What is Positive Skepticism anyway? PZ endorses "Affirmative Atheism", a meaningless but happy phrase; I guess Positive Skepticism is a similar camouflage gesture of benignness for what in actuality is a generally negative mindset. Massimo thinks that Skepticism can be sold as a valiant pursuit to save the mentally indigent from themselves. He has written a paper for Skeptical Enquirer, endorsing (whaddaya know) Skepticism as a moral duty.
But Massimo cops out early on the first issue: confusion of Moral Skepticism (my term for his ethic) with cynicism: If you’re not for it, you are anti-intellectual. That’s the answer: you are challenged. Yet cynicism is not the real question. Massimo charges on:
The second question is, "why is Skepticism a moral duty, especially if there are no morals and no Truth with a capital T?"
Massimo offers these answers:
1. Gullibility kills: AIDs is rampant in Africa due to gullibility of African officials; vaccine concerns.
2. If gullibility doesn’t kill, it enables swindlers: Mediums threaten mental health.
3. Engaging Huxley: Skeptics are ethically bound to seek truth (admittedly with a small t) and tell others about it.
4. Ethical Duty: show reality to others (example: drugs are an escape, not an answer.)
Preliminary observation: This would be more convincing if Skeptics actually investigated things rather than condemning them early and often. Glaring example: the shrieking condemnation of James "The Amazing" Randi after he confessed to skepticism of anthropogenic global warming as crisis fodder: he was not engaged as an intellect, he was condemned roundly and loudly as a traitor, a defector, an infidel, charges to which he meekly submitted. He had stepped outside the Skeptic's dogma and had given an actual thought to reality: that was not tolerated in Skeptic circles.
But let’s take a look at the actual facts concerning AIDs in Africa, Massimo's Point #1. Every attempt to promote sexual fidelity and personal responsibility in the behaviors of Africans has been ridiculed and defeated, replaced with the idea that it is our responsibility to provide disease protection for the profligate behavior of the citizens of Africa. [Never mind evidence that AIDs came from Africa in the first place, due to profligate interspecies sexual behavior.] Condoms and vaccines are the accepted answers, not personal self-control or modification of hazardous personal behaviors. The actual gullibility is politically invested by the Leftist influence: random sex is a right without accompanying responsibilities.
And what about the hazards of vaccines? Apparently some vaccines do still contain mercury in the form of thimerisol, a preservative. Even the CDC admits to a “slight” hazard due to mercury poisoning, declaring it a smaller hazard than not vaccinating. Smaller? How much? Hard to say.
Here’s an anecdote about mercury that happened this month where I live. A child brought a vial of mercury to school. The vial was not opened, but the school was closed down for days until a government sanctioned haz-mat cleanup of the school was performed. No mercury was found, before or after the clean-up, which cost bundles. Yet mercury is injected into children with the many vaccines they must have. The ethical issues here are obvious, but are denied in favor of government control of individual lives.
The hysteria over mercury is government driven. As a child I had access to mercury (liquid silver) which I played with, coating silver dimes with it to make them incredibly slick and shiny. Like DDT, mercury-fear is a panic created out of just not too much reality. In fact, the new curly fluorescent lights mandated by the government create mercury spills every time one is broken – and several have broken at my place. The government seems not concerned with that.
[You might be tempted to attribute my logic to mercury exposure, but I think I can defend my positions using actual remaining brain cells…]
Massimo’s Point 2: Mediums prey on the gullible. This is true; no argument here, if that’s where Skeptical Morality is focused and ends. But it is not.
Point 3: Skeptics are bound to pursue truth, small t. This is an exercise in absurdity; here’s why. If there is no Truth with a capital T, as Massimo claims, then any claims that are made are contingent. Those claims are contingent on things that are known and more importantly on things that are not known. In other words, truth with a small t is not valid in any special way other than in the mind of the Skeptic. Yet the Skeptic is convinced of the validity of his opinion to the degree that he calls it truth with a small t.
There is no such thing as truth with a small t; there is Truth and there is Fallacy. Either a proposition is True or it is Not True: False. The concept of truth with a small t is an explicit denial of the Principle of Non-Contradiction, and the Principle of the Excluded Middle. It is a position statement for multiple, relative logics (aka “fuzzy logic”). This was shown conclusively, mathematically by George Boole, who will never be mentioned by Skeptics.
