I was planning a short rant about some ironically irrational arguments made by self-described rationalists at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin a couple of months ago. However, events of the past two weeks have left me frustrated, angry, and a little bit sick. Since they are all connected, I have decided to discuss them together in one long post, broken into three parts for easier reading.

The Nutshell

Arguments over scope and the conflation of atheism and skepticism have reached a fever pitch, as have arguments over tone. I will talk about some of this, but I will not attempt to explain all of the issues in any detail because everything that needs to be said has been said here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here… Well, you get the picture. In fact, if you want to argue the definition of skepticism or Skepticism* in the comments of this post, don’t bother. Instead, read what I wrote about it last year, which I would simply repeat in answer. It is clear from the comments on these posts that those who need to are not listening and I am rarely in the mood to spin my wheels. Instead, I will try to focus on the main reason these arguments should not be abandoned: it would be bad Skepticism.

In my opinion, the tone and scope arguments dance around a bigger problem and I do not believe that we can afford to ignore the elephants in the room any longer. We should not give people ‘a pass’ simply because they claim to be on our side.

In both his TAM6 and TAM9 keynote addresses, Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about a letter he wrote to the editor of The New York Times regarding a case in which a teacher was accused of promoting creationist-style anti-science (bold mine):

To the Editor:

People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah’s ark carried dinosaurs.

This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it’s about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.

Neil deGrasse Tyson
New York, Dec. 19, 2006

Similarly, what I suggest is this: Skepticism, as a movement, is not hindered so much by the conflation of atheism and skepticism, the ridicule of believers, or attempts to promote values-based ideology as it is hindered by the blatant ignorance, arrogance, and irrationality displayed when those acts are committed.

In a field dedicated to reducing ignorance and irrationality, a field in which arrogance is toxic, I find this kind of behavior offensive. It is time that we reclaim Skepticism and restore its credibility and integrity.

A Tiny Bit of Background

The issues of tone and scope have been widely discussed for years, but Phil Plait’s now famous “Don’t be a Dick” speech at TAM8 has become a centerpiece in the debate over tone and Daniel Loxton has become its whipping boy. Daniel also advocates for the limitation of scope for the movement for several reasons. It is the most basic of these limitations that seem to kick up the most dust: empirical claims. It is the dust around religion that I would like to talk about in these posts.

But before I do, let me say this about tone: decades of research tells us that it matters. The next time you read something like, “Neither method is well-supported” or “They can’t prove that my way doesn’t work”, remember that the Discovery Institute still produces propaganda about the irreducible complexity of baterial flagella, despite having been educated about the clear and indisputable counter-evidence repeatedly over the past decade. Then read Tavris & Aronson’s Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me).

What the research tells us is that swearing, sarcasm, and ridicule are great ways to rally your followers and gain new followers. This behavior polarizes groupthink, excites, incites, strengthens group cohesion, and promotes ‘othering’ of outgroup members. The target of ridicule and sarcasm is extremely likely to polarize as well, adhering more strongly to their beliefs** as those beliefs are threatened. Although direct and non-confrontational criticism of a belief is not likely to change the mind of the believer either, it is a seed with chance to germinate and is less likely to strengthen the belief.

Just so that you don’t think that I am a hypocrite, I will say right now that have very little hope that the targets of my criticisms in these posts will allow anything to grow; that soil is hostile. Planting seeds is not my goal. Okay, enough background. Let’s get back to the point:

Skepticism 2.x has been costly.

It is unclear when the tide turned, but at some point the expansion of skepticism as a movement began to get ugly. With “Skepticism 2.0″, the rise of wonderful and creative independent and grassroots efforts made possible by technology, came a wave of fresh new voices. Unfortunately, this has coincided with changes in culture and education practices which seem to be rooted in the United States, but are spreading beyond our borders very quickly – practices which reinforce shallow thinking when it is accompanied by overconfidence. The result is that too many of the new voices are – to borrow wording from Greg Laden – speaking out of their nether regions.

One factor is that self-identified skeptics in general do not seem to be much more rational than the general public. Intelligence is not enough. A rational person is one who has two things:

1. the tools (knowledge and intelligence) to reason well in a given situation.
2. open-mindedness and flexibility of thought; the ability to consider that their current knowledge might be wrong.

