The Ethics of Skepticism

[jj]

Is speeding unethical?

Is it unethical for a police officer to speed in order to catch up to a speeder and issue a ticket? After all, he is doing so for personal gain.

Um, how is this for personal gain?

 

[jj]

I think that a deception engineered to teach people how they can be led is excusable if and only if it's exposed as what it is to all of the people who were decieved, in a convincing fashion.

That's one reason I no longer do cold readings on people in airports who ask me for my sign and all that crappola, some of them can't be convinced I'm doing a cold reading. Worst is when the silly person says "you don't understand, you have the power, you just won't admit it to yourself" or "why are you trying to fool me, you are psychic".

Gah.

 

[Luke T.]

I think Stellafane used the proper term. It's what I was thinking. A "sting operation".

I think a sting operation has a short-term value. I don't think it shrinks the number of believers much. And even if it does, only temporarily.

Take a look at the evolution of aliens in the last fifty years, for example. In the 40s and 50s, people who claimed to have been abducted said aliens looked just like us, and were from the Moon or Venus. No one would take such claim seriously today. And even though that is the root of today's ufo cult, it has been conveniently forgotten. So it is with any sting operations.

They are still fun, though.

A great sting would have to take place over a long period of time and capture big media names in its net. It is the media which is most responsible for the propagation of this crap, and it is the media which must be stung for any long term effect.

While believers may go on believing, the media would have to exercise more caution in the future. That's the way to go. Sting the media.

 

[Euromutt]

Um, how is this for personal gain?

I surmise that the argument would be that the cop draws a salary for performing his job.

Here's what I'll do tonight: I'll pull the fire alarm in a crowded theatre. After the mayhem has subsided, I'll call it a lesson in critical thinking. Perhaps hand out leaflets on behalf of the JREF and the Skeptical society. Lecture them on how gullible they were. Strike a victory for reason by demonstrating how easy it is to catch people off guard. Why, they should all thank me, I suppose, but I'll have to politely decline if they want to give me money as a show of gratititude: I'm not in it for personal gain.

That's a lousy analogy, because fires unquestionably do exist, whereas the existence of Bigfeet, Loch Ness monsters, chupacabras etc. is in doubt (to say the least). Moreover, fire alarms do not serve to provide evidence for the existence of fire in general, but to alert people to the existence of a particular fire. The reason your fire alarm stunt would have no educational value is because they already know fires exist, and that fire alarms are the commonly agreed-upon signal that there is one in the building; indeed, were neither of these conditions already the case, your stunt would not even work.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, I've read some of these. They're usually special circumstances, though. And what are retrospective studies, anyway?

At least, we have to demonstrate due diligence. Show a token concern for those who are affected. My approach is that when you get to a grey area with real consequences, you consult the stakeholders.

Agreed, and it always depends on whether the perpetrator of the hoax applied due diligence: what are the realistic consequences? What are the benefits? As a whole, would it be worth it?

Here's what I'll do tonight: I'll pull the fire alarm in a crowded theatre. After the mayhem has subsided, I'll call it a lesson in critical thinking. Perhaps hand out leaflets on behalf of the JREF and the Skeptical society. Lecture them on how gullible they were. Strike a victory for reason by demonstrating how easy it is to catch people off guard. Why, they should all thank me, I suppose, but I'll have to politely decline if they want to give me money as a show of gratititude: I'm not in it for personal gain.

Obviously, you'd rather I didn't associate such a stupid stunt with the JREF. Why?

Well, it shows bad judgement on my part: the lesson is weak, consequences are too high, and the blowback against whomever I am pretending to represent is very costly in its own right.


Assuming that P&T did this hoax, I'm weighing toward the 'worth it' side myself, but I was concerned about the attitude of some of the posts: that claiming you're educating the unwashed masses was carte blanche to act like a prick.

Got me to thinking. What are people's takes on the flip side of this; when P&T had the fake client go to the psychics, dressing differently for each? They were performing direct deception with regards to the psychics themselves. Is the BF video that much different; they put forth a deception, but instead of some bumbling psychics being recorded on hidden camera it was the 'net itself that was ignorant to the experiment.

