Organized Skepticism: Process And Progress
Do you have any interest in the loosely organized community of critical thinkers who call themselves “skeptics”? Have you not been in a coma for the last few months? Then you’ve probably noticed a lot of discussion lately about skepticism as a social movement, about the strategies we’re employing as we try to foster an interest in reason and evidence in the wider world around us, while maintaining our identity as a community.
It’s a valuable discussion, and one that every social movement needs to engage in. We have have a common goal, after all. We’re trying a variety of methods to get there, but we’re all theoretically working toward the same thing. There are going to be strategies that work well, and others that aren’t as efficient. As in science itself, peer review is a powerful tool for sorting out the tactics that work from the ones that are just a waste of time.
Unfortunately, the discussion as it’s currently taking place is happening in perhaps the least useful way possible. So much of the talk that’s going on starts from accusations that some person or group is harming the movement, and devolves into clashes of strawmen, lumbering across blog comment areas, slinging ad hominems apace. It’s enough to make the siege of Helm’s Deep look like a tea party (with orcs).
I’ve mostly stayed on the sidelines during the bloodiest of these battles, for two reasons. First, the sheer rancor of a lot of the debate is something I’ve tried very hard to keep out of the Grassroots Skeptics sphere. I want GRS to be able to support people who are trying a variety of different ways to foster critical thinking, and I feel like that mission is undermined if we’re being drawn into hostile debates about whose skeptical street cred is bigger than whose.
Second, I don’t feel like I’m anywhere near smart enough to be telling anyone the “right way to do skepticism.” If there even is such a thing, it’s going to take a far better mind than mine to identify it.
But as I’ve watched the embers of these conflicts glow, and occasionally flare into major conflagrations, I’m starting to feel like we as a community are doing a collective impression of the Spirit rover. Stuck in the sand, wheels spinning, letting valuable time and effort go wasted on a meta-discussion that could be extremely valuable, but is instead just digging us in more deeply. I’m hoping, in my own small way, to encourage everyone to take a deep, cleansing breath, and start having a discussion about our methods that will be more useful than its current incarnation, where everybody hates everybody and the thoughtful reflections and cogent criticisms are getting lost among the shouty bits.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride (screenplay by William Goldman)
One of the first issues obscuring the discussion is that we’re not all even talking about the same thing. The question at the heart of the argument seems a simple one: “what is skepticism?” Yet the simplicity of the sentence belies a fundamental disconnect among the parties engaged in the debate.
Some of the most interesting and thoughtful writing has tried to answer that question by focusing on what skepticism actually is in practice. My (grossly oversimplified) understanding of that line of thought is that skepticism is a process by which we examine the world and the claims that people make. We try to understand the limitations of our own perception, and the tendency of our brains to misinterpret the world, and we try to compensate for that when we’re making decisions. We do our best to limit ourselves to the empirical evidence that’s available. And we try to recognize that there are some questions that are amenable to science and reason (medical and technological claims) and others that aren’t quite so (why a particular milkshake brings more boys to one’s yard).
I agree with the vast majority of what’s been written by proponents of this view, which is trying to define what they refer to as “scientific skepticism.” That definition makes a lot of sense, and I think we as a community could all benefit from a deeper understanding about that common toolkit of critical thinking skills, and where and how it’s most useful.
As valuable as that examination has been, however, it doesn’t really address the question that’s been at the heart of the most vociferous debate. It’s like an awkward cohabitant sharing a small apartment with a larger, more contentious question that it met through an ad on Craigslist.
It seems to me that most of what we’re really talking about isn’t about skepticism with a small “s.” Yes, there are plenty of people who call themselves skeptics because they read blogs and listen to podcasts, who’ve never bothered to actually define the term. And it’s never a bad thing for all of us to make sure we’re using the word correctly. But for the most part, the people doing the arguing seem to at least have some grasp of the process. They all probably do it a little differently in practice; humans have an endearing habit of adapting things to their own uses. And they might disagree about what topics are suited to that kind of examination. But their concept of what skepticism does and how it’s practiced doesn’t seem to vary too wildly.
Where the the bulk of the disagreement seems to be coming from is about what I will, for lack of a better way to distinguish it, call capital “S” Skepticism. It’s about a process, yes, but the process of promoting a reason-centered lifestyle, of encouraging an interest in science and sharing the value of critical thinking skills. In other words, it’s about the way we behave, both when we’re trying to sell critical thinking to non-skeptics, and when our behavior is public in a way that non-skeptics can observe us, even if unintentionally.
Like I said 900 or so words ago, it’s a valuable discussion, and one that every social movement needs to engage in. Figuring out what works and what doesn’t is an integral part of creating change, no matter the subject.
It’s very like evolution in that respect. Try a lot of different things, and you’re bound to hit on something that’s effective, but the system is best served when there’s some mechanism to weed out the less useful practices. Since the things that fail aren’t going to literally die, we need some process for identifying and diverting resources away from the weaker strategies. But in order for that comparison of tactics to yield any real benefit, it needs to be constructive. Discussion is one thing, yelling and throwing things quite another. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the discussion of late has mostly been of the “shattered flatware” variety.
“The smallest act of kindness is worth more than the grandest intention.”
- Oscar Wilde
I’m going to assume, for the purposes of not waking up to a pitchfork-wielding mob outside my bedroom window, that everyone who’s expressed an opinion on this topic, however caustic, has done so with an honorable motive at heart. To wit: trying to advance the cause of Skepticism by discouraging strategies or behaviors they see as detrimental in some way.