Without both of these characteristics, individuals resolve cognitive dissonance in all manner of ways except the rational way, which is to alter their current knowledge to accommodate new evidence. I do not believe that anyone has done the research, but it makes sense that self-described skeptics and atheists have more of the first characteristic than the general public. Atheism is correlated with education and IQ; it seems reasonable that skepticism would be as well. However, I have seen little evidence that, beyond many successful professional skeptics and scientists, they are any more open-minded or flexible than the general public. In fact, I would not be surprised to find that the opposite is generally true. And although there is “generational” component to this phenomenon, some of the most stubborn people that I have seen in the Q & A sessions at meetings, shouting that “some people are JUST WRONG!!” and putting people into two categories: atheists and irrational people, were middle-aged white men.

The behaviors which, in my opinion, are the most troublesome, are:

• conflating atheism with skepticism. This goes beyond the old arguments about testability and method vs. conclusion. In recent years, I have see these terms used interchangeably far too often. More and more speakers at major conferences (like TAM) have little connection with Skepticism and more atheism-laden conferences are adopting names and promotional language which suggests that the meeting is about Skepticism. I suspect that the overlap of ‘members’ of the atheism and skepticism movements is at the root of this.
• calling for social change related to political ideology or other values. Attempts by Michael Shermer and Sam Harris to promote their values were at least attempts to provide scientific support for those values. More recently Shermer publicly acknowledged (during the climate change panel at TAM8) that political values are outside the scope of Skepticism. However, there remain a large number of Skeptics who continue to argue for the promotion of ‘progressive values’ and Liberal ideology in the name of Skepticism.
• insisting that offending and ridiculing believers is an effective means of outreach.

These behaviors are troublesome because they impair us in various ways. The impairments are severe enough to see daily if one is on the front lines of grassroots work. For example, recruiting students to my campus club was easy. Retaining them was not. Several of my students abandoned the work they’d begun after encounters with other ‘skeptics’ at meetings and online. This happened with students whose beliefs can be described as agnostic and atheist; imagine if any of my recruits were Christians.

Even more troublesome than these behaviors is the uneducated groupthink that arises from these behaviors. By ‘uneducated’ I mean incorrect. Or so far afield that it’s ‘not even wrong’. This ignorance (and refusal to learn) is another very influential factor. If one of the major goals of Skepticism is to educate, shouldn’t we all understand the material?

Arrogance and ignorance, along with some shallow thinking, need only a cause to produce mob behavior. Opinions become stronger, more polarized, and more emotionally-laden they are spewed by overconfident people with an audience. When groupthink grows, hate often grows with it.

There is a very large overlap in the make-up of atheist and skeptic communities. My Facebook friends list is full of people whom I suspect sent requests only because I am an atheist. Despite little interest in atheism or religion, I once supported atheism-related activism. I continue to be a die-hard supporter of secularism. However, I will think twice before supporting any endeavor with the label ‘atheism’ in the future. In my opinion, the current climate of the atheist movement is making the work of Skepticism much more difficult. It has become, in my opinion, a septic tank of arrogance and hate.

For example, when reports spread that the man suspected of killing more than 90 people in Norway was a Christian, I read comment after hate-filled comment on Facebook and Google+ calling for the annihilation of Christians. Comments which claimed that Breivik was mentally ill were quickly attacked under the straw man that mental illness somehow absolves him of responsibility. I don’t happen to agree that an illness is more than an explanation of behavior (even in court, ‘insanity’ is much more than a diagnosis of ‘illness’), but that’s beside the point. What we wish to be true has no bearing on what is true. Even if, as reported at the time, some of the evidence suggested that he committed these acts as part of a God-loving crusade, the idea that he would not have been just as motivated by some other extreme ideology (e.g., anti-capitalism ideology) is absurd and an individual acting alone is much more likely to be mentally ill than to be part of an organized terrorist effort. His manifesto eventually revealed that he was fueled by any ideology that fit into his clearly delusional view of the world.

Some argued that all terrorists are mentally ill; there is no difference between Breivik and an organization like Al-Qaeda. Or they described all terrorists as ‘evil’ – an evil created by religion, as if religion is the only reason that people commit terrible acts. This simply is not reality. Psychologists have studied ‘evil’ relentlessly since the atrocities of the holocaust during World War II and we have learned that average people will commit some fairly heinous acts if situational factors are aligned. If we do not recognize that good, sane people are capable of bad acts, we will be helpless to prevent it. What’s more, such extreme ‘othering’ may make us feel better, but it closes our eyes to our own potential for wrongdoing.

