This is an updated version of a post that originally appeared on the Woo Fighters website in 2010.

In what is now considered “the golden days” of skepticism, I experienced first-hand the power of grass roots activism. I will never know if or how my view of the world would differ if I had never taken that psychology class in my junior year of high school, but I am very, very glad that I did.

I was very clearly excited to be talking about skepticism in education in 2011 at TAM9. I brought three students that year and one of my former students (Dylan Keenberg) spoke as part of the Sunday Paper session.
– photo by Dean Baird

When people ask “When did you become a skeptic?”, I have to answer that I have always been one. I never blindly accepted claims and I always looked for evidence. I held my beliefs tentatively. Where I went wrong was in the assumption that the “default” conclusion should be to consider a claim true unless the evidence refutes it. I thought that a lack of evidence meant that I could not draw a conclusion. I was naive and ignorant.

From a very young age, I was fascinated with psychic phenomena. I thought that ghosts were silly; Houdini made that clear. I had seen The Amazing Randi on The Tonight Show, so I knew that Uri Geller was a fraud and I never really bought into the typical magic tricks, anyway. But I was obsessed with ESP (extrasensory perception) and numerology. I had many obsessions, but these were different because I was never satisfied. I read about “cosmic twins” and the predictions of Nostradamus. I studied palm lines. I tried to move things with my mind. I made a set of Zener cards and did my best to test myself and my friends. Nothing ever panned out. Yet it did not occur to me to seek alternative explanations.

A more appropriate question than “When did you become a skeptic?”, I think, is “When did you stop believing?” And my answer to that is in October of 1982.

My high school in the greater Sacramento area did not offer Latin, but it did have an introductory psychology course and Mr. Tamblyn (now Dr., I see) managed to cover more than I see in most college-level courses. We recreated Asch’s conformity trials with students from other classes. We learned about the Stroop Effect. But what he and a grass roots skeptic taught us about critical thinking was the most valuable of gifts.

In early October, we had a guest speaker. She was a psychic. She gave several cold readings, including one of me. She said that she saw me sitting at a piano. Now, I didn’t play piano at the time, but I had wanted to learn since I got my first organ (they were very popular in the 60s and 70s) at the age of four. My parents hinted that we might finally have space for piano (they gave me an electronic keyboard that year). I was convinced that she was tapping into some unseen energy. She read several other people and we were all suitably amazed.

About a week later, another psychic visited us. He surveyed the class, asking how many of us believed in psychic phenomena, and about 3/4th of the students raised their hands.

He did several cold readings, some amazing mind-reading card tricks, and a few other feats. He entertained us us for about an hour. Then he polled the class again. Only a few did not raise their hands this time.

At this point he stopped cold and said, “I am not psychic. I am a magician. Everything I have done today has been a trick.”

He showed us how he did a few of the tricks. He explained the method of cold readings. We discussed the way the psychic the week prior may have accomplished what she did. At one point, I looked down at the books sitting on my desk and noticed that I had doodled all over one the paper covers – a piano keyboard. I also carried a key ring with a note-shaped fob. I don’t know if either was visible when she was there, but it was not inconceivable. Together, we produced an explanation just about everything that we’d been amazed by the week before.

What he had to say next had a much greater impact, though. In fact, it was the end for me. It was the information I needed to finally let go of the nagging question about whether supernatural abilities were real.

He told us that he and a few others had founded a group called Bay Area Skeptics.

He told us about the challenge.

Bay Area Skeptics had been founded in June and operated, at that time, as a local chapter of The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), now known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI). Bay Area Skeptics offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who could demonstrate supernatural powers. Although this group and challenge was new, James Randi had been offering a reward (which by that time was $10,000) since 1964. The fact that nobody had claimed this money after nearly two decades told me everything I needed to know. The money was there. All they had to do was show their powers.

This seemed utterly ridiculous to me and still does to this day. I concluded that the odds that psychic abilities existed were very, very low.

So I let go.

Some students were pretty angry about the ruse and the final poll revealed that a few (I think there were 2 or 3 out of about 45) remained believers, but many of us were amazed. Amazed at our own willingness to see what we wanted to see. Amazed at how skilled both the psychic and the skeptic were. Amazed at how little we knew about the evidence (or lack thereof).

It was not until well into college that I fully understood that the appropriate “default” conclusion was the null, but what happened on that fall day in 1982 was a foundation for that concept. It also taught me that what we do not see can be just as important as what we see.

Although I remained an ardent skeptic, over the years my participation in skepticism as a movement varied. At times I diligently maintained memberships in various organizations. I tried Mensa for a while, but was very disappointed to discover that their special interest groups for nonsense like astrology outnumbered the groups with a rational focus by about 5 to 1. Most other groups were either religious or game-focused. At times I paid little attention to issues of skeptical activism. Eventually, I kind of forgot about that day in psychology class.

Then while studying psychology as an undergrad and grad student many years later I had a mentor/professor whose office was filled with old Skeptical Inquirer magazines. Dr. Donald Butler’s courses in research methods and statistics were built around skeptical concepts. He reminded me that skepticism is the best lens through which to view the world.

In April of 2000, I attended the annual convention of the Western Psychological Association in Portland, Oregon. It was my first academic conference after returning to school in 1997. I found that it was not all that different from other types of conventions and conferences, but the talks were so much more interesting. I was thrilled to see Michael Shermer and Ray Hyman on the schedule and attended both of their talks. Shermer described the findings of his survey on religion (something I found particularly interesting since I had responded to that survey myself) and discussed his book How We Believe. Hyman’s talk was titled Science and Pseudoscience. As Dr. Hyman wowed the crowd with rope tricks and mind reading, all of the memories of that day in high school came flooding back, but I could not recall the skeptic’s name. Dr. Shermer and Dr. Hyman speculated that it was Bob Steiner, and James Randi offered the same guess later in an email. However, the internet eventually provided enough clues and I now know that it was Terence Sandbek, a clinical psychologist and professor at American River College.

The list of people who have taught me to appreciate skeptical thought and who have fine-tuned my philosophy is not a short one, but I do not know if I would have come to appreciate these people if it were not for the work of a skeptic and a high school teacher back in 1982. So, thank you Dr. Sandbek, for showing me that what appears to be an extraordinary feat is usually simply a practiced one and to Dr. Tamblyn, for showing me how easily we accept extraordinary claims without evidence. Oh, and for teaching me to drive! (Yes, he taught driver’s ed, too.)

I can think of no pursuit as rewarding and valuable as the study, promotion, and teaching of critical thinking, science, and skepticism.

Several people have asked me if I plan to respond to PZ Myers, considering the “beating” he gave me and others in a post last week.

No, I don’t. I may if I see a good reason, but the truth is that responding to him is a bit like debating a creationist. Sometimes one should, but this is not one of those times. In this case, PZ has so grossly misrepresented my writings and statements that it is very clear that no productive discussion can occur with him on the matter. This is not the first time he has done so and not the first time that I have essentially ignored it. The post is almost entirely built on mischaracterizations, straw men, and falsehoods. If anyone else wants to discuss it, I will be happy to do so after you have read what I actually wrote, context and all.

Instead, I think that this is a good time to gather some of the more recent materials on the matter in one place because I strongly believe that most of the discussion in the general community over these issues involve new members trying to get a handle on what we’re all about. So, I will summarize my views on the matter in a few bullet points and provide a list of links to posts, publications, and videos what are free to all.

I will not be discussing tone and approach, but some of the materials do touch on this issue. I disagree with Novella and a few others on that question and it is always a discussion worth having, but separately.

As always, I welcome comments, but ask that if you plan to leave a comment arguing against my stance, please look through the links and read/watch those which appear to address your argument before you do so. I really hate repeating myself, especially when I have written what I think is a clear explanation, so I am quite likely to respond by referring you to one of the links.

A summary of my position and opinions on the issues:

• Skepticism, secularism, humanism, and atheism (as an issue for activism, not a conclusion) are distinct ideologies with differing central values. These distinctions are important for several reasons, including organizational focus, communication, and personal objectivity. Those are covered in more detail in the materials linked.
• Many people have adopted more than one of these ideologies (I, for example, have adopted all of them to some degree), creating a “greater” community we tend to refer to as the “rationalist” community. Not all community members have adopted all ideologies.
• Activism is about goals, and organizations form around specific goals to promote specific ideologies. Although the “greater rationalist community” shares a few core values, most importantly a naturalistic world view, each organization uses its resources in different ways, supporting different priorities.
• Central to one of these ideologies, atheism, is the conclusion that there is no higher power (god). The ideological part is the value that belief in a higher power is harmful. There is more to atheism than that and I will not outline how it differs from secularism, etc., but these points are important because conflation of the conclusion with the value is one source of conflict.
• At the core of scientific skepticism is the view that evidence-based reasoning is the best way to decide what is and is not true.  Furthermore, the only legitimate way to acquire evidence is through the scientific method, which is basically a combination of systematic observation (empiricism) and reason. Therefore, scientific skepticism involves using the scientific method to test claims.
• The major Skeptic organizations have expressed missions to promote scientific skepticism. They do so for a number of reasons, both epistemic and pragmatic, most of which have been discussed at length in past days, weeks, months, years, and decades (and so on).
  • From a “best practices” standpoint, skepticism reaches more people by focusing its efforts on testable claims because it can include those people who have not adopted one or more of the other ideologies I mentioned (e.g., atheism).
  • From a philosophical standpoint, science is a method for acquiring knowledge, all of which is tentative. Because nobody knows with absolute certainty what is true, the method is much more important than personal conclusions. The method is how we can convince other people that our conclusions are accurate.
  • Also from a best practices standpoint, promoting methods (which includes sharing evidence and information such as alternative explanations for events) provides people with the tools to evaluate other claims more effectively.
  • From both a philosophical and best practices standpoint, promoting personal conclusions rather than method is a violation of basic scientific tenets and logic. Likewise, when we judge a person’s ability to use methods based solely on their beliefs (e.g., statements such as “Christians are not good skeptics”), we are judging an argument by its conclusion and not the merits of the argument itself. This is not scientific at all. Ironically, it’s bad skepticism.
• Skepticism activists do promote some conclusions, such as the conclusion that vaccines are relatively safe and effective, however, we do so with great care. Where scientific consensus is weak or lacking, expertise and personal responsibility is vital.
• Objectivity is a central feature of scientific thinking and, therefore, of scientific skepticism. Although no human being is purely objective (arguable, but I think most of us agree), one of the main purposes of the scientific method is to remove subjectivity from the inquiry process. In practice, it’s imperfect, but if we throw our hands up on this issue because scientists are not unbiased, we must reject science altogether. It’s that central.
• Because objectivity is central to skepticism and values such as political ideologies should not drive the practice of skepticism or science, but should be informed by the findings of science and skeptical inquiry (e.g, science cannot tell us if gun control is good, but it can tell us if a specific regulation is likely to reduce the number of deaths by gun). In other words, economy, religion, and feminism are not “off-limits”. They should be and are subjected to the same treatment that all other topics are subjected to. They appear to receive different treatment merely because the claims made in these areas tend to be more complex and more difficult to test (if they are testable at all). Furthermore, these topics tend to be attached to strongly-held values and, because human beings are notoriously tenacious in their beliefs, more controversial.
• The difficulties with discussions of complex topics makes internal agreement less common and without internal agreement, good outreach efforts are not possible because no coherent, unified message is possible. The goal of most activist organizations is outreach more than community and they are trying to maximize success, not put up roadblocks to it. Therefore, they tend to focus on claims which provide a more predictable and clear outcome.