I know that many of us are tired to the point of exhaustion of discussing our tone. We want to believe that the information content matters more than the delivery method. And ideally, that might even be true. But even among skeptics, who attempt to be as rational as possible, the way criticism is presented often matters as much, if not more, than the actual substance of the critique. The most efficacious medicine, delivered on a load of buckshot, is still going to do less healing and more blowing holes in people.
Lately, it seems as though most of the time the discussion starts with a particular accusation that gets thrown around so frequently, it’s almost become a Mad-Lib attack. (PROPER NOUN) is so (ADJECTIVE). (PRONOUN) is going to make (COLLECTIVE NOUN) hate us.
RICHARD DAWKINS is so STRIDENT. HE is going to make RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS hate us.
SKEPCHICK is so SEXUALIZED. THEY are going to make FEMINISTS hate us.
P.Z. MYERS is so ABHORRENT. HE is going to make THE WHOLE UNIVERSE hate us.
Please note that I’m not piling on these particular people or institutions; neither am I suggesting that they don’t deserve any criticism whatsoever. Like pretty much anybody who ever existed, they do some things that are great, and they do some things that are not so great. I doubt that even they would suggest that they’re perfect; I hope that nobody seriously believes they are uniformly odious.
So if we assume for the sake of argument that any skeptical activist is doing some good stuff, and some other not-so-good stuff, what exactly is served by starting out on the attack? Again, maybe in an ideal world, the person against whom you’re leveling your criticism would have the skin of the rhino, and would be able to separate the broad, helpful intent from the specific, antagonistic phrasing. But in practice, this just isn’t true.
Almost nobody is going to be able to respond to a perceived attack in any positive way. They’re bound to get defensive, or to respond with an attack of their own. If you’ve ever made the argument that some institution or individual was in some way bad for the skeptical movement, ask yourself honestly; did you phrase your assertion in a way that had any hope of persuading your newfound nemesis to take a step back and consider adjusting his or her methods? Or did you grow a big ol’ pair of Internet cojones, call him or her something awful that you’d never say in real life, and enjoy the momentary adrenalin rush you got from stirring the pot with the bitchy stick?
Which isn’t to say that there isn’t room for improvement in the people receiving the criticism. More than once, I’ve seen an actual attempt at a thoughtful and cogent critique go down in flames, because the person or group at issue overreacted in a way that can only be described as monstrously oversensitive.
I think there’s an argument to be made that they’ve been primed in some way to expect to be attacked. The Internet didn’t invent flame wars, exactly, but it allowed them to flourish to a point that, if the term were literal, you’d need the equivalent of several tons of napalm to manage the comments section of any blog with even a medium-sized audience. But if you’ve been on the Internet for more than about a week, you should be expecting that, and making a concerted effort to correct for that if you read a criticism of your own work that might contain a kernel of worthwhile advice, despite being served with a triple side of jerk.
Like it or not, we’re all emotional creatures. We get worked up about something we see as harming a movement we care passionately about, and we lash out without thinking. Likewise, we have a project that we think is useful or effective, and we resist hearing anything negative about it.
So there is fault on either side of any particular divide, and it would behoove all of us, I think, to choose our words with an ear toward trying to inform and advise rather than to antagonize and alienate. With rare exception, the most ill-informed attempt to advance critical thinking is going to be more helpful than harmful, and there are plenty of people actively trying to undermine science and rationality who we can turn on if we feel the need to sharpen our rhetorical claws. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t criticize things that we think aren’t effective. But we need to ask ourselves if we’re honestly trying to improve the things we disagree with, or if we’re just carping because we’ve thought of a particularly clever insult that we can’t wait to try out.
“False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness.”
- Charles Darwin
There is another point where I think a lot of the “bad for the movement” arguments break down, and that’s with the evidence used to support them. Again, I can’t rule out the possibility that I’ve missed something obvious in most of the examples I’ve encountered. But if I haven’t, it appears to me that the majority of these arguments are primarily predictive. They’re conjecture and sociological doomsaying, forecasting a negative response from some other group or demographic based mostly, if not entirely, on the writer’s opinion.
And there’s something important to note here. I’m doing it too. I’m not giving you links to particular claims or attacks. I’m only giving you my synthesis of the material I’ve read. I’m doing this intentionally, because I’m seriously hoping that someone will refute me. If you’ve seen someone offer specific evidence that some skeptic or skeptical group is doing more harm than good, I hope you’ll educate me. It’s disheartening to think that folks who normally abhor the use of conjecture and anecdotal evidence would resort to it when discussing the dissemination of the very system of thought which leads them to be suspicious of those things in the first place. I would desperately love to be wrong about this, and if I am, please, please enlighten me.
So what should you do if you’re a conscientious and concerned skeptic, who believes that a particular tactic being used to promote reason and critical thinking is inefficient, or even harmful to that goal? Your first option is to make suggestions for ways to improve that process, and do it in such a way that your criticism has any hope of falling on receptive ears. Being constructive in your criticism isn’t a guarantee that you’ll influence the direction of the project that’s inspired your umbrage, but it’s a good start, and if your thoughtful entreaty is rebuffed, it gives you a great excuse to dive into the name-calling, if that’s been your secret desire all along. If you’re reasonably sure that a skeptics group is getting together on Sundays to kick puppies and elderly women, by all means start with the nasty. Otherwise, consider trying to actually provoke some change before you resort to being obnoxious.