The right-wing propaganda machine has done its best to paint Breivik as an isolated, politically-motivated nut job who was not a Christian. This is clearly wrong. However, painting him as part of a Christian terrorism-laden culture is equally wrong and serves only to fuel even more hatred. Hate breeds hate. Following are some examples of the kind of hate that I see growing among atheists.

A comment on a link to a report that the Westboro Baptists plan to protest at the funerals of the Norway victims made by a now ex-Facebook friend who claims to work for ‘The God Killers Inc’ (and two replies):

“FUCK THE Westboro Baptist Cult, and the God they pray to. I hope someone guns down this whole fucking group of hate fueling motherfuckers.”

“Hopefully the Norwegians will take them into custodian at the airport then fly them far north and dump them on a shrinking iceberg!”

“I always wondered why that hasn’t happened already? What a sad world we live in where innocent children are slaughtered and WBC isn’t? WTF OMG LMFAO…not really :(“

A Status update from the same ‘God Killer’ quoted above:

“Got banned on Teens Need Jesus page for telling the truth on the BS they were slinging trying to suck teens into their cult. Only took 1 day before I got banned this time. The Truth Is Consider A Crime By The Religitards.”

A commenter wrote this about a member of a Christian teens group:

“sick fucks are everywhere and need to be grouped together and sent to antartica or somewhere nice and cold”

…then posted a warning about a Facebook virus without first doing a simple search to find out if it was a hoax (it is).

Another now ex-Facebook friend whose comment, “fucking religitards!” prompted me to visit his wall, which reveals contact information that includes links to several Herbalife sites. His ‘activities and interests’ section includes ‘fuck Walmart’, ‘fuck religion’, ‘profanity’, and ‘rationalism’. Yeah, ‘rationalism’. Because God is fucking stupid and Walmart is fucking evil, but Herbalife really works, right?

Finally, one former Facebook friend blew me away with this series of equal-opportunity status updates and link introductions:

“The fat behind the desk rush said the heat index is all made by the government. And the earth is cooling f ing idiot”
– on an article about Rush Limbaugh

“Xtains fundies are diferent musnutts fundies”

“This guy is bat shit crazy and be taken awaywith men in white coats” – about Glenn Beck

“Pat was funny he’s jusy bat shit crazy now.” – on a post titled Tell MSNBC to Fire Pat Buchanan!

“Another bat shit crazy” – about Donald Trump

“Just found out 22 dems votedfor bonehead biil the f ing retards”

And the shocker (bold mine):

“Hate spreads quickly with the idiots he he bought his clips from the US” – on a link titled Norwegian Shooting Suspect’s ‘Manifesto’ Inspired By American Right-Wing Thinkers

Which was followed the next day by:

“F ing republicnuts I hope they get what coming to them” – on an Article in The Daily called How Republicans Screwed the Pooch

When I can’t tell the ‘good guys’ from the ‘bad guys’, there are no good guys.

And this leads me to something I’ve been trying to write about for weeks. In Part II I will discuss examples of irrationality and hypocrisy at the World Atheist Convention.

*”Big-S Skepticism” refers to the work of the skepticism movement in promoting the practice of skepticism.

**In my writings, the word “belief” refers to anything that an individual holds to be true. This includes those things that we accept on faith, because of convincing evidence, or as a philosophical conclusion.

Workshop: Skepticism in the Classroom

Matt engages the audience. Photo by Dean Baird (minor retouching and cropping by me)

Matt recapped the most important concepts from his piece last year and presented more of his fun and interesting demonstrations. I used to think that cognitive psychologists had all of the fun because we study the interesting ways that our brains and minds fool us and can blow those minds by showing them. However, after some thought I realized that the physics teachers I know have the coolest, scariest, ickiest, and most surprising demonstrations. They deal with the physical world and there are almost as many bizarre things in the physical world as there are in the mind.

No, I do not remember what I was saying when I made this face. Photo by Dean Baird (minor retouching and cropping by me)

I was a bit nervous about this workshop because some of the material I presented is very different from my usual “Oew” and “Ah” and “aHA!” stuff. In addition, its connection to promoting skepticism is distant, at least on the surface. The title of my presentation was Deep Thoughts: Facilitating Critical Thinking at All Ages. In teaching critical thinking, the age of the student is extremely important in determining methods and focus. For adults, the biggest roadblock to critical thinking is overconfidence. This is just a nice way of saying “arrogance” or “closed-mindedness”. The irony is that we humans are so overconfident that we think the term applies to other people and not ourselves.