I could get into more detail, but that isn’t my goal with this post. So, I will stop here. Following is a list of excellent materials which discuss, in one form or another, the scope of skeptic activism, its purposes, and its value.

Free Publications (these three should be required reading):

• Where Do We Go From Here? by Daniel Loxton – The most to-the-point discussion of why we do what we do, sometimes referred to as a skeptical manifesto
• What Do I Do Next? edited by Daniel Loxton – a collection of discussion about skeptical activism by leading skeptics
• Why Is There A Skeptical Movement? by Daniel Loxton – A two-part essay with highlights from the history of the movement and a practical discussion of scope

Blog Posts/Web Publications:

• Scientific Skepticism, CSICOP, and the Local Groups by Steven Novella and David Bloomberg – a primer on scientific skepticism and organizational scope
• Bigfoot Skeptics, New Atheists, Politics and Religion by Steven Novella – a response to PZ Myers and another blogger who suggested that skeptical activism needs to expand its scope
• PZ Replies by Steven Novella – a continuation of the dialogue with PZ Myers, responding to a reply in which Myers accuses several of us (myself included) of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice
• Scientific Skepticism, Rationalism, and Secularism by Steven Novella – more clarifications incorporating the discussions which followed the dialogue with PZ.
• Steven Novella Steven Novella Takes on Some of the Oldest Clichés About Scientific Skepticism-Again by Daniel Loxton – more on the conversation between Novella and Myers
• You May Be Forgiven For Thinking That Some Skeptics Are Taking A Firm Stance, But… by Kylie Sturgess – more on the conversation (and a reiteration that the arguments are not new) with added emphasis on the importance of educating one’s self before criticizing
• Further Thoughts on Atheism by Daniel Loxton – discusses the need compartmentalization of concepts (atheism and skepticism), mostly for pragmatic reasons
• The Surprising Twists of TAM9’s Diversity Panel by Daniel Loxton – discusses the way that a focus on methodology allows for a more inclusive group
• The Conflation of Atheism and Skepticism: Fact or Fiction? by Kylie Sturgess – a discussion of the problems with confusing methods with conclusions
• Skepticism and Religion – Again by Steven Novella – a reminder of the reasons behind mission focus and what it does and does not mean in terms of how skeptics approach religious claims
• A Few Comments on the Nature and Scope of Skepticism by Jim Lippard – a discussion of the problems with conflating skepticism with atheism and assuming that one leads to the other. This blog contains a large number of posts on scope, many of which are linked in this post, so I will only link to this one, but I highly recommend browsing through them
• On the Scope of Skeptical Inquiry by Massimo Pigliucci – discusses the relationships among philosophy, skepticism, atheism, etc.
• What Is Skepticism, Anyway? by Michael Shermer – also includes a video, so it’s listed twice here
• Is There a New Atheism at the JREF? by D.J. Grothe – a response to accusations that the JREF’s mission might be shifting with an emphasis on the organization’s priorities
• Media Guide to Skepticism by Sharon Hill – Sharon worked with community leaders to produce a summary of the purpose and scope of organized skepticism.
• Blog post by Daniel Loxton introducing a video of a panel at TAM 2013.
• John Horgan is “Skeptical of Skeptics” by Steve Novella
• Bigfoot Serses the Quest for World Peace? by Daniel Loxton

Posts on this blog:

• Take Back Skepticism Part I: The Elephant in the Room – The first in a three-part series about the scope of skepticism, tone, and arguments about both
• Take Back Skepticism, Part II: The Overkill Window – the second in a three-part series which focuses on the propogation of hate and irrational arguments about tone and scope
• Take Back Skepticism, Part III: The Dunning-Kruger Effect – the third in a three-part series which focuses on overconfidence and anti-intellectualism displayed during arguments about scope
• Paved With Good Intentions – about the dangers of allowing values to drive the process and interfere with objectivity
• Why the “Critical” in Critical Thinking – covers the basic falsification approach in science and critical thinking to explain the purpose of critique
• You Can’t Judge an Argument by Its Conclusion – describes the Belief Bias (a form of Confirmation Bias) and explains why judging a person’s ability to reason based on their beliefs is fallacious (ironically)
• Mission Drift, Conflation, and Food For Thought – discusses some of the dangers of “mission drift” and attempting to add values such as political ideologies to organizational missions
• What Matters – a response to the misguided view that skeptical activism does not focus on things that matter
• Scientific Skepticism: A Tutorial – about definitions and scope

To watch/listen

• Overlapping Magisteria, TAM2012 – Jamy Ian Swiss talks about the importance of mission focus, the value of the work that skeptics do, and the reason we value methods more than conclusions
• Skepticism is a Humanism, NECSS 2010 – D.J. Grothe’s keynote, which discusses the scope of skeptical activism, noting that, although it is methods-based we are motivated to activism by humanist values
• On the Ledge, Skeptrack at Dragon*Con 2011 – A panel discussion with Eugenie Scott, Margaret Downey, D.J. Grothe, and me, moderated by Derek Colanduno about the overlap of atheism and skepticism, its challenges, advantages, and pitfalls. Ideology is discussed about half way through
• What Is Skepticism, Anyway? by Michael Shermer – also includes a blog post, so it’s listed twice here
• Skeptical Scope and Mission, a panel at TAM 2013 with myself, Daniel Loxton, Steven Novella, Jamy Ian Swiss, and moderated by Sharon Hill.
• How To Be A Bad Skeptic, Q.E.D. – D.J. Grothe’s rundown on some of the dos and don’ts of skepticism. You’ll have to guess which parts are facetious and which are serious. By this point, you should be able to do this.

I will add to this post as new content becomes available, so if I have missed any that you think should be included (and it is freely available online), please contact me on Twitter or Facebook so that I can add them into the body of the post. I will also apologize now if I have missed something important. There has been so much discussion of this topic that I was a bit overwhelmed trying to put together just the highlights.

Why do skeptics criticize Jenny McCarthy and Bill Maher?

Because they publicly trash mainstream science despite lacking the expertise to properly analyze methodology and draw different conclusions (how scientists do it).

Science uses peer review (not just “review”) to weed out bad studies, test the robustness of findings, and discuss appropriate conclusions. Peers are people who work in the same field – experts.

Scientists in related fields (or even completely different fields) are sometimes able to criticize the methodology of a given study, but big-picture stuff usually requires specific expertise. Non-scientist experts in a field of science are rare. VERY rare.

Pseudoscience and fraud are not science, so please don’t drag out the straw men and accuse me of claiming that only scientists can be good skeptics. I’m not. Think about the role that magicians have played in exposing so-called psychics, for example – the right tool for the job.

So, what am I trying to say here? Well, I’m trying to say that skeptics should criticize people who talk out of their asses about science on a public stage.

And I’m trying to say that skeptics should criticize it rather than do it themselves.

A skeptic, like anyone else, is entitled to make a mistake or two, even a big one. However, making a habit out of spouting one’s uneducated/under-educated opinion (or regurgitating one’s own interpretation of a cherry-picked opinion of an expert) from a stage is not what good skeptics do; it’s what people like McCarthy and Maher do. It shouldn’t be tolerated, much less encouraged.

But this has been discussed before:

http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/22/what-if-anything-can-skeptics-say-about-science/
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1338-need-advice-ask-an-expert.html
http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2010/12/know-what-you-know/

For the record, there is NOTHING morally or ethically wrong with voicing one’s uneducated (or under-educated) opinion during private discussion or even in a public forum of equal footing. That’s called “discussion”.

This applies to both criticism and promotion, by the way.

Sometimes it is obvious where the line between pseudoscience and science is and sometimes it’s not. SkeptiCamps are a great place to get one’s feet wet and learn where those lines are, but I must warn you that even at these casual events, research-by-Google isn’t usually well-accepted. Do your homework if you’re planning to speak about pseudoscience.

And if you’re planning to talk about science, be very, very careful. Remember that reading a book or two, even if written by experts in the field, does not equate to the 10,000 hours of study required to gain expertise.

A note on why I wrote this:

There has been a lot of discussion about speaker lists in recent months.

I do not condone ultimatums or demands–attempts to bully organizations into punishing people you don’t like because you feel entitled to control. However, I have serious concerns about the quality of speakers at skeptic events and strongly believe that public discussion of the problems in general is needed.

These concerns are not new, but they have continued to grow and currently weigh very heavily on my mind.

So, sorry to be all judgmental and everything, but this stuff matters.

The highlight of TAM2012 was an easy pick. That does not mean that the talks were bad by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, despite what some felt was a scarcity of “big draw” speakers (e.g., high-profile science communicators like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye or high-profile atheists such as Richard Dawkins), the talks were as excellent as always. This was no surprise to me, though, because I have come to expect that kind of quality from those in the line-up.  I could list the talks I particularly enjoyed, but that would be far too long a post and my Twitter feed recorded some of the highlights. Many will be also posted by the JREF in coming months.

The meeting was smaller than last year (~1200 vs. >1600), but this is a good turnout considering that last year the line-up included both Tyson and Nye. Sizable, also, despite the hubbub that led some people to ‘boycott’, the economy, the growing number of skeptic, secular, and atheism conferences offered each year, and (probably the biggest factor, but the one that everyone seems to forget) the fact that Comicon was held in San Diego the same weekend!

For my part, I was honored to participate in a discussion on the main stage on the Future of Skepticism with an impressive panel: SkeptiCamp creator Reed Esau, skeptical IT guru Tim Farley, and long-time activist Jamy Ian Swiss (moderated by D.J. Grothe). I also presented a workshop on skepticism in classroom settings for a third time, along with Matt Lowry,  and I would like to thank the wonderful panel of educators (Dale Roy, Dean Baird, Ani Aharonian, and Sachie Howard) who took the stage for a round table-style Q & A with only a couple of hours’ (or less) notice.

So, the weekend was a good one. And the video embedded here was the stand-out highlight of it. If you have read more than a post or two on this blog, it will be immediately clear to you why it was the highlight and why I found it important enough to urge you to watch it. I should also note that almost everyone I spoke with at TAM found this talk to be, far and above, the best of the weekend if not more. Please watch it before continuing.

Jamy spoke clearly about the difference between discussion of and battling over issues such as scope, definitions, and goals. What he hinted at, but did not say, is that discussion can only happen among those who are educated about those issues (or those who are trying to educate themselves about them). With a few exceptions, it is usually when people who do not fully understand the nature of what we do insist on being allowed to redefine our work that distinctions become battle lines.