All of which is a long way of saying yes. We, as a community, as a movement, as capital “s” Skepticism, need to engage in discussion about the methods we use. We’re working to encourage critical thinking and reasoning skills among the broader population. It’s an insanely big job, and it’s as uphill a battle as any since Sisyphus looked at Hades and said “you want me to push what where?” While there is plenty of room for a variety of different approaches, there are going to be things that work and things that don’t. It’s a useful exercise to identify the weak strategies, and to divert resources away from them, and toward more effective tactics.
The thing is, the sturm und drang that typifies the discussion lately takes a lot of time and energy, all of which could be far better spent trying different approaches. Sure, some of those may wind being as useless or futile as the things they were trying to replace. But some of them won’t, and the net gain in effectiveness definitely won’t be realized if all that effort is being spent on finding creative ways to tell other skeptics that they suck.
So please, I encourage you, in fact I implore you, to engage in critical analysis of the ways that we’re trying to get our message across. But I also encourage you to stop before you go in swinging, and ask yourself if you’re really hoping to influence the trajectory of the thing you’re criticizing, or if you’re just looking to get into an online spitting match. If it’s the latter, I hope you’ll consider channeling some of that energy into doing something different and, hopefully, better. And if you’re already out there trying to promote reason and critical thinking, then keep it up. But don’t stop looking for ways to improve your process. We could all use a little of that, and a reasoned, rational discussion about our methods would be a great place to start.
Category: Personal, Skepticism
35 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
So much of the talk that’s going on starts from accusations that some person or group is harming the movement, and devolves into clashes of strawmen, lumbering across blog comment areas, slinging ad hominems apace.
True, there has been quite a bit of this lately and I have to raise my hand as one of the guilty parties in this issue considering some of my posts and debates. However, the important note here is that the notion of being skeptics and defending scientific literacy and education is an umbrella under which we can all unite, but each of us have very different approaches, and they can and do often clash as we get to more and more specific issues where principles turn to real world actions and personal politics, laws and facts get involved.
There will always be a difference of opinion and heated sniping between bloggers and skeptics. And that’s a good thing. We need there to be constant questioning and meta-skepticism just as long as we don’t take it personally and turn heated debates into grudges and full blown vendettas. That’s when I feel we’d do real harm to the skeptical movement.
Comment by Greg Fish — April 23, 2010 @ 11:57 am
So how do we keep heated debate from turning into grudges and vendettas? Is there a way to have a strong disagreement while still being respectful enough that it doesn’t become a personal assault?
Comment by K.O. Myers — April 23, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
Beautiful post. Thank you.
I think there is an additional element sowing confusion and bad feelings, in that all too often, we’re not all having the same discussion at the same time. It’s something that’s easy to do in a group that is, frankly, as small as organized skepticism is. We assume too much commonality. We criticize eath other because our actions don’t meet goals they were never intended to accomplish. One of us talks about the proper focus for a particular individual or group, and another responds by talking about goals that should be common to all. We don’t stop to state where we agree before we start to disagree, we don’t ask for clarification, and we don’t thank each other for doing the work to which we’re personally unsuited or which doesn’t interest us before talking about our own work.
None of which seems too hard, and all of which seems to be good practice for communicating with other people who disagree with us far more than we disagree with each other.
Comment by Stephanie Z — April 23, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
That is a very good point. Is it possible that there’s an element of time pressure involved? After all, it’s a lot faster to say “you’re doing it wrong” than it is to identify what “it” is, and ask for clarification about how “it” fits in with a particular project’s goals.
Comment by K.O. Myers — April 23, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
I’m guessing there is an element of time pressure, but now that I think about it, I’m not sure why there should be. These discussions aren’t going to go away anytime soon, and neither are the problems skepticism is trying to address. Unless we get it right by accident, of course.
Comment by Stephanie Z — April 23, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
Here’s a perfect example. Stephanie, I need to clarify one point from your first comment. You say “We assume too much commonality.” Are you talking about the people involved in a particular discussion?? Or are you suggesting Skepticism as a movement shouldn’t have community-wide goals that we’re all working toward?
Comment by K.O. Myers — April 23, 2010 @ 4:58 pm
A little of both, actually. To give an example of the first, in the pope/Dawkins discussion, I saw the “will hurt skepticism/atheism” argument referred to as a strawman. If you only went by what the “big” voices were saying, there was a slightly different point being made. Result = the outrage was misplaced. If you looked at the broader, less formal reactions to Dawkins’ move, there were people saying explicitly that. Result = the outrage was justified but not directed at the people who were then reacting to it.
On the second, while we all want skepticism to spread, there are multiple pieces to that. Skepticism is both a set of beliefs/values (objective reality exists, is approximately knowable and is preferable to subjective reality) and a set of tools (can’t do much better than Barbara Drescher’s recent piece on the topic). Both need to be spread, but the tactics involved are very different. We need to understand what the proximate goal of any activity is before we can effectively (dare I say constructively?) criticize it. I don’t see that as often as I’d like. I probably don’t do it as often as I’d like, either. Same goes for understanding intended audiences.
Does that help?
Comment by Stephanie Z — April 23, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
On the second point, I think that spreading both the tools of critical thinking, and the Skeptical worldview that prompts their use, are goals that we have to assume are common to us a community. I agree that it isn’t necessary to expect that each individual project within the community is going to work on both pieces equally. But shouldn’t we assume that people who are only working on the practical part also want the community as a whole to be successful in advancing the philosophical aspects as well?
If you’re saying that, on a project by project basis, we can’t assume that the organizers on working for exactly the same result, I can agree. But if you’re saying that we can’t expect those people to share a common goal, where the tools and the mindset are both more widely disseminated, I have to strongly disagree.
