Skeptic's tape is a hoax. However, I can make a tape myself, allow Woo to form his own conclusions, and then tell him it was a hoax. I can reveal the process by which it was made, and publicy acknowledge that the tape is a hoax. It's the only way to prove to woos that they really can be fooled by a hoax.

 

[blutoski]

In order for a hoax to demostrate how ridiculous crop circles, bigfoot, or these other baseless modern myths are, the hoaxer must fool people, before revealing it's a hoax.

Obviously.

 

[blutoski]

I agree. So it's probably a good thing Penn and Teller are entertainers, not researchers!

And?

Their argument is:
1. that fooling people for reasons of personal gain is unethical
2. the stunt involved fooling people for reasons of personal gain
C: therefore, their stunt was ethical

Ah, but they have an out: they weren't doing entertainment...

3. that fooling people for reasons of personal gain is not entertainment
C: therefore, their stunt was not entertainment

And, apparently, they were doing research!

So:
4. such a stunt is research on subjects without their permission
5. research on subjects without their permission is unethical
C: therefore, their stunt was unethical

 

[blutoski]

blutoski,

I think you don't understand the purpose of a hoax, conducted to expose errors in judgement. Allow me to show you a fictional conversation between a woo, and a skeptic about bigfoot.

I understand it, but my argument is that it's unethical and counterproductive in the long run. Skeptics have been firewalking and crop-circling from day one, and the TBs are unaffected. Let me give you a counteranecdote:

James Randi has been demonstrating cold reading for years, and inevitably, there are TBers who interpret this as a man with mental powers who is either lying or in denial about his talent.

How do you convince somebody that you *really* made the crop circle? Photos of you making it? (faked) Affadavits from the farmer? (he was bribed) &c. It's just taking the debate to a new, lower, level, and throwing more confusion into the debate.

Woo is both right, and wrong. I can't unconvince him that Skeptic's tape is a hoax. However, I can make a tape myself, allow Woo to form his own conclusions, and then tell him it was a hoax. I can reveal the process by which it was made, and publicy acknowledge that the tape is a hoax. It's the only way to prove to woos that they really can be fooled by a hoax.

 

[Amapola]

Disclosure and transparency are basic tenets of research ethics.

I'm trying to square this with double-blind research, where the subject (and sometimes not even the person giving the medicine or whatever) does not know if they are receiving a sugar pill or a new drug. I hope you don't think double-blinded research is wrong.

In this sense I think fooling people can be a learning tool, and a research tool. The people are always told in the end. The problem I have with "psychics" is they do not admit they were fooling people all along. They never will either, not unless forced to.