For young children, there are few roadblocks. What we should focus on is guiding cognitive development in a way that minimizes overconfidence. In my opinion, the best way to do this is to encourage the practice of consideration and deep thinking. This, I suggest, is accomplished through discussion of philosophical questions.

I have yet to read a review of the workshop. However, the immediate feedback I received was very positive and I heard my words flowing from the mouths of others all weekend, including on the stage. It is entirely possible that others have been thinking about the same issues, but I choose to take it as evidence that my ideas were discussed and found worthy of some consideration.

A Short TAM9 Review

Unfortunately, I was still tweaking my workshop presentation and was unable to attend the other workshops. I caught only some of the activism workshop – the one I needed the most – but luckily there is a wonderful manual available which was produced by Desiree Schell and Maria Walters. Last year’s reception, which kicks off the official meeting on Thursday night, featured music and live interviews. This seemed to defeat the ‘meet and greet’ purpose of most attendees. The reception this year returned to the usual format of conversation, but there were so many people that it was difficult to find anyone. Friday morning JREF president D.J. Grothe announced the final headcount. Attendees, organizers, and presenters at TAM9 From Outer Space totaled 1652, approximately 300 more people than last year, which was 200 more than the year before.

In general, the long list of speakers booked for this year included the most inspiring scientists and science communicators in the skeptical community. The original keynote speaker, Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, is a personal hero of mine. His talk repeated much of what he covered in his very long and satisfying TAM6 talk, but I never tire of the material or his presentation style. Unfortunately, the other keynote speech, delivered by Richard Dawkins, was as boring (to me, anyway) as Tyson’s was entertaining. I have never found Dawkins to be a dynamic speaker, but this was particularly snore-worthy. He chose to spend much of his time describing his soon-to-be-released children’s book rather than discussing anything of note. Likewise, I find PZ Myers’ style a little bit dull, but I usually enjoy his talks simply because he chooses to talk about some of the most interesting topics. This year is no exception. His was one of the few talks that I missed, but I am looking forward to his discussion of alien anatomy when the JREF posts video of his talk (they committed to making all of the content available online).

Every other talk (not including the Sunday Paper Session, which varied in quality) was fantastic.

Some of the highlights for me:

• Carol Tavris delivered a speech about reducing cognitive dissonance by first considering the target’s vantage point (i.e., empathy). This was probably the best speech I have ever heard, and I have heard a LOT of speeches and talks.


Dylan Keenberg, Sabrina Gibson, and me Photo by Daniel Loxton (minor touch-ups and adjustments by me)

• Dylan Keenberg, a former student and collaborator of mine, delivered a wonderful Sunday talk describing one method for talking to others (Rogerian argumentation) which is highly likely to reduce both cognitive dissonance and misunderstandings. The most important aspect of this method is, once again, empathy. In order to more than simply fake empathy, though, one must be open to the possibility that one’s current understanding is wrong. My informal polling of TAM9 speakers and other community leaders tells me that I am justified in feeling extremely proud.
  
  

  Dylan Keenberg and Daniel Loxton Photo by Sabrina Gibson (minor touch-ups and cropping by me)

  Daniel Loxton’s discussion of these two talks (Tavris’s and Keenberg’s) as well as the two which specifically addressed activism (one by JREF Communications Sadie Crabtree and the other by union organizer and radio host Desiree Schell) is much more thoughtful, thorough, and interesting than what I could write at the moment.

• Daniel also wrote about the panel to discuss diversity. In a nutshell, the discussion was quite a mess for the first half, but the more they discussed the more each clarified, and in some cases, changed their views until they settled on a middle ground that I think all could embrace. Essentially, they agreed that applying skepticism to a more diverse set of problems/questions/domains would result in a more diverse community without compromising the integrity of skepticism as a movement. Political, moral, and social ideology are ‘outside the scope’ of skepticism because they remove objectivity. In addition, untestable claims (e.g., “Does God exist?”) are off-limits because they cannot be addressed scientifically.

  I am always thrilled to hear D.J. speak about such things from a stage because he tends to be clear, firm, and directly on-message. Last year, for example, he made a point of asking nearly every speaker to clearly define the scope of their organization and each answered with some form of “scientific skepticism”. This year, he elaborated on this by noting that he strives for a diversity of religious views.