First, I think it starts the discussion in a more respectful place if we assume that, disagreements on methods aside, we’re all working toward the same broader goal. And second, if we can’t agree on at least that much of what we’re all working toward, what identity do we even have as a community, let alone as a social movement?
Comment by K.O. Myers — April 23, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
I definitely agree that the broader goal is, and should be assumed to be, shared. I apologize if that wasn’t clear; I’m a bit brain-fried today. My concern is that people, as well as projects, that are better at promoting one part of the overarching goal be given their due as well. I think we complement each other, but if we’re not careful, we can start to look as though we’re competing with each other. In a nice little piece of bitter irony, successes can sow the seeds of dissent.
Comment by Stephanie Z — April 23, 2010 @ 6:16 pm
I’m about to vomit all over your blog. I’d apologize, but it’s really more my style to simply notify. *grins*
I think my biggest issue with the “debate” thus far is the perceived notion that once one proclaims themselves a skeptic they’re instantaneously catapulted to a representative position. Until I was pointedly notified that my demeanor was coating the skeptical movement with the foul stench of vitriolic aggression (a stench I’m assured our enemies hone in on with the pheromone doused precision of threatened wasps) I was under the impression that when I spoke, I spoke only for myself.
The esteemed author of this most excellent post is the head of a skeptical organization, and as such his words here may be interpreted as representing said organization or even (though erroneously) the skeptical movement as a whole. Should he momentarily lose his bearings and issue an organizational press release stating that only the clotting blood of a million freshly-clubbed baby seals will prevent Sylvia Browne from rising to power as the leader of the New World Order we should all feel free to denounce his position and take him to task for making skeptics look bad. At the very least we ought to publicly demand objective evidence to support his claims.
If, however, he wrote in a publicly available blog not directly associated with any particular skeptical organization how much he detests baby seals and what a bright and brilliant future he believes it would be if they were all to be brutally clubbed to death in the night… we might find his words abhorrent but it’s really none of our damned business as Skeptics because the statement itself had nothing to do with Skepticism.
When exactly was it determined that once one proclaims themselves a Skeptic they cannot exist as anything else? Was our capacity for variety of interests formally taken away from us or was it merely presumed replaced by myopic intensity? Can I not be both a Skeptic AND a “New” Atheist? Am I required to section my blog posts, conversations, and activities into clearly labeled categories prefaced by statements of correlation lest my unsightly personality taint the purity of the skeptical movement? Is it not remotely possible that anti-theistic statements are anti-theistic and not intended as bullet points for the Skeptical agenda?
Simply put – when did Skepticism become a religion in which every action and thought of it’s adherents falls under it’s scope?
This is the point where I simply degrade into (more) unintelligible rambling punctuated by screaming and twitching because, frankly, my feelings have been hurt. A few short weeks ago I felt valuable to Skepticism. I was excited about the possibilities and actively exploring volunteer opportunities and organizational ties. If, however, these last few weeks exemplify the future of Skepticism… you can keep it.
Oddly enough, I don’t intend this post as kindling for yet another flame war. In fact, it’s been toned down greatly from it’s original volume. It is my sincere hope that we can all value one another for our unique talents and personalities. I’ve been through this before (shocker, I know) and am fully prepared to shuffle off to some designated corner to be branded with a force-fed modifier (as occurred with “New” Atheism), but I’d rather not. I’d rather we, instead, recognize this bickering as the ancient tribal mentality foisted upon us by our evolutionary past and think our way into group cooperation through respect and utilization of individual expression.
Comment by Tanya — April 23, 2010 @ 9:03 pm
[...] and was born out of yesterday’s Grassroots Skeptics post by K.O. Myers, “Organized Skepticism: Process And Progress” and the many discussions, debates, and arguments over the last few months about who’s [...]
Pingback by Introducing #SpecialKO « Virtual Drinking Skeptically — April 24, 2010 @ 11:42 am
Tanya wrote:
I’d say you have it exactly right: you can be both an atheist and a skeptic (a majority of skeptics are both) and many other things besides. People are complicated. No one’s nuanced views or life or relationships can be captured by any one label. Nor should anyone feel silenced about other topics simply because they support skepticism.
My own concerns are a little different: What should we say when we are standing on skeptical soapboxes — when we are likely to be perceived as representing skeptical organizations, “the skeptical viewpoint” or the “skeptical movement”? (I think there should be social conventions about that.) And, to what extent should we expect a small label like “skeptic” to describe our individual portfolios of views on politics, ethics, metaphysics and other non-scientific matters?
Comment by Daniel Loxton — April 24, 2010 @ 3:36 pm
Tanya, you write beautifully. I said something similar earlier today. It wasn’t nearly this eloquent, clear, and cool.
Exactly. But it is of utmost importance to understand that these are different things, different domains, different issues. One may be both (a skeptic and an atheist), neither, or one and not the other, so what involves one domain does not necessarily involve the other.
Comment by badrescher — April 25, 2010 @ 1:18 am
Are you sure this is helping?
I’m not sure if this is helping.
Oh, heck, yeah, it’s probably helping. Thanks for the help.
Comment by Greg Laden — April 25, 2010 @ 1:56 am
I’ll join the others in saying that l liked this post a lot, thanks.
I have to add that I’m sometimes rather skeptical that people who offer helpful advice are doing it just to help “The Cause”. When describing others as being too strident, invective, or whatever, they often seem more interested in promoting themselves as the more reasonable person or group than in being truly helpful.