One sign that someone does not fully understand scientific skepticism is something Jamy hit hard – that skepticism, secularism, and atheism are different things. When we all understand this (good fences), we can identify our common goals and work together (good neighbors). The differences are complex, but as Jamy noted, we have general rules for practical purposes that allow us to operate while the philosophical discussions can continue among those interested. However, shallow treatment of the issues (or outright dismissal of the ‘rules’) is an ironic form of anti-intellectualism.

When Elizabeth Cornwell’s TAM2012 talk is posted, I hope you will revisit this post. She discusses the characteristics and behaviors of cyberbullies and it should be clear how it fits here. You might notice the enormous overlap in the sets of people who conflate atheism/skepticism and those who argue for verbal aggression (A.K.A., bullying and ridicule) as a means of outreach (and, apparently, as a general communication style).  It does not need to be this way.

I attended a couple of workshops on Thursday and one was interesting as well as relevant. “Coalition Building for the Skeptical Activist” was lead by the most qualified person I can think of to lead such a thing, Doubtful News founder Sharon Hill. Also on the panel were Kitty Mervine, whose website helps those who believe that they were abducted by aliens connect with other possible abductees and learn about alternative explanations for their experiences, Chris Stedman, an interfaith activist and author of the upcoming book “Faitheist“, American Atheists president Dave Silverman, and vice president of the Secular Coalition for America David Noise. What an interesting combination.

Sharon, Kitty, and Chris are all known for their bridge-building style. Chris’s efforts center around coalitions with diverse groups to work toward common goals. Chris is not a skeptical activist, yet his work and ours overlap in several areas. Chris is the kind of “good neighbor” that Jamy discussed in his speech.

Silverman and Noise, on the other hand, seemed odd choices for a workshop on coalitions. Noise seemed to echo a lot of what Silverman said; he seemed more of an activist for atheism than secularism. During the panel, the language and content both Silverman and Noise provided was related to ingroup-outgroup thinking. They stopped short of discussing the kinds of militant strategies PZ Myers has talked about, but considering that Silverman describes his organization as the “Marines of the Freethought Movement”, it is cause for concern. I heard nothing about building coalitions from either of them, only unsupported assumptions and uncreative, brute-force solutions to problems.

On Thursday, before the main stage events even began, Silverman tweeted this:

Tabling at #tam2012. You can be a skeptic and you can be a theist. But if you’re both, you’re not very good at one of them.

— David Silverman (@MrAtheistPants) July 12, 2012

There are so many things wrong with this statement that it’s hard to know where to start, but I wanted to reply with this entire post. The next morning I gave in to temptation and tweeted:

Pondering #TAM2012 tweets. “If you believe X, you’re not good at skepticism” is poor skepticism (it’s Belief Bias; form of confirm. bias). — Barbara Drescher (@badrescher) July 13, 2012

While Silverman is not known for “waging war” with skeptics over where to draw lines, he has attempted to redefine skepticism (or perhaps simply shown his lack of understanding of it). Furthermore, this kind of insult (which, I will note once again, comes from a place of ignorance) to skeptics who are not atheists does not even remotely resemble an attempt at discussion. Neither did his reply to Kylie Sturgess when she dared to disagree:

#thetruthhurts “@kyliesturgess: Couldn’t disagree MORE: You can be a skeptic & a theist. If you’re both, you’re not good at one of them.”

— David Silverman (@MrAtheistPants) July 13, 2012

In my last post, I took issue with the a number of problems with a particular straw man complaint that organized skepticism is too narrow. As part of that post, I wrote:

…skepticism, secularism, and atheism are different things. Among them, secularism has the closest ties with liberal ideology, but even secularism is not liberalism.

Shane Brady left a comment which included:

The one panel from last year’s TAM that DJ seemed to take the most criticism for, seemed to be because he resisted an overt support of a particular political idealogy, not a hesitance to attack claims.

The intersection of these two strikes me as important.

That post addressed a specific comment in a much longer piece by Ashley Miller, a comment made my many, so I did not identify the author in order to focus on the issue. However, the broader theme of that piece now comes to mind as I think about this issue: do secularist efforts need to be careful here?

Skeptical activism must ignore ideology in order to maintain its integrity. Science – the method, anyway – is ideally ideology-free. Now, how that works out in practice is another issue. The point is that if we promote scientific skepticism and the idea that science is the best way to find out what’s true about the world, we must follow the rules of science.

Arguing against this is like arguing that some of the Bible is meant to be literal, some of it is symbolic, and that one’s own religion is the single religion which knows which is which.

Most readers know the definition of “secularism”, of course, but humor me. Merriam-Webster defines it thus: “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations”.

Secular organizations seek to remove religious influence from public life, mostly through the separation of church and state. In the United States, the separation of church and state is designed to promote freedom of religion and, by extension, freedom from religion. We are free to practice any or no religion because the government does not endorse or favor one or more religions. This, at its core, is a liberal concept. The extreme of this, the eradication of religion, is a conservative one.

Secularism tends to be promoted most by those who subscribe to liberal ideology. However, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” carry a fair amount of baggage and self-contradiction. In this country, for example, self-identified liberals tend to support gay marriage, but also support gun control and welfare and some even oppose capitalism. The most extreme of the self-identified conservatives today have formed the “Tea Party” movement, which opposes what they consider to be excessive taxes. In other words, while the political parties may have formed around a narrow idea of how much involvement government should have in the lives of the governed, they have morphed into something else entirely.
Quite frankly, I find both parties oppressive, just in different ways. Each seems to think that they know what is best for the rest of us and each insist on imposing their platforms on the rest of society. Neither is truly liberal or conservative. Both, in my opinion, are oppressive to those who disagree with them.

One problem we face in both skeptical and secular activism is that the larger the movement, the more pluralistic it is. If an organization does not maintain focus and begins to endorse specific political or social ideology, its stances on complex issues will be less and less internally consistent. In a movement based on the concept that reason is the most valuable tool we have, internal consistency is absolutely vital.

I think that people who find these communities see a ready-made audience – an audience whose members appear to share more values and ideologies than the one around which the community was formed. As I noted in my last post, it is easy to wave the liberal flag of “helping people” and rally this audience around another cause, but where is the line drawn?

If, for example, secular conferences take on gay marriage, why not polygamy? Do all skeptics, secularists, and atheists agree with me that polygamy should be legalized? How about an effort to eradicate marriage altogether? What about government-run health care? How about education? Is privatization the answer? What about charter schools? Education, after all, is a central issue for those who care about social justice, so why should skeptics and secularists talk about it?

I’ll tell you why: we do not agree on the solutions, nor do we agree on what is “fair” or “moral” in these areas. These are issues of values. Skeptics can discuss evidence regarding specific questions (e.g., whether outcomes-based teaching is effective), but skepticism cannot tell us whether or not the education of children should be the responsibility of the government. When groups endorse specific values and conclusions which cannot be empirically supported, they’re endorsing ideologies and, in the case of skepticism at least, rejecting the very methods they claim to promote.

I have already made it clear that failing to understand and apply the differences between skepticism, secularism, and atheism makes one a poor skeptic, but does it also make one a poor secularist? Maybe it does. It appears to me that many secular groups today fail to maintain those fences between themselves and atheist groups or individuals with large audiences (e.g., PZ Myers) who have made it clear that their goals go beyond securing the rights of atheists and eliminating social stigmas attached to atheism. Their goal is to eradicate religion. So, the liberal ideology of “freedom of/from religion” is shifting toward the conservative “my belief system is king”. The oppressed become the oppressors, the victims of bigotry become the bigots.

This is what happens when missions drift. Sometimes the righteous mission becomes the immoral one.

You may think that the direction you want to take it is the best and the most righteous, but everyone thinks that about their own ideology.

Just some food for thought.

I am doing some more ‘navel gazing’, but in a very real sense, it is of a skeptical nature. Given the name of this blog space, it should be no surprise that my primary goals include refuting or correcting misinformation. Well, I found some more of the kind I have written about many times here: misunderstandings and/or misrepresentations of the nature of skepticism, of statements made by myself and others, and of the ‘movement’ in general.

I will start by quoting from the comments of another blog because I don’t want this comment to go unread. The comment was written by D.J. Grothe, President of the JREF.

…Leaving aside your conflation of atheism, skepticism and secularism, allow me to respond to a few of your remarks.

I appreciate that you reference the diversity panel I programmed into last year’s TAM schedule. JREF is happy to have taken the lead in such programming at conferences, having had both a panel and a workshop on women’s issue in 2010, and a panel on diversity in 2011. We plan some similar programming along these lines in 2012. And I am personally proud that half the speakers at TAM last year were women, and about 40% of the attendees were women (we programmed TAM this way not out of some commitment to quotas, but because we know that skepticism in general and the event in particular are better off if we include the talents of everyone, not just one half of the population). This is a marked improvement over where these allied movements were 15 years ago when I first got involved professionally.

As the only organization in the skeptic/atheist/humanist world run by a gay man, JREF takes issues of diversity seriously (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1430-diversity-at-the-amazng-meeting-9.html), including political and religious diversity. (I might add that this one reason why we find it very important to avoid conflating skepticism with atheism; to repeat what I have said elsewhere: JREF is not an atheist organization (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1081-new-atheist-directions-at-the-jref.html). Similarly, even though Randi and I are both gay men, JREF is not a gay rights organization.)

But to clarify, I never argued that skepticism should be completely removed from social issues. Indeed, I argued quite the opposite, both in that diversity panel and in a number of previous talks (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/10/d-j-grothe-skepticism-and-humanism/) that I have given over the years. The skepticism JREF advances is motivated by our interest in the well being of others, and out of our commitment to make the world a better place, not just from a petty desire to prove others wrong. When skeptics rail against the use of the ADE 561 dowsing rod as a bomb detector at checkpoints in Afghanistan and Iraq, we do so because that unfounded belief kills people. When skeptics rage against psychics who prey on the grieving, we do so not only because belief in psychics in bunk, but because belief in psychics really hurts people.

I do believe it is important for nonprofits to remain focused on their unique missions, and to avoid “mission creep.” The JREF’s mission is to “promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.” Obviously, there are many other important missions and causes for folks to commit themselves to, in addition to JREF’s cause. Indeed, for nearly 20 years I’ve been involved with LGBT activism, as well as with atheist activism, and with environmentalism. But I would never join, say, PETA and insist they focus on other causes I care about like global warming instead of their mission, nor would I join the NRA and demand they start advocating for gay rights instead of the right to bear arms.

That said, JREF’s work over many years has been precisely to address the harm that results from undue credulity, and often within marginalized communities. Consider that Peter Popoff preys mostly on socio-economically disadvantaged communities of color, or that there is a lot of harmful pseudoscience peddled about and within the gay community. Or look at the work of Leo Igwe, the Nigerian skeptic and activist who works with the JREF to combat persecution of “witches” in Africa….