I think, at least in this case, the harm vs benefit weighs heavily on the benefit side, but I do agree that each time such actions are considered they need to be evaluated individually.

 

[R.Mackey]

We criticize the attitude of Martin Luther when he said it was OK to lie to non-believers, because the end result is that if you convert them - even dishonestly - you helped save their soul from eternal damnation.

I was hoping that Skeptics would offer the world something better.

One would imagine a skeptical response would find two holes in that analogy -- first of all, the "end" of salvation is entirely dubious and unsupported by evidence, and second, Luther would never reveal his dishonesty to the converted. In contrast, the P&T stunt has no value until the truth is revealed.

One of the things about medicine that I have to accept is that a lot of medical 'truths' were not established with trials or experiments, or anything like that. [...] The value of demonstrating their truth is exceeded by the value of maintaining an ethical standard.

I was going to suggest that, if we really want to codify Skeptical Ethics, a good place to start might be experimental psychology and medicine. This isn't my field -- but it sounds like you already know some of the difficulties first hand.

I'd agree with you that there is a line somewhere. So far, though, our "means" seem limited to telling tall tales and hurting people's feelings. I'm comfortable that, even without a rigorous demarcation, we are safely inside the lines. I'll gladly change my tune once something actionable happens, say libel or destruction of property, physical endangerment, etc., but I'm not aware of any skeptic's "experiment" that approaches this threshold.

Pulling a fire alarm would do it, though. I don't like that analogy either.

 

[blutoski]

That's a lousy analogy, because fires unquestionably do exist, whereas the existence of Bigfeet, Loch Ness monsters, chupacabras etc. is in doubt (to say the least). Moreover, fire alarms do not serve to provide evidence for the existence of fire in general, but to alert people to the existence of a particular fire. The reason your fire alarm stunt would have no educational value is because they already know fires exist, and that fire alarms are the commonly agreed-upon signal that there is one in the building; indeed, were neither of these conditions already the case, your stunt would not even work.

The analogy was drawn to exaggerate, but I still think it's apt, and your response actually exemplifies what I think is the problem: that some Skeptics believe they own the truth and everybody else had better sit down and learn the lesson.

There are cultural facts, scientific facts, and an assumed underlying reality. I'm not arguing for relativism here, but what I can't help noticing is that my city has way more haunted houses than burned houses. To most people, both of these things are very real. So, I contend that the analogy is valid, since by definition, TBers believe this stuff to be real, and their response is as appropriate within their context as it would be for a fire alarm.

TBers often have first-hand evidence of these things, but we refuse to accept it. This is part of what makes us Skeptics. But it doesn't mean they agree with the statement that these mysteries are without evidence. They have bucketloads. It just doesn't meet our standards.


Anyway, ultimately, I think these stunts are mental masturbation for Skeptics. TBers just use them as fuel to criticize Skeptics, and people on the fence aren't watching the show: it's a Skeptics' show.

 

[blutoski]

One would imagine a skeptical response would find two holes in that analogy -- first of all, the "end" of salvation is entirely dubious and unsupported by evidence, and second, Luther would never reveal his dishonesty to the converted. In contrast, the P&T stunt has no value until the truth is revealed.


I was going to suggest that, if we really want to codify Skeptical Ethics, a good place to start might be experimental psychology and medicine. This isn't my field -- but it sounds like you already know some of the difficulties first hand.

Technically, we're reinventing the wheel if we're trying to invent Skeptical Ethics. Paul Kurtz is the glue that joins CSICOP and the Council for Secular Humanism. Skepticism was spun off an ethical movement, not the other way around.

I'd agree with you that there is a line somewhere. So far, though, our "means" seem limited to telling tall tales and hurting people's feelings. I'm comfortable that, even without a rigorous demarcation, we are safely inside the lines. I'll gladly change my tune once something actionable happens, say libel or destruction of property, physical endangerment, etc., but I'm not aware of any skeptic's "experiment" that approaches this threshold.