@badresher:
But you don’t get to decide this, and definitely not just by assertion. This is exactly one of the issues in dispute, one of the big dividing lines: why would skepticism of religion be kept separate from skepticism in general? It’s not like there’s more evidence for God’s existence than for (say) ghosts. God just has a more powerful lobby.
You could make a case that it may therefore be strategically beneficial to not bring up religion. If you don’t want your blog or organization to be distracted by endless discussions on religion, by all means, don’t bring it up. But you don’t get to define skepticism for others in such a way that it excludes atheism, because for many, it doesn’t.
Comment by Deen — April 25, 2010 @ 7:05 am
I enjoy blowing holes in people. It leaves more surface area for delivering the medicine.
I agree more with Tanya and Daniel Loxton. I feel skepticism is a thought process, not a movement and any individual can be a skeptic and a “New” Atheist as well as take other stands on other topics.
Do not fool yourselves that teabaggers will quietly sit and listen to well reasoned and critically thought out positions. Same for the Islamists who would rather blow your head off than let you speak.
I am posting this comment on Grassroots skeptics and Greg Laden’s blog.
Comment by NewEnglandBob — April 25, 2010 @ 7:19 am
All communication requires two parties. There is the Buddhist proverb:
“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear”
What this means is that before someone is ready to learn, they are unable to learn and cannot learn from anyone. Once they are ready to learn, then they will learn spontaneously.
The reason that the skepticism movement (such as it is) is not making more progress in changing the thinking (or non-thinking) processes of society is that the non-skeptics in the general population don’t want to become skeptics. They don’t want to give up their current ways of believing without thinking. They are unwilling to even consider other ways of believing and thinking. They will reject as unheard and as not understood any and all ideas that do not correspond to their current beliefs and ways of thinking.
It is exactly like the GOP and the death panels and the bailout of Too Big To Fail. They can’t talk to Democrats because if the GOP understands where the Democrats are actually coming from they might find that they actually agree with the Democrats about some things and that is intolerable to the GOP. The GOP is fighting a zero-sum game of political power. For every bit of power that the Democrats get, the GOP has lost.
The “tone” doesn’t matter. No matter what the “tone” is, the message will be rejected. The message will be rejected without being understood, and the “tone” will be blamed for why the message was rejected.
The problem is that non-skeptics can’t and won’t understand the meaning of the message. They are actively preventing themselves from understanding the meaning. They are being intellectually dishonest with themselves because they can’t face reality as it actually is. To admit that their thinking processes in the past has been so flawed that it has led them to believe in bogus crap, is to cause a narcissistic injury that is intolerable.
There is no “tone” that will work. The tea baggers don’t have the capacity to understand reality. They can’t listen or their delusional world-view comes tumbling down. At one of the tea bagger protests, someone was protesting because she thought that Obama was going to ban fishing. None of them believed in the reality that their taxes had gone down.
Comment by daedalus2u — April 25, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
Tanya wrote:
Thank you for that neat summation. I wish I’d been able to say it as clearly. However, I’d like to expand on it just a bit, to assert that a certain amount of bickering and… tribality? isn’t just inevitable, but actively useful. Self-assessment is necessary, of course, but external criticism can often help bring weaknesses AND strengths of a process into better focus.
To oversimplify a bit, Joey Haban of Newly Nerfed is our editor. I (try, and often fail, to) get posts written early, so that she can clean them up before they go live. I like to flatter myself that I’m a writing triple threat; I have a decent grasp of spelling, grammar AND punctuation. And I proofread before I submit my final draft. But Joey always finds some things that I missed. If I could figure out an easy way to have her edit my comments, I’d do that too.
In other words, my work is better because I’ve got another person reviewing it. And I think that applies to broader, less technical criticism as well. The challenge, for both the people offering advice and the people who need it, is to make that process constructive. I think there’s room for improvement on both sides.
Comment by K.O. Myers — April 25, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
Daniel wrote:
I think we should also be asking whether there are some aspects of politics, ethics, metaphysics, etc. that are more amenable to skeptical inquiry than others. As an example, there’s been some interesting work suggesting that our brains may have a certain hardwired morality, based on some sort of unconscious cost/benefit analysis. (There’s a great episode of WNYC’s Radio Lab on the topic.) To my mind, that suggests that we as skeptics can respond with scientific evidence when we’re told that we can’t have a moral or ethical structure without religious faith.
There’s a whole separate debate to be had, though, about how useful it would be for us to engage in that point. So there seems to be room to discuss what is on topic and what’s off, and a need to be flexible with those borders when new evidence arises.
Comment by K.O. Myers — April 25, 2010 @ 5:37 pm
NewEnglandBob & daedalus2u:
Thanks for the comments. I’d like to point out that I wasn’t focusing on the way we interact with non-skeptics as much as I was talking about how we conduct the internal debates we have with each other. When we’re talking to each other ABOUT the way we should interact with non-skeptics, we’ve lately had a tendency to get angry right out of the gate, and any potential for a useful discussion about our goals and our progress toward them is being lost.
That said, I think it’s awfully narrow minded to suggest that everyone who is not a skeptic is automatically going to reject everything we have to say. I will agree that many of the folks in the groups you mentioned do resist critical thinking and reasoning. But if that was true across the board, then there would be far fewer skeptics than there are now.
This is my perception, of course, but it seems to me that there are a number of skeptics who manage to come to us after spending some significant portion of their lives involved in some tradition that wasn’t so reason driven. As an example, Tyson and Dawn of the Skeparent podcast have explained in great detail that they used to be fairly committed anti-vaxxers. But after some thinking and research on the topic, they changed their minds, and now they’re trying to help other parents understand the cognitive disconnects that they managed to overcome.