D.J.’s comment mainly addressed the following (NOTE: this is edited somewhat, but I do believe that there is enough context to convey the author’s intended message.):

One of the things that I have trouble with in this movement is the lack of focus on issues that “matter”…

…as someone who cares deeply about social justice, it has very often been a very difficult movement to be a part of. For me the great appeal of secularism, the great tragedy of religion, and my own personal passion for this cause is all centered around the fact that religion is the source of many evils or used to justify those evils perpetrated against humanity. As was said several times over the weekend, UFOs and Bigfoot aren’t that important to me, skepticism is much more interesting when applied to issues that impact people’s lives in serious ways. Children, minorities, people of color, women, poor people, the disabled, the elderly, LGBT, and other marginalized groups would benefit so much from having the tragic consequences of religious bigotry removed from their lives.

So when people in charge of important organizations speak on a panel at TAM to say that social justice isn’t and shouldn’t be within the purview of skepticism, or people in my local atheist group leave because they think it is inappropriate that someone posted a link to a story about the Rally Against the War on Women because who cares about that feminist bullshit, or important people in the movement tell me not to bother submitting something to TAM if it has anything to do, even tangentially, with women’s issues, I start to doubt why I am even involved.

First, I must say that I find the implication topics in traditional skepticism do not “matter” nothing less than offensive. If you agree with that statement, I invite you to visit whatstheharm.net and read a few of the stories under topics that D.J. mentioned. Then tell the families of children who were maimed or decapitated by witch doctors that their suffering does not “matter”. Tell the people who were bilked out of their life’s savings by psychics that their problems do not “matter”. Tell the people whose loved ones succumbed to cancer because they were told that their faith would heal them that their deaths – that they – do not “matter”. Tell them that these things did not “impact their lives in serious ways”.  Need I go on? Or perhaps that statement should have read, “…lack of focus on issues that “matter” to me.”

According to a CBS poll, the majority of Americans believe in psychic phenomena, although that proportion is declining, thanks to the efforts of groups like the JREF.

Newsflash: The issues addressed by the JREF and other skeptic organizations matter to me. They matter to others. They “matter”.

It is easy to wave the vague flag of liberal ideology, to throw out terms such as “marginalized groups” and claim to care about the well-being of others, but how does that translate to real progress? What, exactly, are you doing that “matters” more than the work you claim does not “matter”?

Next, although D.J. is not named, it is clear that in the second paragraph the author refers first to D.J.’s comments on a panel about diversity in skepticism which appeared at last year’s Amazing Meeting. This panel sparked quite a bit of discussion and at least one blog post. Many clarifications and “hammer-it-home” comments were made, including this one by D.J. (bold mine):

No questions should be off-limits to us, no issues taboo, including religious beliefs. And I feel the same way about diversity when it comes to political and economic views. I would hate to see the skeptics movement become merely a platform for left-leaning (or right-leaning) ideologies. As I have said many times, I personally favor a skepticism that is widely and consistently applied (and personally believe that will lead to atheism), but I professionally also favor organizations that have clear and limited missions, since an organization that tries to do everything may end up doing nothing very well…. our mission is focused on the paranormal, pseudoscience and testable supernatural claims. Unapologetically.

D.J. noted that the JREF plans to post video of the entire panel soon, so you can see for yourself what was actually said about the scope of skepticism.

Before I add my two cents (or more of it), there is one part of D.J.’s comment which I think is likely to be challenged:

…I might correct the misinformation or misunderstanding that there are people who go around insisting that skeptics only focus on UFOs or Bigfoot; a quick review of the program over the last few TAMs should disabuse you of the misunderstanding, or combat the misinformation…

Discussions of the scope of the movement have popped up in the past and there are those who advocate for a focus on traditional topics such as psychics and UFO abduction. However, any interpretations of those efforts as “insisting”, “telling people what to do”, or even as a question of the definition of skepticism, are misguided.

I know of no instance in which an individual connected with a skeptic organization (big or small) or a blog or anything else which might identify the person as involved with Skepticism has disagreed with the ideal behavior of applying skepticism to all aspects of life. If you think that is untrue, please read at least the first half of this post before reading further here. If you still disagree, please provide examples in the comments of this post.

There are good reasons for organizational focus which go beyond the issue of “mission creep”. One involves the fact that movement skepticism is, as D.J. noted in his discussions of the diversity panel, diverse. I say this, not to point out the inclusion that goes along with diversity, but the fact that a group of people who agree on what is best for society in every possible way is not a group at all. It’s an individual. People are complex. Issues are complex.

Skeptics promote scientific skepticism because they agree that it is the best way to evaluate claims. They do not necessarily agree on political, economic, and social issues.

Most importantly, however, is that the only role that ideology can play in science or scientific skepticism is in motivating individuals to act. Ideology [30 min mark] gets in the way of good reasoning and good science.

This does not mean that science and scientific skepticism should not inform one’s personal ideology, but this is not the same thing. It also does not mean that one’s values should not motivate them to do what they do, as D.J. has noted on numerous occasions (follow the links in his comment). For example, the claim that homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters is one that organized skepticism can address with scientific evidence.  The claim that homosexuality is “morally wrong” is not.

It is worth noting that self-described skeptics are overwhelmingly supportive of gay rights initiatives, but that does not make gay rights a skeptical issue. The ability to separate scientific and logical reasoning from ideology makes it possible to know what we know about homosexuality, which paves the way for acceptance of it. however, when we start with ideology and allow it to lead us, we greatly impair our ability to draw reliable conclusions.

Moving on, I would like to say something about the conflation issue that D.J. set aside, because I think that the problem is related. Here’s my hypothesis about what happens in this community:

1. There are large overlaps of the communities of skepticism, secularism/humanism, and atheism, with individuals who are involved in more than one and with organizations working together on specific projects.
2. There is a high correlation of identification with one or more of these communities and socially-liberal values.
3. An individual discovers the community, either through skepticism, secularism, or atheism, and mistakes this correlation with a “movement”.

Here’s the thing: skepticism, secularism, and atheism are different things. Among them, secularism has the closest ties with liberal ideology, but even secularism is not liberalism.

This may seem unimportant to some and I have often heard the argument, “But people care about X!” That argument is not relevant. If you care about X, promote X. Just stop calling it Y and stop insisting that promoters of Y also promote X.

Furthermore, referring to complaints about conflation as “nit-picking” is ironically anti-intellectual. These distinctions matter. A lot. If you do not know the difference between these things, and if you discuss them as if they are one, the integrity of skepticism as a scientifically-minded endeavor is lost. So are your ability to reason well and the ability of skeptic organizations to achieve their goals. As Daniel Loxton often says, “good fences make good neighbors”.

Individuals new to the communities are best served by studying these issues before publicly opining about them, much as we are all best served by speakers whose expertise supports the content of their talks. Unfortunately, I think that many do not see a role for themselves in activism unless it’s a leadership role. I find that a bit sad; there is plenty to be done while one learns the field.

Finally, I will add that complaints about TAM and other conferences failing to offer “what I want” leave me scratching my head. Most of these complaints are ridiculously off-base if you look at the content that is offered. Even if the topics you want are not discussed, so what? It is not organized just for you and what you think is important.

The Amazing Meeting is a curated event for which speakers (and discussion topics) are chosen by the curators themselves. It is clearly content hat more than 1650 people wanted last year, a number that has grown by at least 10% each year. If you are not among those people, then by all means, go to a conference that meets your requirements for “worthy of attending”.

Or perhaps this is really about whether or not the community should have input into the programming of such events. In that case, I can only point out that the community has plenty of input. You choose to attend/not attend. If you attend, you are asked to provide comments about what you did/did not like as well as offer suggestions for the future.

Anyone here think that your input should be valued more than that of the other attendees?

In an age in which many teens and young adults seem to equate criticism and not getting what they want with disrespect, it should not be surprising that some argue for unconditional positive regard in education and elsewhere. However, criticism is essential to gaining knowledge.

I am sure that most people have not thought much about why it’s called “critical thinking” and, when asked, would probably assume that “critical” refers to its importance (especially skeptics). However, they would only be partially correct. “Critical” means “crucial”, but it also refers to discriminating judgments. Critical thinking is a process in which we distinguish accurate information from inaccurate information and/or determine the best course of action given a set of possibilities.

The reason criticism is so important is a bit abstract, but it can be at least partially illustrated through the principle of falsification. Essentially, attempting to falsify a hypothesis is the best way to determine if it is likely to be true.

Most skeptics are familiar with the confirmation bias, which is the very strong human tendency to favor confirming information. We notice, remember, believe, and assign more weight to information that confirms what we already believe to be true than other information. What is discussed less often is how this bias extends to how we seek knowledge and test hypotheses. Humans tend to experiment to determine relationships in the world, but we do so in a confirmatory manner when a better approach is to attempt to falsify. That is, we tend to try this or try that to see what happens. However, the best test of a hypothesis is one in which the outcome tells us what is likely to be true by eliminating other possibilities. This is how science works most of the time and I think that we can agree that science works better than any other method.

A good illustration of this human tendency is the Wason 4-Card Task. Fortunately, it is also a good way to explain why falsification is ideal.

In the Wason 4-Card Task (A.K.A. the Wason Selection Task), participants are given the following problem:

There are four cards in front of you, each with a letter on one side and a number on the other side. The rule is: If there is a vowel on one side of a card, then there must be an even number on the other side.

Which cards must be turned over to determine if the rule holds true? (How many cards, minimum, and which ones?) 

The most popular answers in this task are the E and 4 cards or just the E card. This demonstrates an approach to hypothesis testing which is confirmatory in nature. That is, we search for examples of the first condition, then confirm that the second condition is met. This is similar to how most people deal with other types of questions, such as whether or not a pill reduces headache pain. How would you find out? Should you take the pill when you have headache pain, then judge the pill effective if the pain is gone an hour later?

Unfortunately, this approach is not a very effective means of gaining knowledge. To understand why, let’s look at what we can learn from turning over each card.

Only the bold information tells us anything about whether the rule holds true or not and only in the cases in which it is violated do we learn something meaningful enough to draw a conclusion. The correct answer to the basic Wason Task is that both the E and 7 cards are required. The E card can confirm the rule, but what is important is that it, and the 7 card, have the ability to falsify it. Turning over the 4 card is unnecessary because the rule does not even apply unless it has been followed, therefore, we learn nothing interesting.

If my statement about is confusing, you are not alone. This task is one of the most well-studied in the field of cognitive psychology, yet why humans are so bad at it is still a bit of a mystery. One of the hypotheses is that people have a difficult time recognizing that the rule is not bi-directional. In other words, the rule is:

If there is a vowel on one side, there is an even number on the other side.

it is NOT:

If there is a vowel on one side, there is an even number on the other side and vice-versa.

However, when conditional statements like this are made, we often assume that they are bi-directional unless we have context which tells us otherwise. For example, rules like these provide context which suggests more than what is stated:

If it is Monday, then the banks are open.

If I buy a ticket, I will win something in the raffle.

Because we have schemas that tell us that banks are open on weekdays (at least), we understand that the reverse of the first conditional (If the banks are open, then it is Monday) is not necessarily true. In the second conditional, our knowledge of how raffles work tells us that a raffle ticket must have been purchased if the author won something in it. In each case, however, we are not evaluating the statements on their own merit. We introduce information from our knowledge base. The problem with this kind of reasoning is that we assume that our knowledge is accurate.