  However, I did not leave TAM9 with the optimism that Daniel Loxton left with. One reason for this was that D.J. made those statements while discussing “Diversity in Skepticism” with Debbie Goddard, Greta Christina, Jamila Bey, and Hemant Mehta. Debbie Goddard is the campus outreach director for CFI, a secular organization with a branch devoted to skepticism (CSI). The panel’s moderator, Desiree Schell, is firmly rooted in the skeptical community as the host of Skeptically Speaking and an occasional blogger on Skeptic North. The other three panelists are closely identified with atheism and, in my opinion, have contributed little, if anything, to skepticism itself. I kept wondering who this “we” was in the discussion (e.g., “We could offer…”).

  The conflation of atheism and skepticism is a very serious problem with dire consequences. The most important of these is the degradation of the integrity of skepticism itself. The scientific method only works when scientists are open to interpreting any result objectively – to consider all evidence with an open mind and to hold all conclusions tentatively. The conclusion that there is no God cannot be arrived at empirically, so it cannot be “the result of properly-applied skepticism” as some claim. I am very worried about this trend to conflate these two for several reasons, including the manner in which the majority of atheists talk to and about the faithful.

• Bill Nye’s talk was condensed from the longer talk he gave at the Skeptic Society’s Science Symposium last month. In his position as the executive director of The Planetary Society he is concerned with science education and the consequences of failing in this area. For this reason, he is another hero to me.
• The panel discussion of the future of space exploration was almost as lively as the diversity panel would be two days later. Most notably, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s verbal sparring with Lawrence Krauss left Bill Nye and moderator Phil Plait with little room to get a word in. However, Pamela Gay managed to do so by literally shushing Tyson – three times! For that, if not for the plea during her solo talk for all in the audience to be activists for education, made her another hero. Phil’s talk last year still rings in my years, so the odd man out on that panel – Lawrence Krauss – was the only one on the stage that I would not walk a few miles, breaking a path in the snow, to hear speak.
• Speaking of heroes, there were two announcements at TAM9 which deserve to be noted. One was that The Richard Dawkins Foundation has committed to fund child care at meetings and conferences like TAM. The other involves everyone’s hero, Genie Scott. At the end of a talk in which she described the parallels between evolution denial and AGW denial (described and discussed in a great post by Donald Prothero), she announced that the NCSE is beginning an initiative to fight climate change denial in public education.
• Finally, two Jennifers, Jennifer Michael Hecht and Jennifer Ouellette, merged poetry and popular culture with skepticism and science, respectively, in the most uplifting and inspiring ways. Hecht condensed a normally hour-long history of doubt into half an hour by speaking quickly, but this only enhanced the talk. Jennifer held a cultural mirror up to science and space exploration, showing clips and images from A Trip to the Moon to Doctor Who and beyond. These were as, if not more, intellectually fulfilling as the talks given by the psychologists (okay, I’m biased) and neurologists (Elizabeth Loftus, Richard Wiseman, Susana Martinez-Conde, and Stephen Macknik all spoke). Wiseman even introduced me to a new favorite ‘suggested lyrics’ video, so I think that I will leave you with that.

I began this as a comment in response to this post by Daniel Loxton, but I had more to say than I thought, so I moved it here. Although this topic has been discussed to death, I do want to weigh in with a perspective that I have yet to see clearly expressed. Perhaps my experiences are unique, but I doubt it.

A little background:

I tend to be somewhat of a centrist. I often find that the center is the most rational place to be in most debates. In this case, very few people seem to be of the opinion that we should never raise our voices and so the argument is between those advocating for a tone which lacks ridicule, meanness, and other personal attacks and those who claim that such approaches are often effective and sometimes the best choice.

The most vocal of those on the “no ridicule” side are Daniel Loxton and Phil Plait, whose now infamous talk at the Amazing Meeting 8, which I have embedded below, has now been discussed ad nauseum, misinterpreted, clarified, praised, criticized, and every other manner of dissection. In his post, Daniel gives an excellent analysis of the discussion, but even after all of this talk, I continue to feel that the discussion is incomplete and this is my attempt at filling it in.

We all seem to agree that kindness/dickery is not dichotomous, yet we continue to talk about it as if it were.

I would not characterize myself as “kind” in most situations, which troubled me when I first began to think seriously about this issue.

I thought, “There is really no way to tell someone that they are wrong (even if you do it by simply stating what is correct) without hitting a nerve.”

Now, after much thought, discussion, and reading “dickery”, I have realized that being direct, and even forceful, is not “being a dick”.

I do not believe that there is ever a time when ridicule and ad homs are the only choices and I think that there are very few circumstances when they are the best choice. The only situation which comes to mind is when one has been repeatedly subjected to such arguments themselves. (Of course, I do not always make the best choice, but I’m human.)