If we dismiss everyone who disagrees with us out of hand, and label them as unreachable, it raises two points. One, we’re missing the opportunity to engage with people like Tyson and Dawn, who haven’t just become better critical thinkers, but are actually working to reach out to other people who were in their same position. And two, if people like that aren’t even worth reaching out to, what is the point of doing active outreach at all?
I recognize that Tyson and Dawn, and the numerous skeptics who’ve come out of various forms of fundamentalist religious upbringings, are probably the minority in the traditions from which they eventually break free. Many of their former brethren will refuse us on principal. But if we assume that none of them are willing or able to become better critical thinkers, then I think we miss a valuable opportunity.
Comment by K.O. Myers — April 25, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
K.O.Myers wrote
Certainly, and you’ve hit on the key word: evidence. I think it would save a lot of flaming and wasted optimism if we could clear one issue off the table as a straw man:
To the best of my awareness, all parties agree that all investigable scientific claims are in scope for skepticism even if they have moral, religious, or political implications. No one argues that testable claims ever get a pass.
The scope disagreements have to do with a) which questions are unscientific, b) whether skeptics should tackle non-scientific questions, and c) which scientific questions skeptics are qualified to discuss, and d) which scientific questions are tactically wise uses of skeptical resources.
There are many genuine disagreements, and as you suggest, much work to be done learning how to have those disagreements fruitfully. But that is one patch of common ground that we should all be able to happily share: scientific claims are in scope. Why not see how much we can get done together, working on that patch of ground?
Comment by Daniel Loxton — April 26, 2010 @ 12:56 am
@Daniel Loxton
While I agree with you that people representing specific skeptical organizations should abide by the expected social conventions of their specific organization, not everybody does that, and “skepticism” is not an organization. The CFI is not skepticism. The Skeptics Society is not skepticism. The JREF is not skepticism. Skepticism is a method, not an organization. Skeptics are people who use that method, or at least try to use that method; not (necessarily) a social group dedicated to a cause.
See, I reject this idea that there is a “movement.” I see a lot of people like yourself trying to turn a method into a movement, and dictate (or at the very least suggest) the rules by which that movement must adhere. I, for myself, never speak for a “skeptical movement.” When I’m not speaking for a specific organization, I always speak to represent my own viewpoint in whatever way I feel like that day. Sometimes I’m nice; sometimes I’m an asshole. It has far less to do with what’s “good for skepticism,” because “skepticism” is a process and not an in-group, and far more to do with how worked up I am about a given issue on a given day. If, however, K.O. facilitated a speaking engagement through the GRS Speaker’s Bureau, I would adhere to whatever standards he set; in situations like that, and only in situations like that, am I speaking for anyone other than myself. When someone comes along and tries to say “No, see, you’re a skeptic, too, so you’re speaking for the group anytime you open your mouth,” I think “Wow, this person sure is assuming a lot, to tell me who I speak for and what group I belong to.”
It cannot be said often enough: one person’s goals are not another person’s goals. If someone drops by my blog and tells me “You’re being too mean! Nobody will listen to you because you’re too mean!” (as happened fairly recently), my standard response is “(1)I see no reason to believe that nobody will listen to snark and rudeness and (2)I don’t particularly care if I convince people of my point of view. I’m just stating it.”
In my real, non-blogging life, I advocate for better teaching of critical thinking; hell, I designed a program to better teach critical thinking skills to juvenile delinquents. When I’m doing that, of course I’m not an asshole; that said, the goal is still my own, and should I someday decide that it would be more useful to my goal to be an asshole, I’d do it. Having people come by and tell me that my behavior is not furthering their goals is just a little bit insulting. There is no “Skepticism,” with a capital “S,” as I see it, and there shouldn’t be. Causes are overrated and they lead to the exact kind of top-down, daddy-knows-best, you’re-doing-it-wrong “criticism” that has sparked so much ire from the folks like me who are more interested in saying their peace than fighting for a consistent “cause” while representing a monolithic “movement.”
And, Daniel, what does it say about you that you block tweets from people who consistently argue against your dry, condescending parochialism? Is “Daniel Loxton” one of those topics that’s out-of-bounds for skeptics?
Comment by Akusai — April 27, 2010 @ 2:16 am
So, you’re only an asshole when you are anonymously attacking people on the internet?
Comment by Jason Loxton — April 28, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
I can’t speak for Akusai entirely, but I think he’d agree that we’re assholes when the situation calls for it. See, sometimes a situation calls for the light touch, sometimes it calls for a sledgehammer, and sometimes it calls for the rubber chicken.
I’d be an arrogant, condescending, passive-aggressive prat when the situation called for it as well, but so far it hasn’t come up.
Comment by Tom Foss — April 28, 2010 @ 9:51 pm
@Jason Loxton
Attacking people? I thought I was criticizing ideas. Oh, certainly I sometimes attack people directly (Jerry Falwell comes to mind), but in the above comment the closest I came to a personal attack was characterizing Daniel’s general attitude as “dry, condescending parochialism.”
Overblown accusations aside, it is generally the case that I’m usually only an asshole anonymously. Contrary to what you imply, however, this is not because I’m some kind of coward hiding behind a pseudonym; it is because my pseudonymous online activity is the only time I can be sure I’m speaking for me and only me. See, under my real name, I have one of those jobs with enough public visibility that anything I say that gets recorded could be used against my employer and our organization. Do I agree that I should be thought of as “speaking for the organization” at all times? No, but that’s the reality, and I have to live within that reality. My job is a legitimate organization with boundaries, rules, and external recognition as such; most places that people work are. “Skepticism,” however, is not; despite the efforts of an arrogant few, it is at best a nebulous community of people who value the same toolset for discerning truth from falsehood.