When these statements are included in arguments, we draw conclusions based, at least in part, on our current understanding of the world, which could be wrong.

One example that I often used in class illustrates how strong this bias can be and how it affects our ability to determine cause and effect relationships. Given the following argument, students are asked to judge whether the argument is valid or invalid. They are reminded that “valid” refers only to whether the argument is logically sound and not whether the statements within it are true (truth is a separate property):

Major Premise: If I learn a lot, I will get a good grade on the test. 

Minor Premise: I got a good grade on the test.

Conclusion: Therefore, I learned a lot. 

On its surface, the argument appears valid. However, it is not. There is nothing in the major premise to indicate that learning is the only way to get a good grade on the test – that learning is required for a good grade. It merely states that learning will guarantee one. Unfortunately, some dedicated students who have successfully used flash cards and other rehearsal techniques in courses in which memorization is helpful – introductory courses with multiple-choice exams and so forth – will assume that this method of studying equates to learning. When they fail in a more rigorous upper-division course in which conceptual understanding is necessary, they will be unlikely to attribute that failure to their study methods.

Going back to the example of how to determine if a pill takes away your headache pain, the method most people follow is to turn over the E card and nothing else. If your headache pain does not go away (outcome: an odd number), then you will know that the pill doesn’t work. However, what if the headache does go away? Is it possible that headaches go away on their own? Could taking the pill induce a placebo effect? What you need is to design an experiment in which you can eliminate all other possibilities (headaches go away by themselves, placebo effects, etc.). What you need to do is set the pill up to fail. If the headache goes away when it should (turning over the E card and finding an even number) AND it does not go away when it should not (turning over the 7 card and finding a consonant), then we can conclude that the pill worked.

The confirmational approach is like asking a psychic to predict the flip of a coin, but only counting the times in which the psychic was correct. This is an excellent way to find out if they have supernatural powers, but only if you also know the rate at which they are incorrect. When skeptics test psychics, they compare the outcome to what would be expected by chance. If they can consistently outperform blind guessing, the only logical conclusion is that they must not be guessing. To eliminate alternative explanations, skeptics ensure that the psychic is not receiving information from other sources such as body language cues.

Now, what does all of this have to do with criticism?

What science does, both in single studies and as a general process, is eliminate incorrect hypotheses. In general, scientists come up with likely hypotheses and theories based on what we are reasonably certain is true (as many as humanly possible), then eliminate them until only one remains. We eliminate them by finding faults with them, by demonstrating that they can’t be true (or are highly unlikely to be true).

Critical thinking works this way, too. The most effective process of evaluating information is one which looks for faults, inconsistencies, and weaknesses. Applying critical thinking to plans and ideas, otherwise we waste resources and time as well as risk harm. After we have completed a project, even a successful one, analysis should not focus on “what we did right”. We can’t know why we succeeded without comparisons to similar situations in which we failed. Focusing on what we think is good is like counting the “hits” and ignoring the “misses”.

From a NY Times article which appeared last week:

Some years ago, Dr. Robert A. Burton was the neurologist on call at a San Francisco hospital when a high-profile colleague from the oncology department asked him to perform a spinal tap on an elderly patient with advanced metastatic cancer. The patient had seemed a little fuzzy-headed that morning, and the oncologist wanted to check for meningitis or another infection that might be treatable with antibiotics.

Dr. Burton hesitated. Spinal taps are painful. The patient’s overall prognosis was beyond dire. Why go after an ancillary infection? But the oncologist, known for his uncompromising and aggressive approach to treatment, insisted.

“For him, there was no such thing as excessive,” Dr. Burton said in a telephone interview. “For him, there was always hope.”

On entering the patient’s room with spinal tap tray portentously agleam, Dr. Burton encountered the patient’s family members. They begged him not to proceed. The frail, bedridden patient begged him not to proceed. Dr. Burton conveyed their pleas to the oncologist, but the oncologist continued to lobby for a spinal tap, and the exhausted family finally gave in.

As Dr. Burton had feared, the procedure proved painful and difficult to administer. It revealed nothing of diagnostic importance. And it left the patient with a grinding spinal-tap headache that lasted for days, until the man fell into a coma and died of his malignancy.

The oncologist’s intentions were good, but he cared so much for the welfare of his patients that it clouded his judgment about what was best for his patients. The goal he wanted to accomplish was driven by his values, as most goals are, but his ability to accomplish that goal was hindered by the same values.

In the past month alone, I have seen good skeptics deny consensus science, cherry-pick, hyper-rationalize, and engage in a number of poor practices in order to justify their decisions or actions. In the past few years, I have noted an embarrassingly large number of occasions in which skeptics have charged forward with ideas in ways I consider to be counterproductive and, in some cases, potentially harmful – giving talks and workshops without an appropriate amount of knowledge on the subject, staging meaningless protests simply because they’ve gained attention, or wasting resources conducting surveys and experiments without clear goals, training, or regard for issues such as the ethical treatment of human subjects. I am sure that these skeptics were motivated by a desire to make a difference – a desire to do something. However, ideology, values, passion, and beliefs got in the way of good reasoning. For example, last year a group of skeptics, angry that an anti-vax rally starring Wakefield was going on in their town, charged forward without consulting an expert and distributed a number of fliers which said, in part:

Vaccines…don’t cause diseases or disorders or distress or dystopia. In fact, receiving vaccines is completely safe.

I don’t think I need to go into the possible ramifications of this mistake.

Skepticism, as a movement, promotes critical thinking, careful consideration of evidence, and attention to details which are easily missed. When skeptics fail to apply those same principles to the work their actions are, at best, wasteful and, at worst, potentially harmful.

I found myself scratching my head last week when D.J. Grothe posted this article to Swift titled Should skepticism be divorced from values?. It was a surprise for two reasons. 1) On most matters of the philosophy of skepticism and even activism, D.J. and I are in near-total agreement, yet I did not agree with this piece at all. 2) It seems to contradict some of D.J.’s statements, particularly those he has made on the stage at various events.

In an effort to better understand, I entered a conversation on Facebook and tried to explain my confusion as well as my opinion. I failed. D.J., no doubt drawing on experiences in conversations with me and others about similar topics, is certain that we agree and that talking it out will eventually lead us both to see that. I am not as confident. Although I do not doubt that D.J. will agree with nearly everything in this post, I think we will remain divided on an important point.

First, let me declare now that I have a tremendous respect for D.J. At every event he seems to find ways to communicate the most important fundamentals of organized skepticism, facts that new participants need to know (and seasoned skeptics need to remember) such as organizational scope, tolerance, and integrity. He does so without apology. He is also one of the best panel moderators and interviewers I have ever seen. He asks tough questions without blinking and, when those questions are not directly answered, he steers the conversation in the direction intended. That said, the post bothered me and not a little bit.

Second, I will not use the term “divorced” because I don’t feel that conveys an appropriate level of distance (so, in that sense, one may split hairs and say that D.J. and I agree). I will use “separate”.

A little bit of background

In the post and afterward, D.J. notes that the post is a reinforcement of his 2010 NECSS talk – a talk I quite like. There are elements of the talk of which I take issue, but overall I feel that it is a good “initiation” talk for new skeptics. I would summarize the talk this way:

“Skepticism” refers to a method for evaluating claims, but it also refers to a movement. The movement is a type of humanism. It is a type of humanism because those who began it did so for humanitarian reasons. To Randi, it’s just the right thing to do. This humanism drives me (D.J.) and most others I know; we debunk and educate because pseudoscience is harmful. We share the value that to know reality is to avoid such harm. In order to do this work, we must also have a strong mind – the kind of mind that allows us to see reality as it is and not how we would like it to be.

I don’t think that D.J. would disagree with this summary, but perhaps his emphasis is different from mine. I would expect that. As an instructor and researcher, I have focused on the importance of objectivity and how to achieve it. As an activist, D.J. has focused on the reduction of harm.

However, I believe that D.J.’s Swift post differs significantly from this talk and introduces a serious problem in an attempt to emphasize the humanistic goals of organized skepticism. The problem is in the title and is the theme of the post – a theme I do not believe it shares with the NECSS talk. Regardless of D.J.’s intended message, I feel very strongly that this post sends the wrong message – a message that it’s okay (maybe even important) to allow one’s “moral indignation” to dictate how the work is done. It’s not. In fact, it’s more than just not okay. A core property – THE core property – of good science is objectivity. Values are important. Values motivate us to act and provide us with goals. However, values, practically by definition, erode objectivity almost universally.

In a comment on Facebook, D.J. stated:

I don’t want the position that one must separate ethics from her skepticism to gain ground. It’s both wrong, and also counter my goals.

Ethics are a slightly different issue and very domain-specific. D.J. specifically described a moral imperative (to mitigate the harm that pseudoscience causes), so in my mind “moral values” replaces “ethics” in his sentence and I address it as such.

The problem of values

It is actually unethical, in my opinion, to fail to separate one’s moral values from the work.

Is it ethical for a pharmacist to refuse to sell contraceptives, yet expect to be allowed to continue in that career? Is it ethical for a doctor to tell the parents of a fifteen year old victim of incest about her pregnancy because he believes that she’s lying and the father is the head of the household?

Those are, of course, examples of situations in which the values conflict with the work. However, there are many, many ways in which the same values that motivate people to pursue a career or volunteer work hinder their ability to do that work well. This is more obvious in some careers than others; some that come to mind immediately (other than the most obvious, scientists) are doctors, politicians, judges, journalists, and teachers. For example, would it be it ethical for the teacher who wrote this letter to fail to teach evolution because he feels that it makes kids “think like atheists”, something he feels is harmful to kids? Is it okay for a journalist to slant a story rather than simply report the facts?

One of D.J.’s comments sums up the differences between us, I think. He wrote:

I do not favor letting the suggestion stand that the method of skepticism should be practiced in a value-neutral vacuum.

Insisting that practitioners separate their values from the work is not even close to creating “a vacuum”. The “moral imperative” provides both motivation and a general purpose (e.g., “to reduce or eliminate the harm caused by pseudoscience”). However, that is where the role of values should end. I contend that any practice of skepticism that does not strive to be value-neutral is contradictory, counterproductive, hypocritical, and generally just bad.

Another of his comments reads, in part:

If what you are saying is that the work of skepticism should be practiced in a value-neutral way, and that our priorities as skeptics should not be informed by our ethical commitments (as an example, defrauding someone of their nest egg with fake psychic claims is equivalent to your grandpa thinking he can dowse in your backyard) then I disagree.

Well, this is quite a loaded statement, but I am saying something very much like this. I am certainly not saying that those two examples are equal, but I am saying that priorities should be informed by facts. One of those facts is a goal or set of goals which were derived, in part, from values. Once a general purpose or mission is defined, the question of priorities is epistemological; we need to know which projects best meet our goals. The examples D.J. provided are easy to compare, but what about the more difficult comparisons? Which should be a higher priority, rallying people pass out fliers at a “talk” by the author of an anti-vaccine book or producing materials to be used in classrooms to teach kids how to evaluate claims? In both the easy and the difficult scenarios, the choice should be driven by the organizational goals (facts) and information about how each scenario meets those goals (more facts). Values should be set aside because they impair our ability to perceive, process, and remember facts. 

