Guest post: With bad science of their own
Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on Playing a skeptical maverick.
As I have said many times, I cut all ties to Movement Skepticism™ specifically because of the misogyny issue, but now I don’t even think the movement did very well on the science front. For example skeptics tended to let climate change denialists (some of whom were even considered “thought leaders” of the movement) off the hook far too easily, and enter false balance territory whenever the issue came up, while congratulating themselves on how clever they were for not believing in homeopathy or Bigfoot.
The Movement also includes some of the most staggering examples of the Dunning Kruger Effect ever seen. Even the smartest, best educated, most knowledgeable person who ever lived, is only personally familiar with <<1% of all the scientific knowledge that’s available, and of that very tiny fraction <<1% is first-hand knowledge, And yet it’s quite common to hear skeptics talk as if they had personally done all the science (or even derived all of science, mathematics, epistemology, logic etc. from first principles without ever taking anything on trust) when all they’re really doing is repeating back half digested, half understood layman’s explanations from books, blogs, podcasts, YouTube videos etc. We see this whenever skeptics tell others (guilty as charged!) to just “follow the facts where they lead”, “let the evidence speak for itself” etc. which makes is sound like “following the facts where they lead” were a straightforward matter rather than something that requires vast amounts of experience and accumulated pre-knowledge in its own right. The truth of the matter is that the evidence never speaks for itself. As I have previously written, I could probably provide a decent layman’s explanation of the evidence for things like evolution or climate change based on books I have read, but I wouldn’t personally be able to derive any useful information about past climates from tree-rings or ice-cores.
I remember reading an article (I wish I could remember by whom) about skeptics debunking pseudoscience with bad science of their own. The author made the point that while self-identified “pro science” types may be more likely to reach a (somewhat) accurate conclusion than others, it doesn’t mean that their methods for arriving at those conclusions are that different from those of their opponents. It’s just that rooting for “Team Science” confirms their particular tribal identity. As much as movement skeptics like to think of themselves as Spock and elevated above all that touchy-feely “value” stuff, it seems to me that true critical thinking is at least as much about attitude as it is about skills. Without the proper self-questioning attitude acquiring the tools of critical thinking only gives you more excuses for rejecting any conclusion you happen to dislike for ideological, tribalistic or purely self-serving reasons.
Also, it now seems to me that skeptics have developed a few myths of their own. E.g. we’ve all heard how the system of (pre and post publication) peer review ensures that only those ideas that can withstand the most merciless criticism and attempts at falsification survive in the long run. My current understanding from reading about the replication crisis etc. is that the peer-review process often fails and in most cases no replication is ever even attempted. We have also heard how scientists like nothing more than having their pet theories disproved because it means there’s something new to learn, “it gives them something to do” etc. I think Max Planck was probably closer to the truth when he said that “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”.
Another commonly heard trope is the idea that freeze peach guarantees that the best supported ideas will rise to the top in the marketplace of ideas. The unstated – sometimes even stated – premise being that those who have science and logic on their side always enjoy a decisive advantage in the battle for public opinion. This never seemed right to me, even in my movement skeptic days. If critical thinking should have taught us anything at all, it’s that the strongest indicators of truth vs. falsehood – objectively speaking – rarely coincide with what seems most subjectively persuasive to laypeople. Playing by the rules of science is nothing if not limiting, while the purveyors of bullshit are free to say whatever will impress people. Without the necessary pre-knowledge and critical thinking skills all your average layperson can be expected to get out of the exchange is that one side comes across as far more assertive, aggressive and confident while the other side is forced to use conservative language (“seems to indicate” etc.), acknowledge uncertainty, and introduce caveats, conditions and qualifiers at every turn. No need to specify which side is the scientific one.
I used to go to a lot of skeptic conventions. I mean a lot, starting in the ‘90’s. All the TAMs, and many of the Skeptical Inquirer/Free Inquiry’s.