That said, we do not need to be “kind” or “gentle”, which often requires sugar-coating criticism, to avoid being a dick.

At least by my definition of those terms, the sugar-coated approach is usually as ineffective as vitriol (yes, I can back that up with literature).

What we need to be, as Daniel mentioned, is truthful. And what we need to do, also as he mentioned, is construct valid arguments with supported premises. Ad homs and ridicule have no place in rational debate.

Of course, rational debate often doesn’t work, either, because people are very poor reasoners. However, I stand by my conclusion that it has a better chance than any form of dickery has of advancing our cause, which I understand to be the promotion of critical thinking.

We are not here to convince people to adopt a party line – a set of conclusions. If that were the goal, all of those morally and ethically questionable persuasive techniques would be part of an effective arsenal. And, were that the goal, I would not be a part of it. We aim to give people the motivation and skills to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions – to be rational.

I find the irony of this debate beyond words. We can promote reason using irrational personal attacks? Really?

Phil’s talk:

Phil Plait – Don’t Be A Dick from JREF on Vimeo.

SPOILER!!

Read this post first, please.

SPOILER STARTS HERE

Here’s the story…

I caught this tweet this morning:
@BadAstronomer: Beam me up some breakfast. Warp factor three egg omelette. http://twitpic.com/27mfxu

I will pretty much click on anything that starts with “beam me up”, so I did and, as you know, I saw this:

Well, I really saw this:

I even heard theme music in my head. I imagined “NCC-1701″ written on the hull in salsa. Because the original series is the cornerstone and James T. Kirk is the greatest captain of all time, space, film, and literature.

But… would I have perceived it as such if:

• the tweet did not include references to Star Trek?
• the tweet was not from Phil Plait, whom I know to be an avid fellow scifi fanatic?
• the tweet was not from Phil Plait, whom I know to be at Comic-con right now for several reasons?
• I was not lamenting not being at Comic-con myself?
• had not just rearranged a shelf on which our Original Series collection sat, taunting me?

Would Phil Plait had perceived the icon of the god that is Captain James T. Kirk if he were not at Comic-con? If he were not a sci-fi fanatic? You get the picture.

The experience of seeing the DVDs or being at (or thinking about) Comic-con is called a “prime” in the psychological literature, because it activates related information, lowering your perceptual threshold for it. The prime prepares you, in a way, to receive related input.

The tweet itself is a suggestion; it is information about to experience. You then use, in part, top-down processes to interpret the image given that information.

Some good examples of how this works using another sense (hearing) can be found in one of my first blog entries about a very naughty Elmo doll.

Priming effects sometimes confound pareidolia (the tendency to perceive familiar patterns in otherwise meaningless input). However, in laboratory tests, such as that conducted by Vokey & Read and some work a student of mine presented at the Western Psychological Association convention this year, little is perceived from very ambiguous sensory information without priming or suggestion. The “Elmo” post includes several illustrations of this.

So, the question remains: Did we see the Enterprise because it really does look like the Enterprise, or we just amazingly geeky?

Either way, I’m going to add it to my collection. If my readers are even HALF as geeky as me…

Vokey JR, & Read JD (1985). Subliminal messages. Between the devil and the media. The American psychologist, 40 (11), 1231-9 PMID: 4083611

In the spring of 2009, one of my brainy students caught me in the hallway before class and pleaded, “Would you please give me something to tell these nutty people to calm down?”

After a few seconds I realized what she was dealing with and asked, “The Aporkalypse?”

Of course we were talking about the H1N1 scare which, at the time, was still called “swine flu”.

When I explained that, no, I couldn’t give her anything because we simply didn’t know enough, she said, “But these people are buying boxes full of hand sanitizer!”

Now, that I could help her with. There is literature addressing the ability of hand sanitizer to prevent illness, but we simply did not know enough about this new strain of virus to predict what would happen.

Nevertheless, most people jumped to conclusions. Those who did not panic summarily dismissed the issue. This kind of thing recyles itself often (climate change, economics, etc.) and other issues, such as scientific illiteracy, mask the more basic phenomenon: We don’t like uncertainty, so we tend to make decisions about what is true with the information we have, even if that information is insufficient.

This is particularly problematic for skeptics who, once they become fired up about a topic, are often blinded by their passions. Of course, this is true for all of us, but since I spend a lot of my time with skeptics, my anecdotes are about them.