Recognizing one’s motivations and separating them from the process of reasoning is a fundamental part of both science and skepticism.

If you think about the psychologists who have spoken at TAM and other events, most of the topics covered are d to the myriad of ways that human beings err in receiving, recording, remembering, and processing information about the world. It is precisely because we are so bad at this that we need science. And it is precisely because we are so bad at this that skeptical activism exists.

The examples we use to demonstrate these flaws are usually a bit removed from daily life. Visual illusions, pareidolia, and probability problems do not always show how subtle the reasoning problems can be. Consider this example from a recent Scientific American blog post Lessons from Sherlock Holmes: Trust in The Facts, Not Your Version of Them (bold mine):

When we look around us, what is it that we see? Do we see things as they are, or do we at once, without thinking, begin to interpret? Take the simple example of a wine glass. All it is is a transparent object that holds a liquid–which we know by experience should be wine. But if we’re in a store and late for a party? It’s a present, an object of value and beauty for someone else to appreciate. At home and thirsty? It becomes, perhaps, a water glass, if nothing else is available. Bored? A toy to turn around and around, seeing what reflections we can see, how we can distort our own face on the curved surfaces. Solving a murder? Potential evidence of some final, telling pre-death interaction–perhaps the victim took a final sip before he met an untimely end.

Soon, instead of saying there is a wine glass on the table, you say the victim’s glass had been empty at the time of the crime. And you proceed from there. Why was the victim drinking? Why was he interrupted? Why had he placed the glass where it was? And if it doesn’t make sense? Impossible. You’ve started with a fact and worked your way forward. It must fit. The only thing is, you’ve forgotten that it was just a glass to begin with. The victim’s? Maybe not. Placed there by him? Who knows. Empty at the time of the crime? Perhaps, but perhaps not. You’ve imbued an object with a personal take so naturally that you don’t realize you’ve done it. And that’s the crucial–and sometimes fatal–error, of both reasoning and world perception. A pipe is never just a pipe.

Hardly ever, in describing an object, do we see it as just a valueless, objective wine glass. And hardly ever do we think to consider the distinction–for of course, it hardly ever matters. But it’s the rare mind that has trained itself to separate the objective fact from the immediate, subconscious and automatic subjective interpretation that follows.

The way our perceptual and cognitive systems operate allows us to function in the world, but higher-order thinking requires recognizing the flaws in this system and correcting for them. This is the “strong mind” that D.J. was talking about in his NECSS talk. Most skeptics are intimately familiar with the confirmation bias, which is the tendency to notice, remember, believe, and assign more weight to information that is consistent with our current beliefs than neutral or conflicting information. This bias is one of many biases and heuristics, but it is arguably the one that does the most damage to our ability to reason well. What many skeptics may forget is how many of our beliefs are ideological – driven by moral values and opinions more than facts. These beliefs are even more difficult to set aside because they embody what we wish to be true more than simply what we think is true. So it is even more important to separate ideology from epistemology and decision-making than other beliefs.

Most readers are familiar with the thought experiments in moral reasoning which provide a framework for the practice of solving moral dilemmas, but they illustrate my point well. A variant of “the trolley problem” is particularly relevant:

A train (trolley) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five, but you know for certain that it will work. You do not weigh enough to stop the train, so simply jumping is an act of suicide that will not save the people. Nobody will see you push him, so there are no social or legal consequences to consider. Would you push him?

This is a very tough choice. On the one hand, your ability to act in this situation alone makes you morally obligated to act, at least according to many. Failing to act is an action in and of itself; you’ve allowed five people to die. Pushing the man off the bridge is an act which can only be considered murder. The most morally-correct decision is generally considered the utilitarian decision to throw the fat man over, yet few people make that choice. [NOTE: I am fully aware that some argue about whether utilitarianism is truly rational and I will not discuss those issues here. I will just say that these scenarios severely limit the number of possible strategies and force a choice between them.]

This is, admittedly, grossly oversimplified moral reasoning without an epistemological context, but it is not difficult to add such context.  In fact, this exercise was, ironically, part of a recent study that provides that kind of context in addition to explaining what’s wrong with using the problem as more than an illustration.

Bartels and Pizarro presented students with a series of bridge-style exercises, including a “fat man” version the trolley problem. What they found was that the rate of utilitarian responses were positively correlated with measures of psychopathy (someone high in psychopathy will be low in empathy and relatively anti-social) and machiavellianism (the degree to which an individual is emotionally detached, cynical, and manipulative).

If you don’t understand the study, as the media clearly didn’t (big surprise), you might be tempted to conclude (as the media did) that people who care little about others can make the best decisions about what is best for the majority. This is an ugly finding that many people are likely to reject, simply because they don’t like it. Science doesn’t work that way. Science is about truth, not values, and sometimes the truth is just not pretty. Scientists who fail to separate their values and motivations from their work fail to interpret evidence appropriately (or form good theory). The same is true for skepticism.

However, when viewed in the context of the literature on moral judgments, the finding is not about the characteristics of reasoners, but the use of these exercises to measure moral reasoning:

Our study illustrates that the widely adopted use of sacrificial dilemmas in the study of moral judgment fails to distinguish between people who are motivated to endorse utilitarian moral choices because of underlying emotional deficits (such as those captured by our measures of psychopathy and Machiavellianism) and those who endorse it out of genuine concern for the welfare of others and a considered belief that utilitarianism is the optimal way of achieving the goals of morality.

Now, I think that there is something missing from this study that would likely wash out the effects, namely that the sample of college students is likely to be filled with people who have not yet spent much time thinking about moral dilemmas. In fact, a 2008 study suggests that most undergraduate students do not even know what a moral dilemma is. There are exceptions, but many students might have genuine concern for the welfare of others, but fail to recognize utilitarianism as an optimal choice at this time in their lives. I suspect that, given a sample with a wider age range, the effects would be reduced or disappear as the proportion of caring utilitarians increases.

Even with such a sample, though, the authors’ conclusions in regard to their purpose stand because, in part, the scenarios do not consider how the individual arrived at the choice. A common problem in studies of cognitive processing is that arriving at the prescriptive answer is no guarantee that one has followed good reason to get there. Consider the atheist who endorses alternative medicine (*cough* Bill Maher). The exercises are easily reduced to a simple math problem. What they have measured is one’s ability to determine the “morally correct” course of action given a specific scenario, not whether they have adopted the moral values that we assume are embodied in that choice.

So what does this have to do with skepticism and values? Let me explain by telling you what I would predict if I could observe participants in real-life situations as described by the “fat man”. I believe that the psychopaths and machiavellians would fail to push the fat man. They may know that this is the best moral choice, but not care. They have no motivation to act. The result is failing to save four people (net).

So, I believe that values are extremely important because they motivate us to take action. However, which action is best? The individual who is unable to separate their values from the choice they have to make, at least according to and this many other studies, usually fails to make the utilitarian choice in any case. If you do not know what the best choice is, how can you take the best action? (This, by the way, is what is meant by “informing values”. I contend that we can only do so by first setting them aside.) I’d predict that those who both value the lives of others and are able to set that value aside and solve the problem objectively are much more likely to take action than either of the two others. In less restricted, real-world scenarios, these are the people who take the actions which are most likely to lead to positive change.

The consequences of value-driven actions

Humanism is an ideology which drives us to promote skepticism. That same ideology drives others to a long list of careers and activities, from social worker to clergy to homeopathic product sales. Secular humanism may reduce that group to atheists and agnostics, but my point here is that humanism is not why we promote skepticism. It’s why we want to help people. We promote scientific skepticism for a number of reasons, some of which are shared, such as the belief that it is the best way to evaluate claims. Some other reasons to choose skeptical activism as a means of helping people are that we find it interesting or have a specific skill set which can be of use. However, these are motivations to do the work and not the work itself.

I realize that I now sound like a broken record, but if we fail to separate these motivations from the work, we fail to be objective. “Righteous indignation” may lead to action, but it does not always lead to positive actions when it clouds our judgment. How do we keep it from clouding our judgment? By separating it from the work. Cool heads prevail; hot heads make mistakes.

Good intentions have motivated people to do all sorts of things. Outcomes from the actions we take with good intentions are just like those we take when our intentions are not so good: they vary from great to devastating. Take, for example, the well-intentioned “Self-Esteem Movement”, an effort to increase academic performance, reduce bullying, and create a long list of other benefits.  With the best of intentions and motivated by values that I believe most of us share, educators, parents, and psychologists plowed forward with programs and policies which are still very alive and well today. These policies have done irreparable harm to our children and society in general because they achieve the opposite of the goals they set out to acheive.

Contrary to popular belief, children do not need high self-esteem in order to succeed.  In fact, efforts to raise self-esteem are extremely counter-productive and harmful because they tend to increase not self-esteem, but narcissism. These efforts are particularly harmful when enacted as part of a bully prevention program. The Freudian idea that bullies are compensating for low self-esteem is not only myth, but the opposite is true. Bullies are narcissistic and entitled. Attempting to raise their self-esteem makes the problem worse, not better. Recent reviews of the literature lead to clear conclusions: narcissists often respond to criticism and rejection with aggression. They do this because they are incapable of understanding the point of view of another and, therefore, helpless to change it. Like a toddler with no negotiation skills, they throw a tantrum.

Most laypersons adopt similar views of criminals and others with anti-social behaviors. It feels better to think of people who do bad things as “broken”. Not only does it allow us to think that people can never be inherently bad, but it gives us a sense of control. If we can just “fix” them, they’ll be good, or if we can stop the cycle of abuse…  right?

The use of pop-pedagogy is another example of good intentions and values getting in the way of reason. If you doubt that pseudoscience in education is a serious problem, attend a back-to-school night or just visit some education websites and count the number of references to “Learning Styles”, “Multiple Intelligences”, “Emotional Intelligence”, or “Bloom’s Taxonomy”. Then visit the education department of any university and discover why. Instead of teaching from the academic literature, they are teaching from textbooks with content drawn from popular press. Teachers adopt these ideas because they seem right and they address good values – the idea that every child is equally intelligent, just in different areas, the idea that all children are capable of learning everything that every other child can learn; they just learn “differently”. Experiences easily reinforce the ideas through the confirmation bias. (Caveat: “Bloom’s Taxonomy” is supported, but it is descriptive. The suggestion that drawing from all levels of taxonomy in teaching or assessment is unsupported.)

When we allow our good intentions to pave the road, it doesn’t lead to truth. Yes, we should be motivated by our values. We should consider our values when setting general goals. However, in order to reach the goals we claim to care about, in order to achieve the things we claim to value, we must separate those values from the work. We must not allow those values to enter into our decision-making processes.

In an effort to get to the bottom line in under 4,500 words, I’ll end with another quote from D.J. Grothe and a new, more direct reply:

I argue that the work of skepticism should not be divorced from our ethical imperative or “righteous indignation” to mitigate the harm that undue credulity causes. I don’t think you’re saying this.

Well, yes, actually (if you replace “divorced” with “separated”) I think I am.