The attendees were a mixed bag, admittedly, but as I recall many of the speakers emphasized how human foibles were human foibles, and skeptics were just as prone to bias, fallacies, and emotional and sloppy thinking as everyone else. Sometimes that was the theme of the entire presentation. I also saw Ioannidis and other critics of the application of mainstream science push back against getting too cocky about “what science has proved.”
That’s not to say that the skeptical movement didn’t as a whole have its cherished myths or ideological blind spots. Certainly it did. But there was also a steady counterbalance to hubris in the many of the talks, books, and articles themselves. On my part, that’s what I retain the most — the caution, the hesitancy, and the humility.
The fact that so many self-proclaimed skeptics (including organizations, including me) so often fail to live up to that — so easily abandon rational standards — is exactly what the movement taught me to expect. So I’ve no cause to be disappointed at all.
Sastra,
I only attended I think three TAMs, and none of the other conferences, so my experience wasn’t as broad. But my recollection is that while certainly lip service was paid to the notion that “we’re all fallible,” there was an overweening sense of smug superiority.
I especially remember all the dumb jokes from speakers and participants about how this room contains the only people in Vegas who are smart enough to not gamble. As if everyone who gambles is stupid and doesn’t understand how probability and expected value work. As if spending money to play a game and socialize with people for a few hours is stupid and irrational, but paying money to sit and watch Adam Savage tell you about how he built a replica of the Maltese Falcon is smart and rational. (I usually stayed up late gambling, and then nodded off during the more boring presentations at TAM. Which is perhaps not the wisest use of my money, either, sleeping through a conference I paid to attend, but I did at least learn to stop going.)
Anyway, there were plenty of good things, too — some interesting speakers and panels, some nice people — so I don’t mean to make it all out to have been some unpleasant ordeal. But there was always a bit of arrogance there I thought.
My only TAM was the first one in London, and by and large I enjoyed it a lot. To be clear, I’m not saying that nothing any of these people has to say about anything has any merit. Even Penn Jillette (an ideologue if ever there was one) was not wrong about psychics, alternative medicine, or cryptozoology. I just don’t think critical thinking has all that much to do with it. It doesn’t take critical thinking to argue against things that don’t agree with one’s biases anyway. If you wanted to expose a charlatan like Peter Popoff, Randi was your guy. If you wanted an informed assessment of climate science, not so much. I even think Sam Harris (not really a “movement skeptic”, admittedly) had some valid things to say specifically about the problems with faith-based religion (“Faith is nothing more than the licence religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail”, “Faith, if it’s ever right about anything, is right by accident”, “There is no possible future in which aspiring martyrs are going to make good neighbors”, “God is not a moderate” Perfect!). On most other topics, the less said the better (In fact, I wouldn’t completely rule out the possibility that he was created in his entirety by a freak fluctuation in the Dunning Kruger Field).
I think what typically happens is very similar to the TRA takeover of (parts of) feminism and LGB activism: Whatever attracted you to a movement in the first place, once you’re in it, supporting your “team” (very much like a soccer fan) quickly becomes an end in itself and even comes to trump the reasons you joined in the first place.
(Incidentally, one of my personal favorite posts from my old blog (R.I.P.) was titled (in my language) “The Right Conclusion for the Wrong Reason”. In it I argued that just because someone happens to reach a correct conclusion, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they arrived at it through sound reasoning, and that skeptics should be critical of bad reasons even when they are used to bolster a conclusion we happen to agree with. The post was written out of frustration about Bill Maher receiving the Richard Dawkins Award for promoting “science” and “critical thinking”. It was probably one of my least popular posts ever.)
Bjarte, #4, that is an important riposte to the TRAs who claim we are allied with the right wing. They attribute all sorts of beliefs to us that I am sure no one who comments here holds. I’m surprised they haven’t accused us of eating babies.
On trans, the right is coming to the same conclusion we are, but not for the same reasons. They are adopting some of our language, the language of women’s rights, but not because they actually believe in women’s rights. Just because they reached this conclusion, it doesn’t mean they used the same chain of reasoning, or any chain of reasoning at all.