Point 4: Here’s where Skeptics go completely wrong, as if they could go further than Fuzzy Logic. They claim that their opinions define reality. Now Massimo is correct about the need to redirect budding drug addicts. But that of course is not the point behind Skepticism. Skepticism with a capital S is a Materialist (capital M) belief system, one which always and ultimately devolves to Atheism as based on the truncated reality of material-only existence. It is this part of reality limitation that Skeptics want to foist upon the masses, those “anti-intellectuals” who so independently understand that reality goes beyond the blinkered reality being sold by Skeptics.
And there is the real point. Skepticism with a capital S is a sales job. It’s product is Philosophical Materialism and Atheism. It is a frangible philosophy with no structural support from logic other than outright denial. It has to be sold, and here Massimo tries a sales job using a phony “moral” imperative for Skeptics.
A moral duty? In a philosophy of anti-morality, and zero Truth with a capital T? In a reality of physical existence only? What better example of non-coherence could one ask for?
10 comments:
In my recent look at "Skepticism" I learned that they support the notion that one should agree and promote the 'scientific consensus'.
But skepticism implies doubt. And what is there to doubt if not the consensus?
I don't trust groups that misdefine themselves.
(Nothing wrong with the notion of agreeing with the scientific consensus-per se- but don't call it what it isn't.)
(Your example of the way Randi was treated is perfect-- the doubter can't doubt without being attacked?)
"Your example of the way Randi was treated is perfect-- the doubter can't doubt without being attacked?"
This is true of any field, subject, or political group.
However, the reason Randi was attacked more vehemently than perhaps otherwise is because he fell hook, line, and sinker for a fraudulent, logically fallacious, political propaganda document: the Oregon Petition.
Read about how this list is padded with veterinarians, dog catchers, and electricians.
And how there was no fact checking on the people on the list, and so anybody could make up a name and and a PhD and sign it. Fraudulent names are all over it, such as Geri Halliwell of the Spice Girls.
And how science isn't done by opinion polling, but by research.
And how appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when the appeal it to irrelevant authority.
James Randi was criticized not for doubting but for engaging in fallacious reasoning.
The criticisms I read had no mention of fallacious reasoning. It was pure vicious name calling, in the same vein as calling Flew senile and incompetent immediately upon his announcement that he was no longer an Atheist (still repeated by both PZ and - I think - Massimo).
And the statement by Randi that I read at the time was a hesitant, "there might be some validity" to arguments against AGW. I saw nothing about buying into a list, so I wonder if that is a cover story concocted to hide the irrationality of the response? Can you point me to unbiased documentation of the incident?
Ugh... that thing with Flew was just ugly.
I have no doubt there is similar ugliness floating around directed at Randi. However, much sober criticism was centered around his credulous acceptance of the Petition Project, in his blog post, three paragraphs and then six paragraphs down.
And an example of one excellent critical article exposing the flaws in this kind of pseudoskepticism.
Martin, thanks for the links. Randi did not credit his belief to the existence of the Petition Project. He acknowledged the Petition Project uncritically, but he gave specific reasons for his beliefs. If he was damned for the references to the Petition Project, that damnation was a Red Herring.
The second link shows a more balanced criticism, giving the following reasons:
1. Randi's statement resembles Creationist denialism.
2. Randi fails to acknowledge scientism and in fact denies it.
At one point the surgeon-scientist-skeptic makes this statement:
"Another lesson to be learned is that skepticism does not necesarily mean rejecting a contention. Indeed, although it doesn't necessarily mean a reflex acceptance of the scientific consensus, skepticism usually does mean accepting the consensus in the absence of compelling evidence against it, at the very least as the starting point for learning about the science involved."
Totally ignored is the obvious: it can be clear to ANYONE who is familiar with science and its philosophical and logical foundations when scientific methodologies are being violated. Not being skeptical enough, as the Skeptics are not, is a logical failure.
The statement above is an endorsement of the credulity of scientism and elitism, based on credentials - and this is the argument used against Randi, from what I can see. Had Randi supported AGW would his credentials have been attacked?
It is interesting that it was not the AGW-supportive Skeptics that revealed the deadly flaws in the AGW cartel...included being the admission of political activism in the use of non-peer reviewed, non-science, WWF activist articles in the declaration of disasters-upon-us. This failure is so blatant that it smacks of political activism by default amongst the Skeptics.