Daniel seems to want to speak for “Skepticism,” i.e. he wants to act as a representative for a collective of skeptics. He therefore believes there is are certain ways that people in that collective should and should not act to further their collective goals. This is all well and good if you buy the following two assumptions: (1)”Skepticism” is an organized group, and (2)all people who identify as skeptics belong to this group. I reject both of those assumptions for reasons detailed above (which were also covered very well by Deen and Tanya above). Thus I characterized Daniel’s near-constant barrage of prescriptions for anyone who calls themselves a skeptic “dry, condescending parochialism”: “dry” because he seems to want to eschew humor that he finds distasteful, “condescending” because his position implies that he thinks of himself as above people whose approaches differ (and if he doesn’t think this, he certainly comes off that way), and “parochial” because he wants to arbitrarily limit the scope of the method of skepticism. In another sense of “parochial,” the sense that Daniel is taking a wide view of the potential ramifications of people’s words and actions among non-skeptics, his views are most certainly not parochial, but it is this concern that seems to have led him to his belief that skeptics (people who utilize their critical thinking skills) should be “Skeptics” (members of a social group/movement) and live by a code he came up with in 2007.
Now, don’t get me wrong; I’m not some rabid, 100% anti-Loxton activist. Daniel does a lot of good work. I think his “I’m a Skeptic” series is great. I’ve heard, though I haven’t read it, that his evolution primer for children is a fantastic resource. Junior Skeptic is pretty cool and a good way to teach kids the basics of critical thinking (even if I was turned off by the Scooby Doo issue due to my vehement hatred of Scooby Doo). But I’m not going to sit idly by while he asserts nonexistent authority over everyone who uses the label “skeptic.” I understand he’s not malicious; he’s only doing what he thinks is best. But what he thinks is best would disallow me from doing what I think is best (while, on the other hand, I’m asking nothing of him except to be left alone). In his desire to speak for a unified whole, Daniel has somehow drafted the rest of us as representatives for his movement, and that doesn’t sit right with me.
Comment by Akusai — April 29, 2010 @ 1:23 am
You know what I hate most about Daniel Loxton? Who does he think he is?
It is not like he has years of experience in . . . . oh. He does?
Well, it is not like he is a recognized expert with published books and essays that have received accolades from the greats of skepticism . . . oh. He is?
Yeah, but he is just an armchair skeptic like the rest of us. I mean it is not like he actually has a career in . . . hmmm, he does?
Yeah, but surely he is a total asshole in person who thinks he is better than everyone else . . . wait, he is not?
Ok, fine but why should I listen to HIS definition of skepticism?? Just because Skeptic, JREF, CSI, and every other major skeptic organization actually goes by those definitions.
DAMMIT LOXTON!!!!
Comment by Heidi Anderson — April 30, 2010 @ 11:16 am
@Heidi Anderson
Thanks for completely missing the point with a fantastic appeal to authority and an argument ad populum. Please come back when you have something substantive to add.
Comment by Akusai — April 30, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
Oh, sorry for the double post, but I had to tackle this one in particular:
Skeptic does not abide by Loxton’s own definition; his own boss Michael Shermer is constantly mixing his skepticism with his libertarianism. He’s written books mixing skepticism with religion, morality, and economics. For all his bluster, Daniel is working for the wrong skeptical libertarian.
The JREF is headed by one of the most irascible, outspoken skeptics in the world. Randi regularly ridicules the objects of his skepticism and does so hilariously. This is against Daniel’s mandate of civility.
The CSI, well, they generally fit the bill for a Loxton-approved organization, as far as I can tell, but their umbrella organization, the CFI, is far more interested in secular humanism and atheism/agnosticism than skepticism of paranormal claims. Not that this means the CSI is like that; I’ve argued myself that they are not really a product of the CFI, but the CFI is generally regarded as one of those “major skeptical organizations,” and it clearly does not fall into Daniel’s definition of proper skepticism.
In any case, it wouldn’t matter if they all accorded exactly with what Daniel said. I’m under no obligation to do as any of those groups do, and I don’t hear them clamoring for me to pay homage, anyway, unless I’m a member, and, in the case of the JREF, which I am, not even then.
And, you know what? I’m a nice guy in person, too. Doesn’t mean I get to tell people what to do. Only time I tend to do that is when I’m telling someone to stop telling others what to do.
Comment by Akusai — April 30, 2010 @ 11:11 pm
@Akusai
I’m sorry it’s taken me awhile to get back to these comments, but I want to take issue with you on a few points. I think it’s shortsighted to say that there isn’t a movement that we can call Skepticism as a convenient shorthand. I think we can, at the broadest level, agree that most, if not all, of the different people and groups that are engaged in these various conversations have the common goal of increasing the awareness and use of critical thinking skills in society. Regardless of the level of organization or coordination that exists between the actors, the fact that they’re striving for a recognizable common purpose suggests to me at some level a social movement. It may be nascent, but it exists.
You can obviously choose to identify yourself with it or not, and I think it’s healthy to debate how coherent it is, as well as how effective it is at advancing that goal. But I think rejecting its existence out of hand, or saying that it’s automatically a bad idea, is an unfortunate choice.