Fair enough. Right now, my primary concern is with the PR impact of stunts which are done for the amusement of Skeptics at the expense of believers. I see very little real gains and lots of PR downside.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Project Alpha, what is rarely mentioned is that the main parapsychologists involved received a lot of criticism from other parapsychologists.

 

[kieran]

Here's what I'll do tonight: I'll pull the fire alarm in a crowded theatre. After the mayhem has subsided, I'll call it a lesson in critical thinking. Perhaps hand out leaflets on behalf of the JREF and the Skeptical society. Lecture them on how gullible they were. Strike a victory for reason by demonstrating how easy it is to catch people off guard. Why, they should all thank me, I suppose, but I'll have to politely decline if they want to give me money as a show of gratititude: I'm not in it for personal gain.

Obviously, you'd rather I didn't associate such a stupid stunt with the JREF. Why?

Well, it shows bad judgement on my part: the lesson is weak, consequences are too high, and the blowback against whomever I am pretending to represent is very costly in its own right.

If you had good reason to believe that the theatre had a major flaw in its fire evacuation policy (e.g. insufficient fire exits), but you couldn't get them to address it any other way, then maybe such a demonstration would be valid.

After all - isn't that what happens in full scale fire drills? Obviously some people have to be in on it - but the usual policy is the fewer the better to better represent a genuine situation.

However, if you wanted to do it just to cause panic and inconvenience, and illustrate a petty point, that would be a very different matter.

... and if you wanted to hand out leaflets explaining your actions, that would make sense. But you should attribute your actions to your own reasons, not to a body you would be pretending to represent.

 

[kieran]

TBers often have first-hand evidence of these things, but we refuse to accept it.

TBers often have first-hand evidence of something. e.g.

• an orb in a digital photo
• a cold draught in a room
• a shadow moving in the forest
• a medium who says things that relate to them
• a coincidence in the grouping of letters in a book
• ...

... and they also have a mountain of second hand "evidence" provided by other TBers who are also working from the same pool of occurences. Getting them to think about the quality of their own first-hand evidence, and illustrating less woo-woo explanations, is a good thing.

The job of the TBer is simple - show us something unexplainable, let us have a good old look at it, if we is still stumped by it then they've got something worth considering. Otherwise, they've got nothing.

Feel free to defend TBer rights, please don't defend TBer methods.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Just for the record, ImaginalDisc, we're in agreement on the lesson taught but P&T's alleged hoax. That said, will I make myself more plain? Absolutely. Anyone who makes the implication that all those who consider the possibility of the existence of bigfoot to be a woo is either uninformed or intentionally deluding themselves.No, you didn't. Nor did I say you did. I did imply the example dialogue you used was weak, though.

That's what "woo" means. Let's not dereail this into a debate about the word "woo", but yes, I think believers in bigfoot are not skeptics. A skeptic would examine the evidence, and make a conclusion based on that. A woo refuses to look at the evidence, and believes whatever they want anway.

 

[blutoski]

Feel free to defend TBer rights, please don't defend TBer methods.

I don't think I've ever defended their methods. I'm refuting the claim that TBers invent explanations 'without evidence'. They have bucketloads: it's just that as Skeptics we find the link between the evidence and the explanation to be very weak.

To say that TBers are blindly going about inventing theories for no good reason is a misrepresentation, and any strategy designed to help these people avoid continued error is not going to work if its based on a false belief. No matter how much it flatters Skeptics to see themselves as the only people who have the capacity for thought.

Usually, Skeptics use the same evidence to construct another explanation. It's all the same data - just different unprovable assumptions, which lead to different interpretations of the evidence and usually different conclusions.

I think the problem is that people like me who are 'old school' skeptics are a little concerned with the, ah, enthusiasm, of some participants in the movement. Joe Nickell was interviewed a few months ago in a podcst at CFI and it is striking to observe how much the Skeptical movement has strayed from its origins. His thesis was that debunking may be a consequence of skepticism, but debunking is not itself a skeptical task.