The Skeptics, including the surgeon-scientist-Skeptic, are mired in agendas, restricted to those which are acceptable to their worldviews. This statement is a bellwether:
"I, for one, am willing to give him all the time he needs to bring himself up to speed on the issues involved. If, after having done so, he still has a problem with AGW and bases his doubts on arguments that address the science, that's OK with me, although I'll still think he's wrong."
Of course he will think Randi is wrong despite any evidence that Randi might bring forth. He is locked down. His preconception is domininant. His opinion conquers logic.
Martin-
Your link to Orac is a good one.
But, if you doubt the science of AGW, then you are skeptical of the science of AGW. Calling someone a 'denialist' (a made-up word, BTW), is a form of name calling.
I find that the misuse of language is often a sign that the user is either very confused, or is trying to confuse the reader.
Of course there is humor, but somehow I don't think that is what Orac is about...
sonic,
I myself stopped using the term a long time ago because it was counterproductive to discussion. However, the reasoning behind it is to distinguish skepticism from pseudo-skepticism.
A pseudo-skeptic:
1. Cherry picks the evidence that fits his pre-determined conclusion and ignores all evidence that contradicts it
2. Appeals to authority outside the field in question
3. Appeals to conspiracy to explain why almost every authority in the field in question supports the mainstream view
4. Attacks strawmen versions of the topic in question rather than attacking what the topic actually says
5. Consistently moves the goalposts when evidence is presented
A perfect example on the Left of this pseudo-skepticism is the "vaccination causes autism" movement.
For (1) they use a single scientific study from 1998 to support their theory and ignore the multiple studies since then that don't show a link.
For (2) they appeal to the authority of Jenny McCarthy rather than, oh I don't know, MEDICAL DOCTORS.
For (3) they accuse all doctors who disagree with their theory of being in the pockets of Big Pharma.
For (4) they characterize the "pro vaccination" side as thinking that ALL vaccines are good ALL the time and everyone should be FORCED to vaccinate.
And for (5) they will never be satisfied with any evidence you give them, no matter how conclusive.
Now what are we to make of a movement like the above? It's not skepticism. They have a pre-determined conclusion and they will hammer and twist the evidence to support that conclusion. Why would we want to tarnish the good name of skepticism by letting them have that label?
Martin, I agree with your assessment of pseudo-skeptics. We might not agree on who qualifies for such distinction. But here is a parallel characterization, using your criteria as applied to the IPCC/CRU:
Martin said,
A pseudo-skeptic:
1. Cherry picks the evidence that fits his pre-determined conclusion and ignores all evidence that contradicts it
Precisely the issue with the CRU crew. Even worse, they used inapplicable data, then puffed up its importance (Amazon basin), and used fallacious data to generate panic (Himalayan glacier melt), etc.
2. Appeals to authority outside the field in question
As with the use of WWF activist articles for crucial issues, while claiming peer-reviewed authority for AR4.
3. Appeals to conspiracy to explain why almost every authority in the field in question supports the mainstream view
Or charging the real skeptics with “conspiracy of oil and energy companies” conspiring to squelch the AGW “science”.
4. Attacks strawmen versions of the topic in question rather than attacking what the topic actually says
Not quite the same as, but similar to denying access to peer review for opposing data sets.
5. Consistently moves the goalposts when evidence is presented
Exactly what the head of IPCC did when confronted with all the errors.
Intellectual integrity cuts both ways. And I disagree that “skeptic” should be a label. The term: “Skepticism”, has been stolen from the common lexicon to give an ego boost to a certain class of Materialists who think that belonging to the Skeptics ensures intellectual superiority. It is a loose club similar to “Atheism” which has unwritten rules for belonging and fairly clear, if unwritten, definitions for apostasy and unapproved thoughts. For instance, no adherent of neutral monism would be allowed in the club of today’s materialist monists. As with Flew and Randi, they would be shamed into capitulation or ridiculed out of the club.
Well, my point is that the label of "denialism" comes second, not first. Someone is identified as using the above tactics, and then labelled a "denialist." They aren't first labelled a denialist in order to discredit them.
I agree with your intent, but I would take it further. I don't think labels serve any purpose of adding value to a discussion. I think the various logical failures should definitely be pointed out, then stop. I admit to labelling, myself, and I think I should be called on it when I sink to that level.
Labelling is not the same as using an appellation that a peson or group already uses in reference to themselves, of course. For example, "Skeptic" is a label that a certain type of individual applies to himself, and is acceptable for reference to that individual. "Mutton head" is not.
Post a Comment