The human cost

[IllegalArgument]

I have been thinking constantly since I got back from TAM on ways to make skepticism more appealing.

I think we should reframe in terms of the human costs, money wasted, mental damage. The TAM presenters did an excellent job on debunking the abilities of the hoaxers. I'm suggested a stronger focus on the damage done though.

For instance, Dr Seth Asser's presentation on: Faith Healers and Child Deaths, was very powerful. It made me want to take action.

What studies are out there about the emotional and economic costs?

 

[dann]

What studies are out there about the emotional and economic costs?

The problem with your idea is that believers fall for hoaxers or even hoax themselves for the immediate emotional gain they get from their (weird) beliefs, their need to believe. It's almost like telling other addicts that their addiction is going to destroy them.
See these discussions:

“Religion is a foolish position which expressly renounces the intention of explaining the world. The believer takes the outrageous stance: I view things this way because it makes me feel better than if I were to view them in a different way.”
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50968

Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for believers
quote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally posted by cabby
My point is that the possibility of a magical world is a great thing for those whose life is difficult, or far from complete.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Are you sure??! As I see it, your point is that the possibility of a magical world is a great thing for those whose life is difficult, and who do not want to do anything to change that situation. It is the victim's way of staying a victim by inventing a comforting view of a harsh reality instead of 'taking arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them.'
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41999

(You can neglect the many and very long contributions by 'Interesting Ian')

 

[IllegalArgument]

Yes, we might not be able to impact the "true" believers with the studies, but how about the only curious or recreational "users".

I would never expect us to get all the people to disbelieve, even 10-20% would be an increadible helpful.

 

[Ashles]

The problem with your idea is that believers fall for hoaxers or even hoax themselves for the immediate emotional gain they get from their (weird) beliefs, their need to believe. It's almost like telling other addicts that their addiction is going to destroy them.

In this thread we had a discussion about the reinforcement of the psychics beliefs:

Psychics as variant of Multiple Personality Disorder

The need to believe is really strong in some people.

 

[IllegalArgument]

Yes, understand that the hardcore believer can't be convinced.

I'm not interested in the hardcore right now, I want to convince the "moderates".

We will never convince believers all at once that stuff is bunk, but let's think of ways to convince the more doubtful first. Then they will help us convince the slightly less doubtful, "de-conversions" stories are very powerful.

 

[dann]

I'm not interested in the hardcore right now, I want to convince the "moderates".

Is it possible to be a moderate believer/disbeliever in Sylvia Browne's ability to talk with the dead? (Unless you are very young and naive!) The problem is that people almost never present themselves as firm and convinced believers in stuff like that. They are almost always 'skeptics' who could not help being persuaded by the very powerful evidence! (Until we show up and debunk their evidence! Then their fundamentalism becomes obvious!)

 

[IllegalArgument]

Is it possible to be a moderate believer/disbeliever in Sylvia Browne's ability to talk with the dead? (Unless you are very young and naive!) The problem is that people almost never present themselves as firm and convinced believers in stuff like that. They are almost always 'skeptics' who could not help being persuaded by the very powerful evidence! (Until we show up and debunk their evidence! Then their fundamentalism becomes obvious!)

Hence, why I'm suggesting reframing the argument in terms of the human cost. By debunking all we are doing is taking away their belief, with nothing to replace it. They aren't going to change into logical-rational beings just because we debunked one belief. That process takes time, sometimes forever.

The good news is that we may have saved them misery and money. Unless we can get the point across that the reason we are debunking their beliefs is because we care about them at some level. I don't think we will make a lasting impact. Again, I'm not talking about the hardcore, but the less than hardcore.

 

[dann]

The good news is that we may have saved them misery and money.

But misery is the reason why they become woowoos in the first place! (See my sig line)

 

[Jas]

I think the best way would be to foster an interest in science & rational thinking at an early age, and continue to nurture it into adulthood. Equiping people with the tools they need to think critically. When you have that, the economic and human cost of 'woowoo' becomes readily apparent.

I think a lot of this could easily be accomplished through the media. Look at the type of shows out there, and how many of them promote skeptical thinking (imho, South Park is one of the best ones out there), in a fun and informative way. There aren't many of them, unfortuanately.

 

[IllegalArgument]

But misery is the reason why they become woowoos in the first place! (See my sig line)

I disagree slightly with your sig, removing someone's religion does not make them automatically happy.

There is a branch of psychology I'm very interested in, it's fairly young, but it's the science based study of happiness.

 

[dann]

I disagree slightly with your sig, removing someone's religion does not make them automatically happy.

That is not what my sig says, it's just part of it, a requirement. Don't forget the second half:
"The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition (!) which needs illusions."

 

[IllegalArgument]

That is not what my sig says, it's just part of it, a requirement. Don't forget the second half:
"The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition (!) which needs illusions."

You correct, I didn't do a good job of explaining my point. I'm just a bit tired of people pointing at religion as the one and only example of extremist thinking. I'm not saying you're doing that but I'm seeing in other topics.

Of course, the irony is it's a quote by Marx. How many people were killed the name of his theories, a theory which required no belief in god and dismissed religion.

 

[CFLarsen]

IllegalArgument,

I've had the same thoughts lately: It isn't enough to merely present the scientific explanations. That won't convince all that many people, simply because not that many people understand what science is.

I liked it when Shermer in an interview (I think it was 20/20) replied to the question "What's so bad about this mediumship thingie?": "It's immoral".

He definitely has a point.

Care to write an article about it?

 

[IllegalArgument]

By the way, your PM box is full CF.

Send me a PM about how big an article you want. I'm still trying to flesh out my thinking on the subject.

 

[CFLarsen]

By the way, your PM box is full CF.

Send me a PM about how big an article you want. I'm still trying to flesh out my thinking on the subject.

I know. Any size. No limits. You got a week.

 

[dann]

Of course, the irony is it's a quote by Marx. How many people were killed the name of his theories, a theory which required no belief in god and dismissed religion.

According to his theories, none, I think. In the name of his theories, I don't know. Some people who invoked the name of Marx, Stalin probably being the worst of them, did indeed kill millions of people. I never saw anything written by Stalin that made a lot of sense.

I find it hard to see the connection with Marx' objections to religion, i.e. my sig line. If you do, and you must have a reason to bring it up, please let me know! What I like about the very small excerpt and the larger context it's taken from is that it stresses how the living conditions of people, "a condition which needs illusions", are what makes them need their illusions. That also makes it a very stupid idea to try to abolish religion by means of legal measures (prohibition).

And let's be fair: Millions of people were killed in the 20th century in Southeast Asia or Latin America in the name of democracy. And thousands are being killed invoking the same name in the 21st. Does that make anybody at all question the values of democracy?