So, to address Kieran's comment: yes, I'd prefer that the debunkers don't try to call themselves skeptics. It gives us a bad name. That was my point.

 

[blutoski]

If you had good reason to believe that the theatre had a major flaw in its fire evacuation policy (e.g. insufficient fire exits), but you couldn't get them to address it any other way, then maybe such a demonstration would be valid.

After all - isn't that what happens in full scale fire drills? Obviously some people have to be in on it - but the usual policy is the fewer the better to better represent a genuine situation.

However, if you wanted to do it just to cause panic and inconvenience, and illustrate a petty point, that would be a very different matter.

... and if you wanted to hand out leaflets explaining your actions, that would make sense. But you should attribute your actions to your own reasons, not to a body you would be pretending to represent.

Yeah, but you're arguing about the analogy's details now, and evading the point. That's called "sophistry".

 

[ImOne]

Many of you are ignoring a basic concept concerning reality. Then, you somehow fail to realize that the people you wish to educate are very aware of it. Probability. I'm using "you" because there are so many of you in this thread. If "you" is not you substitute "they/them". I agree the probability of Bigfoot is minute but lets not forget, it is greater than zero. It may be convenient to ignore this fact but it makes you look dense even to the stupid. They know the possibility exists. If you refuse to acknowledge that you will be discounted instantly.

Perpetrating a hoax in the name of education is not only unethical, it's counterproductive. Your belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist is a better belief, but trying to trick someone into sharing a belief will get you nowhere and make you appear desperate to validate your own belief. Think about it.

 

[kitakaze]

Just for the record, ImaginalDisc, we're in agreement on the lesson taught but P&T's alleged hoax. That said, will I make myself more plain? Absolutely. Anyone who makes the implication that all those who consider the possibility of the existence of bigfoot to be a woo is either uninformed or intentionally deluding themselves.No, you didn't. Nor did I say you did. I did imply the example dialogue you used was weak, though.

That's what "woo" means. Let's not dereail this into a debate about the word "woo", but yes, I think believers in bigfoot are not skeptics. A skeptic would examine the evidence, and make a conclusion based on that. A woo refuses to look at the evidence, and believes whatever they want anway.

Agreed. So do I. After having examined the evidence for BF, I don't believe, rather I continue to consider the possibility.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Agreed. So do I. After having examined the evidence for BF, I don't believe, rather I continue to consider the possibility.

That's a critical thing too. Considering the possibility, or even wanting something to be true (so long as the want does not impair your judgement), is okay, perhaps even scientific, as long as you let the evidence dictate what you believe is accurate.

I'd love for science to uncover an unknown, bipedal primate, but at the moment the evidence is not there to support the idea and at some point you have to decide if the likelyhood of finding such evidence is probable.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Agreed. So do I. After having examined the evidence for BF, I don't believe, rather I continue to consider the possibility.

How much of a possibility? Why have we never seen any fecal matter, hair, footprints, carcasses, remains in a predator's den or any other trace of a large anthropoid ape in the United States?

 

[blutoski]

How much of a possibility? Why have we never seen any fecal matter, hair, footprints, carcasses, remains in a predator's den or any other trace of a large anthropoid ape in the United States?

With a few exceptions, most of crypto merely falls into the 'very unlikely' category. The only evidence is anecdotal, or perhaps a few blurry photos. They do not, however, require supernatural powers or overturning the laws of physics.

Most crypto claims are plausible at first, and only prove unlikely over time, when attempts to locate evidence come up empty-handed.

BF isn't unbelievable just because we can't find his poop - you haven't seen my dog's crap, but I'm sure you find it plausible that I have one. The main problem is that we haven't found anything after decades of concentrated effort.

 

[Stellafane]

Prediction

Wanna bet some footer's gonna 'fess up to faking Patty, then retract and say "See, I fooled all the skeptics! If it's OK for P&T, it's OK for me! This proves skeptics don't know everything, so Bigfoot must be real!!" or something to that effect.