For example, in May of last year, I was a little surprised about the reaction, especially of PZ Myers to this court ruling reported by The Orange County Register:

James Corbett, a 20-year teacher at Capistrano Valley High School, was found guilty of referring to Creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” during a 2007 classroom lecture, denigrating his former Advanced Placement European history student, Chad Farnan.

The reader comments are more of the same polarized complaints of pursecution that I have come to expect from Pharyngula, but there are a few voices of reason.

If this is not the first time you have read this blog, you might wonder why I am not upset by this ruling myself. I am not upset because I actually read the ruling and it seems obvious to me that the ruling itself is a win for science education.

If you read the original complaint, you will discover that this was a public high school history teacher whose mocking of religion during lectures would put PZ to shame, yet comments such as “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth” were ruled as having a pedagogical, secular purpose. In fact, a very long list of clearly derogatory comments (some of which are quoted here) were fine, but this single comment was ruled as having no secular purpose because it was made outside the context of the classroom in his role as an advisor for the school newspaper.

Ed Brayton covers this pretty well, I think, in two posts on the matter.

I bring up this example because the reactions on Facebook and other blogs were much like PZ’s knee-jerk, “How can this happen!” and I think that many people would have a completely different perspective if they took a few minutes to get some facts.

I now realize that it is highly likely that PZ’s reaction would be the same, however, and should have know that at the time, given his last paragraph:

Thirdly, and this must be said, Chad Farnan [the high school student who filed the law suit] is a self-righteously moronic creationist wanker who deserves to have his stupidity pointed out publicly, in the classroom and out of it, far and wide. Spread the word.

Where am I going with this?

Earlier this week, California health authorities released a statement declaring an epidemic of whooping cough which has killed 5 babies already this year. There were several articles including New York Times and Consumer Reports.

Being particularly sensitive to antivaccination propaganda and remembering Dana McCaffery, I was immediately interested and read several articles. I could find nothing to indicate that refusals to vaccinate were the primary culprit.

Then I saw a link to an article on my Facebook feed and these were the first few comments:

“Thanks, Jenny.”

The next post was a link titled “Jenny McCarthy kills another five infants in California.”

*sigh*

I am as anti-anti-vax as they come, but I find it distressing when my side sounds like the other side. I felt much as I do when a pharmaceutical company commits fraud.

The comment about ignorance is particularly troubling, since the commenter is ignorant themselves – ignorant of the fact that Whooping Cough did not simply “appear” anywhere. Vaccinations have done a lot to eradicate diseases like small pox, but Whooping Cough has never been close to being stamped out.

I wondered if anyone actually read the article, because there was nothing in it about vaccine fear.

There are many, many sources to blame for the increases, and vaccinations are certainly the best approach we have to stop the spread of infectious disease, but fear of vaccinations is not likely to be among the most important factors in undervaccination in this case. In 2005, the year of the last abnormal outbreak, research showed that it was not even a significant factor:

Studies have yet to show any obvious reason for the increases. No significant outbreaks have been traced to the children of parents who oppose childhood vaccination. “We’ve looked, and we can’t see any obvious connection,” Woodfill said.

There are many things which much be taken into account in this case, including (some of this information is included in the same 2005 article quoted above):

• Outbreaks of pertussis (Whooping Cough) are cyclical and spikes are normal. As we all know from climate change research, data points and bits are often misleading. “Four times as many cases as last year” is very scary, but it is taken out of context.
• The rate of pertussis has been increasing since at least the 1980s. This may or may not be a “true” increase because diagnosis for pertussis has improved with the availability of a better test in 1995 and with better awareness. Many feel that pertussis was likely to have been underdiagnosed in the past because the symptoms (especially in adults) are similar to bronchitis or flu.
• Immunity often fades without boosters, something we have not known until fairly recently. Pregnant women are often tested for antibodies to some diseases (I discovered I needed to be re-innoculated for Rubella myself when I was pregnant with my first child), but most adults don’t bother with vaccines because they think their childhood vaccines were sufficient.
• A booster is recommended for children entering middle school and many states require it for school, but not California.
• California has a large population of immigrants. The 5 children who died were latino. The areas with the highest numbers of cases are areas with large segments of migrant farm workers – poor and uneducated, with little access to quality health care. Although vaccines are free to children on Medical and through other programs, how are parents to know that these vaccines are needed if they do not have proper preventative care? How will they know where or how to receive them?
  Furthermore, many of these immigrants are undocumented. The are unlikely to seek these services or information if they are afraid of deportation.