Tuesday I returned home from my third Dragon*Con, “the largest multi-media, popular culture convention focusing on science fiction and fantasy, gaming, comics, literature, art, music, and film in the universe!” I’m not a big fan of crowds, so I probably would not choose to attend such an event without getting something significant out of it. In this case, I certainly do.

For those new to the community (and this blog), Skepticism is well-represented at Dragon*Con thanks to Derek Colanduno and Robynn (Swoopy) McCarthy of Skepticality. Derek is the director for Skeptrack, the skeptic fan track at Dragon*Con, with the help of Swoopy (who directs the podcasting track) and a number of awesome staff. The track began as a few talks/panels on the Science Track and grew quickly, claiming a large room of its own. Equipment on loan from AburptMedia, along with some handy technicians (who, along with Derek, Swoopy, and the rest of the staff, donate their time) make it possible to stream the Skeptrack content in one’s home on another continent.

This year I participated in five events, including one on the Science Track. This was half as many as last year, so I was able to attend many more of the other talks and panels. But don’t get me wrong – I am quite satisfied that my work was productive and was very glad to be a spectator as others, particularly Phil Plait and Pamela Gay, appeared to run from room to room and talk themselves hoarse as I did at D*C 2010.

I particularly enjoyed a “quiz show” hosted by Brian Thompson called Wait! Wait! Don’t Fool Me! with contestants Phil Plait, Rebecca Watson, George Hrab, and Blake Smith. Tears were streaming down my face, I laughed so hard. Another great show was a series of cool science demos which reminded me of my childhood visits to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago and the Museum of Science in Boston. Matt Lowry walked on glass! Here’s a short video of some of what I saw:
 

A panel about activism was mostly excellent, with D.J. Grothe echoing some of the concerns about which I have written recently, but a few statements rubbed me the wrong way. In particular, Brian Brushwood appeared to advocate for “trying anything” without thought to whether it would accomplish any goals or finding out whether it’s been done before by someone who can offer advice. We need innovation, but careless abandon is dangerous and wasteful. Resources are limited and risks are always involved. Another point that was raised was that many people new to skepticism are concerned primarily with issues of religion. I fail to see the relevance of this point. All of the major organizations defend science and science education (e.g., evolution). All of the major organizations debunk testable claims with religious content (e.g., faith healing). Most importantly, however, there are many atheist organizations for those who would like to attack religion or make religion a focus. The idea that defending the focus and scope of skepticism somehow ties the hands of individuals is a bit silly. All of the major skeptic organizations limit their missions to testable claims for reasons which have nothing to do with the threat level or pervasiveness of the claim. The focus on evidence, not conclusions, is a matter of scientific integrity. But of course I have said all of this before.

Two other talks that did not disappoint were given by Genie Scott and Jonathan Strickland of How Stuff Works. Scott gave a fascinating history of creationism and Strickland covered consumer skepticism of tech products. Both were excellent.

A quick summary of the events in which I participated:

The Surprising Science of Self-Esteem – I admit that I was a bit nervous about the attendance for this talk, even though it was a terrific time slot (Friday night at 7pm) on the Science Track. It isn’t the kind of title that would attract me, but my hope was that some of the audience would be deterred from some of the self-esteem boosting BS that I’ve seen, which was more likely if they were there expecting to hear about it. I also pimped the talk to all of the friends I could find beforehand. It’s a topic I have spent a great deal of time with recently and I put quite a bit of work into the material for this talk. Of course the track itself is a draw and the room was packed as always.

I opened by warning the audience that I had misled them a bit. I was planning to talk about self-esteem, but more of the hour would be devoted to something related, but different: narcissism. I do not know if anyone was disappointed; unfortunately, an hour is just not enough time to cover the topic the way I’d wanted to cover it and there was no time for Q & A. Judging by the response (and the sharp victory cry of “YES!” from one audience member when I said, “If you were hoping for a motivational speech, you’ll be disappointed”), most in the audience were glad they stayed.

I will be writing about the topic and my talk in a series of blog posts. In the meantime, a few signs that you might be a narcissist:

• Your name is part of the title and/or URL of your blog (unless you are a best-selling author).
• Your resume is padded with exaggerated or imaginary accomplishments.
• You are as concerned with what your date is wearing as you are your own appearance.
• You believe that you can help others improve their appearance (makeover!) and you are not a hairdresser.
• You celebrate a win by yelling “In your face!” at your opponent rather than “Good game”.
• Your Facebook photo albums (other than your profile pics) include more pictures with you than without you, especially if the pictures are of you alone.
• You brag, especially when you’ve receive a compliment or two from people who are either biased (family and friends) or otherwise not in a position to judge.
• You equate criticism with disrespect or insults. Narcissists do not handle rejection or criticism well and many become angry and aggressive in response.
• You often park in handicapped spaces or red zones, cut in line, cram into elevators before letting people out, block isles and walkways, etc. Entitlement is very, very highly correlated with narcissism.
• You wear clothing with your own likeness on them.
• You have any bumper stickers or social media graphics like those below.

Education/Debunking: What’s the Difference? –  JREF president D.J. Grothe moderated and the panelists were myself, JREF education director Michael Blanford, Skeptical Teacher Matt Lowry, Podblack Cat Kylie Sturgess, and IIG-West’s Brian Hart. I think that we agreed that ‘debunking’ was helpful in education and that teachers do not need to choose between facts and methods. Usually, teaching facts and debunking claims is best accomplished by discussing how we know what we know (empirical testing) and demonstrating that particular feats (e.g., apparent mind reading) can be accomplished without supernatural forces.

On the Ledge – Moderated by Derek Colanduno, this panel was originally planned as a discussion of the independent film The Ledge, but the film’s writer/director, Matthew Chapman, was forced to cancel at the last minute. Although the film came up, the panel, which included D.J. Grothe, NCSE executive director Eugenie Scott, Margaret Downey of The Freethought Society, and myself, focused on the definition of skepticism as well as the missions and scopes of the organizations promoting skepticism, secularism, and atheism.

I believe we agreed on the overlapping, but separate roles and goals of these organizations as well as the reasons demarcations between them exist. It is about more than focus and the best use of resources. It is a matter of maintaining integrity. Something that Genie Scott said stuck with me. She noted that we each have ideologies which we cannot and should not ignore; they make us who we are. However, these ideologies (about which we do not all agree) must be set aside in the pursuit of knowledge because they affect the way that we reason and make decisions (as the literature in my field has clearly shown). This is precisely the argument made in regard to the scope of skepticism (the broader scope, anyway): political, religious, and other ideologies carry with them the baggage of untestable claims, non-empirical conclusions, and conclusions which are arrived at through biased views of evidence.

Very Superstitious… – Moderated by Kylie Sturgess, panelists were me, Atlanta Skeptics Stephen King (a Stephen King, not the Stephen King) and Robert Blaskiewicz, and Skeptic Neurologist Steve Novella. We heard some funny stories about some of the more interesting superstitions which are widely (or narrowly) practiced and discussed the origins of superstitions as a natural product of the pattern- and control- seeking human brain.

Token Skeptic Podcast – I participated in a live recording of Kylie Sturgess’s podcast, along with Derek Colanduno and Steve Novella. It was the last day of Dragon*Con and Kylie was the only Australian in attendance this year. In a departure from the usual serious science and skepticism Kylie produces, she took the opportunity to abuse the Americans. In the first five minutes, she managed to claim Tim Minchin for Australia and disown Mel Gibson, throwing in Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe to boot. I think she just wanted an excuse to dump Mel on us. If that wasn’t enough, she tortured the audience with musk sticks and vegimite! Of course, I don’t know if you can call it torture when they volunteered, but she certainly would have known that they would be skeptical of Steve Novella’s description of vegimite (“It’s like chewing on my dirty gym socks.”) I likened it to Big Foot’s toe jam and I stand by that assessment. Musk sticks are a particularly vile “candy” which tastes strangely like aftershave. blech.

She did redeem herself by offering some wonderful carmels and discussing a topic I know little about: gaming. Apparently, my co-guests were both avid gamers and Novella wrote a few (well, more than that – 7) rule books. As the wife of a gamer who is often asked to calculate odds, I was impressed. The rules for these games are incredibly complicated and must be balanced enough to ensure that a game holds the players’ interest. I thought the panel was going well until the fire alarm went off and Kylie did her best Mel Gibson impression before diving off the stage into the audience… Okay, that’s not exactly how it went, but the panel did end and the ‘all clear’ was sounded before we got much further than the hall.

First, if you have not read Parts I and II, please read them now. The most important parts of those posts are:

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…

…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.

If one of the major goals of Skepticism is to educate, shouldn’t we all understand the material?

I am angry. I am angry and a little fearful for our future. We live in dangerous times and the work of Skepticism is serious. The work is hard. It requires patience, discipline, empathy, and knowledge.

I am angry because an influx of people who have stumbled upon or been recruited to the work of Skepticism are making it much more difficult. We’re moving backwards. This is happening, in part, because some of these rookies insist that their understanding of that work is as good or better than the understanding of people who have studied and worked in the field for years. Many have little or no education in the basics of science or the scientific process. Some claim to follow the teachings of people whose works they have never read. Some believe that the ‘old guard’ have more to learn from them than the other way around. These people voice their opinions on blogs and in talks, discussing topics about which they consider themselves competent after reading a couple of blog posts, listening to a podcast, considering their own limited experiences, or MAYBE reading a book or two on the topic.

What’s worse, they argue about details with little or no understanding of even the big picture. They believe that their understanding is complete and, therefore, requires no study, no thought beyond the surface features, and certainly not time or mentoring.

This is anti intellectualism in a field which promotes intellect and deep thought.

The problem has bothered me for some time and, in fact, ignorance of one’s own incompetence is something that bothered me in my classroom so much that I studied its relationship to academic entitlement, narcissism, external attributions for achievements, and study strategies. What we learned is that narcissism, entitlement, and shallow study strategies are strongly correlated with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is the phenomenon that the least competent people overestimate their competence the most as part of a self-serving bias. As relative competence increases, overestimations decrease, until the 75th to 95th percentile (depending on the domain), when estimates are fairly accurate. This is particularly problematic in an academic setting because the less students understand a concept, the more likely they are to believe that they understand it, the less likely they are to make changes to ensure that they learn it, and the more likely they will be to feel entitled to a high grade for their poor work.

Skeptical activism is not unlike academics.  Incompetence feeds on itself in this effect. The more an individual overestimates their competence, the more entitled they believe they are to an uncritical audience to which they can voice their opinions. What’s more, the more confident a blogger appears, the more their audience will reinforce their views (because they convince the audience that they know; the same thing occurs with eye witness testimony), although this is somewhat limited to situations in which the view is shallow enough to for the audience to understand, a perfect enhancement to the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

But high confidence is not an indication of actual understanding, nor is the number of supportive cheers of agreement from their followers.

The rest of this post will focus on one example of this, but there have been countless. This particular example is an especially egregious one, since she attacked both a friend for whom I have a great deal of respect and the field I defend daily. It was back-breaking straw for me.

