Why skeptics lose

From WikiSynergy

Jump to: navigation, search

Skepticism project

Menu

edit

General articles

Essays and criticism

Why skeptics lose
Richard Dawkins: pseudoskeptic?
"Miracles are scientifically impossible"

Science and logic

edit

Projects

Debate alert!

This article has been questioned.(second discussion) (third discussion) The debate is recommended reading, as it illustrates this article- especially the part where we note the skeptical community vilifies those who could serve as constructive critics.

Quotes

More often than not you have the believers speaking to the believer camp, the skeptics speaking to the skeptic camp, and rarely is there any interaction. There's very rarely challenges or discussion. (paraphrased) —Ben Radford on the Skeptiko podcast # 50

A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism into dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree.—Dr. Leonard George

Where skepsis, in the original Greek, means rational doubt and probing, the word skeptic has increasingly come to mean defensive and doctrinaire, and a skeptic as someone who identifies with a position and defends it to the bitter end, often striving to downplay, misrepresent or simply ignore the evidence. This is by not necessarily a fair or universal definition, but it's nevertheless one that is increasingly made.SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

To be an effective skeptic, it's critical to understand that your opponent is not simply a lunatic. Maybe some are, but the majority are as intelligent and thoughtful as you. Dismissing your opponent as crazy is a weakness in you.^[1]—Brian Dunning

Skepticism is in general acknowledged to be losing the fight.^[2]^[3] This is debatable within science, but obvious in the arena of public opinion— and there is some evidence that the higher one's education level, the more likely one is to believe in the paranormal though the case is not clear-cut.^[4]^[5] In other areas such as evolution versus creationism, skepticism is winning or holding the line. But in the arena of CAM, it is losing badly.^[6] Thus overall, skepticism is losing the fight for public hearts and minds. According to the skeptical blog which debated WikiSynergy about this article:

“

in many (if not most) of the subjects that skeptics deal with on a day-to-day basis, we simply have no cultural presence whatsoever.

”

There are probably many reasons the skeptical community is losing the overall debate,^[7] and among the possibilities are:

Skepticism is not as entertaining or psychologically satisfying as the alternatives.

Skepticism, and sometimes scientific studies contradict common experience. If you or a person you know has, for example, been helped by alternative medicine, you are not likely to believe skeptics when they say it is imaginary, or placebo effect. In such a case, it hardly matters what evidence a skeptic has to support his case.

Synergistic effects: if you believe in one thing which science says is not true or not supported, you might be open to others.

Skeptics are nasty about what they believe. This is not something that believers say about skeptics. It is acknowledged within the skeptical community. Being nasty undermines the skeptical case because:

People do not want to listen when others are being nasty.
People think that if others are being nasty, it is because they are angry. They are angry because they are threatened. They are threatened because they think they may lose. And they think they may lose because they do not have a good case. People therefore jump to the conclusion that "anyone who is being nasty is probably wrong."

Example: "Action Skeptics Annoying stupid people, one woo at a time."

Skeptics preach to the choir. Because skeptics have alienated both other skeptics who do not like nastiness, and believers, they have no real outreach.

Skeptics have a reputation of ignorance. People study their favorite idea. They read the books on the subject, and they understand it thoroughly (see for example the extensive research in the article Moon hoax). Skeptics who speak on the matter often do not know what they are talking about. Once a believer has caught skeptics with their intellectual pants down a few times, he starts to think that skeptics in general are uneducated. As Ray Hyman put it in the Skeptical Inquirer in 2001:

“

Many well-intentioned critics have jumped into the fray without carefully thinking through the various implications of their statements. They have sometimes displayed more emotion than logic, made sweeping charges beyond what they can reasonably support, failed to adequately document their assertions, and, in general, failed to do the homework necessary to make their challenges credible.
Such ill-considered criticism can be counterproductive for the cause of serious skepticism. The author of such criticism may fail to achieve the desired effect, may lose credibility...^[8]

”

Skeptics often show general signs of pseudoskepticism.

The skeptical community has insufficient means by which to separate out pseudoskeptics from genuine scientific skeptics. The skeptical community is internally uncritical.

The skeptical community rejects and vilifies those who could serve as constructive critics of the movement.

The skeptical community has fallen into the trap which Carl Sagan warned about in 1987:

“

I want to say a little more about the burden of skepticism. You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. This is a potential social danger present in an organization like CSICOP. We have to guard carefully against it.
It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one it is, you're in deep trouble.^[9]

”

Can skeptics rise to the occasion and resume their essential role in society, or are they doomed by their own psychology to sit on the sidelines?

[edit] See also

On Some Unfair Practices towards Claims of the Paranormal by Marcello Truzzi
Proper Criticism by Ray Hyman Straight from a Fellow and member of the Executive Council of CSICOP and a member of the Skeptical Inquirer editorial board, this is an admission of rampant pseudoskepticism and of other points in this article.

Has CSICOP Lost the 30 Years' War? "CSICOP, in short, has lost its Thirty Years’ War."

References