A few articles, particularly in newspapers for affluent counties like Marin, have cited vaccine refusal as the culprit. They may be correct, but in each case their evidence was the hunch of a single doctor they interviewed. That’s just not enough evidence for a reasonable skeptic.

My point here is not that anti-vaccination propaganda is acceptable. My point is that this issue is complicated, and knee-jerk reactions without even taking the time to read the the information on which one is commenting are irresponsible and damaging.

I left a comment on that thread and the first response was disheartening:

Ok. So the article doesn’t represent the world JMcC has made, but rather the one she wants. Abortion clinic bombings aren’t universal either, but I’m still comfortable using a bit of hyperbole when telling Focus on the Family to fuck off. It’s hard to fit entire position papers into FB threads, and “Immigration Body Count” would be a bit of a red herring.

First, I do not believe that Jenny McCarthy wants children to die. I have no problem calling her a moron as I have in the past. People who have had the truth explained to them as often and as simply as she has and still insist on moving forward with their deadly campaign have earned that much. However, ignorance, arrogance, and incompetence are not wishing children dead, nor is it a reason to wish someone dead as one of the other commenters did.

But what really strikes me is the odd reference to a red herring which is backwards. There is no “hyperbole” here and going off on Jenny McCarthy in reaction to this announcement is a bit like shooting someone for dropping their cigarette butt into the lake while watching a barge dump 3 tons of trash into it 50 yards away.

This is a fallacy of relevance and it chips away at the credibility of anyone who tries to argue that such propaganda is harmful.

Not long after reading this, I saw a link to Bad Astronomy. It is a passionate and certainly heart felt tyrade over the anti-vaccination efforts of people like Jenny McCarthy and Meryl Dorey, but it starts with a discussion of the Whooping Cough epidemic as its title suggests. Phil is one of the more rational among well-known skeptics and I expected more from him.

So I left a comment.

Phil did reply to my comment, and at some point he added a caveat to his post. I do not generally reread posts unless asked, but part of his reply did not sit well with me. In fact, it angered me.

But it’s also true the movement has been making footholds all over the country, and I will take opportunities to point that out when I can.

I felt dismissed, and my anger is clearly reflected in my response:

Defensive much?

By this logic, I should write nice long rant about subtle sexism every time women only make up 20% of a company’s employee list, regardless of how many women applied for those jobs.

And have you thought about what this does to your credibility? To our credibility?

Yes, the anti-vax movement SUCKS. But I’ll repeat what I said because I think it’s important enough to say again: knee-jerk reactions don’t help.

Neither does a defensive response when someone points out that you may have reacted emotionally rather than rationally. You’re human. People will actually admire you more if you admit that.

Just sayin’.

He rebutted that I had overreacted.

Knowing how Phil feels about this topic, I believe quite strongly that, if the shoe were on the other foot, he would have lectured me on the seriousness of the matter. Crying wolf while the sheep are dying of starvation does more than harm Little Boy Blue’s credibility. It prompts people to devote resources to a wolf hunt which are better spent feeding the sheep.

And he would be right to do so. How can we call these people ignorant if we knowingly incite others to make statements of ignorance, like “The disease is making a come-back” and “Thanks, Jenny”? … and if we never correct them? or ourselves?

If I had spent a little more time editing, I probably would have left out the two words of sarcasm, but I cannot say for certain that I would. I am a little person with fewer than 100 readers and I felt slapped down for criticizing someone with millions who is hero-worshipped by most of the community. If you doubt his reach, try Googling “Bad Astronomy” sometime. It took every ounce of courage I have to post a comment in the first place, knowing that many people I consider friends would not take kindly to their friend being criticized.

I felt that this issue is extremely important and it is one of many examples in which passion and polarization get in the way rational thinking. Perhaps another is the double-standards we apply to so many situations.

Just as none of us are completely free of sacred cows, none of us are completely objective. And none of us are perfect, either. For my part, I promise that my intent is always to be the best person that I can be; it is never my intent to be mean unless I (or a friend) am under attack.

I also promise that I will insult people. Sometimes that will be intentional. Sometimes it will be because I was thoughtless and insensitive. Most of the time, however, it will either be my own knee-jerk reaction to feeling dismissed, ignored, or slighted. Every time it will be me being me, for better or for worse.

I think I would rather be disliked for being honest with a touch of sarcasm than be liked for having nothing except praise. The latter also means that I have little which is constructive to say.