When Amanda Marcotte whined that Daniel Loxton doesn’t want us to talk about religion, she built a now very familiar straw man and dressed him with inappropriate comparisons and other ignorant rambles. She appears to be upset because she somehow thinks that the usurping of a movement in motion, one which is founded on scientific principles, for the promotion of her personal political and religious ideology, should go unchallenged.

Amanda does not appear to understand what skepticism actually is or what science involves, yet she’s thrown her hat in, anyway. Perhaps she is insulted that somebody tried to tell her, I really don’t know, but I do know that the confidence with which she writes about the issues is unwarranted, a fact which is clearly demonstrated by the content of her post.

Amanda wrote,

“Look: atheism is the result of applying critical thinking and demands for evidence to the god hypothesis. It’s not any different than non-belief in all sorts of supernatural claims, such as ESP and ghosts. All of the weaseling around that is intellectually dishonest. It’s not about critical thinking, but about politics and frankly, not taking on religion because religion is seen as too powerful. “

Wrong.

What is intellectually dishonest is arguing about something you do not fully understand against people who are experts in the field. What is intellectually dishonest is advancing an uneducated opinion because the educated one does not help you achieve your own goals.

Her first two sentences demonstrate the problem with this entire post and most of the comments on it: ignorance. The rest of the paragraph is bullshit that Amanda made up. Nobody is ‘backing down’ and there is no concern that “religion is seen as too powerful”. This is not about politics. It is about scientific integrity.  This point has been made again and again, but ignored by people like  Amanda. Perhaps they ignore it because they do not understand it, or maybe they ignore it because it doesn’t help them, but the reasons don’t matter. Ignoring it won’t make it go away.

Science is the pursuit of truth. Truth is not value. Desires are not facts. Facts are not morals.

Scientific integrity requires adherence to scientific principles. Likewise, scientific skepticism relies on scientific integrity. Otherwise, we are just a bunch of people with opinions.

… Loxton decided to shit all over the work of people looking at improving gender, sexual oriention, class, and race diversity in the movement by complaining that the panel at The Amazing Meeting dedicated to this didn’t have any fucking Christians on it.

Again, she’s just making stuff up. Daniel noted that the diversity of the panel did not reflect the diversity of the audience in one important aspect. Framing this as “complaining that there were no Christians” is dishonest and the implication that Daniel does not care about issues of gender, class, and race is simply unfounded and abhorrent. Anyone who actually knows Daniel understands just how stupid that accusation is.

He firmly believes that the god hypothesis should be off-limits for skeptics, and that there should be a bright line between atheism and skepticism. This is ridiculous. “God” is a supernatural claim just like fairies and ghosts.

This statement, once again, not only demonstrates gross ignorance and shallow thinking, but the fact that she’s written an entire blog post questioning the knowledge of a professional skeptic on very basic definitions of the field without first educating herself is offensive and disrespectful. Had she even tried to understand the issues, a task which takes time and energy, she might have learned enough to at least recognize that she has a lot more to learn.

But I am clearly expecting too much, because Amanda thinks that “I don’t get it” equates to “It must not be true” as demonstrated by this parroting of Skeptical sound bites and bullet points, mostly taken out of context or misused (bold mine):

The excuse from “traditional” skeptics for making an exception for religion is that the god hypothesis is an untestable claim, and they’re only interested in testable claims. But as this fairy example shows, that’s not really true. There are plenty of things skeptics are skeptical about because of the preponderance-of-evidence standard. We don’t believe in ESP or ghosts or fairies because no one has ever produced solid evidence in favor of these things existing, and we combine that with an assumption that these things are highly unlikely and so the burden is on the people making the claims to prove them. I don’t see how god is any different.

… Yes, it’s true that you can’t test whether or not there is a god somewhere that simply refuses to show himself, but that’s also true of fairies, people with ESP, and ghosts. And yet it’s considered a good use of skeptical time to point out the weakness of the ghost/ESP argument. So why not god?”

She doesn’t ‘see it’, so it doesn’t exist. I hate to add to the sound bites when what is needed here is serious coursework, but there are some basic concepts that could help Amanda “see how” these things are different, starting with breaking down some of her giant straw man. Here are a few basic points that Amanda should have known before she wrote this post:

• Science is empirical, therefore scientific skepticism is empirical. This is more important than testability, although it is related. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: The concept of testability is watered down somewhat in my posts and comments because it is complicated. For a good discussion of these issues, I recommend Carl Sagan’s Demon-Haunted World.

• Skeptics do not “make exceptions” for religion. The fact that “God exists” is not an empirically testable hypothesis is not the fault of skeptics or Skepticism. It is the nature of the hypothesis. Science and skepticism have nothing to say about any hypothesis which can never be tested empirically.

• Skepticism is not a set of beliefs or conclusions. This is important. “We don’t believe in ESP or ghosts or fairies” is not something that a good skeptic would say and the ‘we’ part is presumptuous. I certainly do not want someone like Amanda Marcotte speaking for me if this what she thinks skepticism is.

• What any Skeptic believes is irrelevant. Personal knowledge is derived in whatever way the individual chooses to derive it. Science and skepticism deal with shared knowledge. Shared knowledge requires empirical evidence.

• The reason that we can easily discount ESP in most cases is because it is usually easily tested empirically.

• Requiring empirical testability is not “giving religion a pass”. It is holding true to the scientific process, which is designed specifically to ensure that our human biases and personal values do not affect our ability to distinguish what is true from what is not true. Religion’s most basic claims usually involve an omniscient and omnipotent being, making them largely untestable. This is not at all true of ESP, ghosts, or other traditional topics in skepticism. More on that below.

• A good skeptic would never state that there are no ghosts. A good skeptic would investigate specific claims of hauntings, searching for natural phenomenon which would explain the evidence. A good skeptic would not say there is no such thing as extrasensory perception. A good skeptic would say that we have no evidence to support precognition, telekinesis, etc.

• Skepticism is not about pointing out the weaknesses of arguments. It is about evaluating the evidence. These are not even close to being the same. When a self-proclaimed psychic moves the bar and says, “If it failed the test, then the forces that give me these powers do not want to be seen,” they make their claim untestable. Skeptics then have nothing to say in response. However, skeptics can provide natural explanations for phenomena (e.g., reveal that Peter Popoff was being fed information via an ear piece) which are much more parsimonious than supernatural explanations. This is also what we do with religious claims. If someone claims that God created man as he is today, we can point to the evidence which support the theory of evolution. If they claim that God created the universe, we can point to the evidence for the Big Bang. If they claim that God created the universe and man by making these natural processes possible, well then, we cannot refute that.

But Amanda would like to cast out Pamela Gay because Pamela believes in a personal God. Never mind the fact that she has never tried to sell that view to others, that she never claimed to support it with evidence, or that she is a very competent and knowledgeable Skeptic, scientist, science educator, and science communicator. Nevermind that Pamela Gay is a valued member of the Skeptical community who has done more to educate and excite young minds about science than all but a few others. [NOTE: minor edit for clarity, 08/07/11 9:50am]

Pamela Gay is not being irrational. Amanda Marcotte is.

Marcotte’s diet example is another case of irrelevant comparison. She states, sarcastically, that people are also touchy about their diet and so expressing skepticism about food trends is probably bad idea, too. This is clearly a straw man. We can demonstrate the effects of gluten empirically, so it is a poor comparison, too. Nobody is saying that people should not express skepticism about the existence of a God. What we are saying is that we cannot demonstrate empirically that God does not exist, therefore, if that is your conclusion, you cannot share that conclusion with others. The difference between personal knowledge and shared knowledge is not trivial.

Making others comfortable is not the issue, either, although making people uncomfortable out of arrogance and ignorance is certainly a part of the issue. I would like to point out that Amanda’s double-standard is pretty obvious in that paragraph. Apparently, the needs that matter are the needs of those she thinks deserve our attention and that’s it. But while we’re on the subject, it doesn’t matter if you are promoting skepticism, atheism, or your favorite restaurant. Being an asshole is being an asshole. The reason that DBAD matters to the rest of us is that when a dick represents Skepticism, they make our jobs more difficult.

The issue of scope is more complicated than the atheism/skepticism debate. The only reason that religion is given special consideration in the discussions of scope is that there are more people conflating atheism with skepticism than ever before. There are more people acting like superior assholes than ever before. People who could be helped by skeptical outreach as well as people who contribute a great deal to the movement (people like Hal Bidlack, a brilliant, scholarly, honorable man with years of service to the community) have been run off by the relentless arrogance of people like those I have discussed in this series of posts. The ignorant, the arrogant, and the irrational (I’m picturing monkeys of the ‘no evil’ variety, but with interesting facial expressions).

And this problem is growing.

Most of the comments on Amanda’s post demonstrate a frenzied groupthink that will further convince her that she’s on the right track. Comment number 41 describes this problem (among others) quite well: “One cool thing about having a political blog which is allegedly powered by skepticism is that people will be much more tolerant of logical fallacies.”

Some of the most fallacious comments:

…There’s nothing worse than an agnostic who thinks he’s more logical and skeptical than an openly religious person. Whether you’re an agnostic or a believer you’re engaging in special pleading on the god question, subjecting it to a different standard than any other question of existence, and you are not a skeptic nor are you logical.

“Special pleading” is a straw man that is repeated often. But it is just that: a straw man.

what the hell is skepticism for if not doing away with false beliefs?

More ignorance. There is no such thing as a ‘false belief’. Beliefs are simply what you hold to be true. Nobody actually knows for certain what is true. Skepticism is about evaluating evidence, period.

H0: There is no god. H1: There is a god. There is a serious shortage of evidence for H1, therefore we must accept the null hypothesis.

Introductory statistics cannot address the question of whether or not God exists.

If there’s a lack of humanpower and ressources to do everything, the question skeptics organizations should ask themselves is not why they should get involved in the more political aspects of skepticism, but why they should still waste ressources on the trivial, non-political aspects like Bigfoot/UFO/ghost/cryptozoology debunkings and such.

Wow. This is very disturbing, and I’m not just talking about the spelling or misuse of words like “aspects”. Apparently many commenters don’t watch television or get out of the house much. The number of shows devoted to ghost hunting alone is staggering. Then there are the shows about psychics of all ages, animal mind readers, monster hunting, etc. These shows are appearing on channels once devoted to science, for FSM’s sake. As for why we don’t get involved in politics, read this.

And anyone who is interested in the bigger picture – the picture concerned about meeting the goals of the movement – should read Comment number 75 on Amanda’s post.

The parroting that atheism is the result of applied skepticism that is so prevalent in the comments and stated in Amanda’s post is anti-skeptical. It demonstrates a failure to understand the fundamental process of skepticism and the empirical nature of science and scientific skepticism. The definitions of science and scientific skepticism were arrived at through centuries of study, collaboration, contemplation, and discussion. They are not negotiable, at least not without agreement from a vast majority of scientists.  If you cannot accept these definitions as they are, you have three choices:

1. Publish your opinions in peer-reviewed journals and hope that philosophers and scientists agree with you.
2. Keep arguing about it with Skeptics and impede our progress.
3. Go do something else.

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