Further, acknowledging and encouraging the existence of a broader movement doesn’t mean that it has to be a monolith. The whole point of my post was to encourage skeptics to discuss their tactics and examine the results of their efforts, with an eye toward improving the overall effectiveness of the movement. If I thought that we should all be marching in lock step, that kind of review wouldn’t be necessary. I know I don’t know the exact best way (or ways) that we should be “doing Skepticism,” and I think the best way to identify and encourage projects that get results is for people with different ideas to try them out, discuss their strengths and weaknesses, and try to measure their outcomes.
I think the modern civil rights movement serves as an instructive example. In the late 1960′s the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam were all working for equality and civil rights for African-Americans. They employed radically different methods, that were in many ways contradictory. And yet history views them all as aspects of a broader movement advancing a change in society. This isn’t to suggest that challenging alternative medicine practitioners is the same kind of thing as eliminating Jim Crow laws, but I hope you can see the structural parallels between the two.
All of which is a long way of saying that, as nebulous and disorganized as it is, we are part of a movement. You can choose to see that as a good or a bad thing, but it is a thing, and I think we owe it to the people that we’re ostensibly trying to help to try to make it as effective as possible.
Second, while I think Daniel is perfectly capable of defending himself, and I don’t always agree with everything he says about the limits of the mission of Skepticism, I don’t recall ever hearing him say skeptics MUST do or not do anything. I think your suggestion that he’s exercising some authority is misplaced. He’s expressing his opinion about what skeptics should be focusing on. He’s having the conversation that I was encouraging in my post. I think it’s a valuable conversation that more of us should be having, and I hope you’ll continue to join in.
Comment by K.O. Myers — May 2, 2010 @ 11:37 am
@K.O.
I wasn’t taking issue with your statements so much as I was with Daniel’s. I know you’ll disagree with me here, but I see his constant need to have “the conversation” as nothing more than creating prescriptions for skeptics. His near-constant refrain these last few months as been, essentially, “You’re doing it wrong” to anyone who doesn’t follow his agenda as laid out in “Where Do We Go From Here?” and “What Do I Do Next?” My interpretation of his activity is that he’s not so much having a conversation as he is exploiting his visibility to try to bring the “movement” in line with his vision.
Given that I believe any kind of skeptical in-group is a bad idea, I don’t think the conversation is even necessary. You and I agree that a multitude of tactics, strategies, and approaches are both necessary an desirable. If that is the case, then why encourage conversation about it? Why not simply let people do as they please? In this whole “conversation,” I keep coming back to one thought: nobody, as far as I can tell, seems to be going around telling other folks to be more forceful with their opinions, or to be skeptical of more things than they currently are; the “conversation” is always started by people like Daniel who want to limit what other people can and should do. Oh, those people will fire back (quite obviously), but they’re not the ones initiating conversation. This tells me it’s not so much a conversation as it is an attempt by a few to exert some kind of control over everyone else. And I still would like an answer from Daniel as to how he can possibly think it’s appropriate to ban tweets from people who disagree with him and say so. This, more than anything, is damning evidence that he doesn’t want a conversation. He wants people to do as he says.
Something else we may not agree on: I don’t think we can assume that all skeptics share the same goals. There may be broad, basic similarities, but I think it’s overly simplistic to think that all people who identify as skeptics share the same set of goals at any given time. This means that we can’t really speak of “effective tactics and approaches” and make any sense; that sort of thing assumes that we’re all self-consciously going in the same direction. We have to speak of tactics and approaches in the context of a specific outcome, and, if we want to avoid being presumptuous, we have to recognize that any conclusions that come out of such a conversation apply only to people who are working toward that outcome and (and this might be even more important) were party to the decision.
I do disagree quite strongly with your heavy implication that we should treat skeptics differently from non-skeptics when discussing disagreement. If you want to encourage the kind of in-group thinking you claim to be against, this is a good first step. It says “We’re all part of this thing together, and that puts us above everyone else, so be nicer to us than to other people.” There’s a similar kind of group expectation at Gen Con; I like to think of it as “geek cohesiveness,” where 30,000 dorks, geeks, and nerds gather into one insular, unshowered mass in Indianapolis every year and there’s an unspoken expectation that “We’re all in this together, and we’re all friends here.” That’s just ridiculous to me. The idea that I’m suddenly friends with a guy wearing a cheap leather breastplate over his Slayer t-shirt and holey jeans just because we both enjoy a good game of Dungeons and Dragons seems absurd. I wouldn’t be his friend outside Gen Con and I won’t be his friend inside Gen Con. Likewise for skepticism; why, if I disagree with someone, should I frame my disagreement differently just because they happen to agree with me that there’s no bigfoot? Worldview similarities do not make them more deserving of measured concern or less deserving of ire than any other person.
Finally, I’d like to end on a positive note. I wholeheartedly agree with you when you said:
This is where I’m at, right now. A bunch of self-appointed authorities are going around making “suggestions” and having a “conversation” about what is and is not appropriate for skeptics. Well, they don’t get to decide that, but they think they do, and so instead of just doing things differently according to their own lights, they feel the need to try to convince other people to do things their way, too. I’m happy to do things my way and not worry too much about how other people operate. The problem comes when those other people try to assert themselves as being authoritative regarding “skepticism-ism,” i.e. what it means to be a proper skeptic. Not only are the floating around trying to influence everyone else, but if they succeed in being recognized as authorities by skeptics and non-skeptics, then the future of the skeptical community (which I do agree exists and have no problem with, as opposed to a social movement) has just been given into their hands. I don’t presume to speak for Daniel Loxton. I don’t want Daniel Loxton presuming to speak for me. It is not in my best interests to let him and people in the “You’re doing it wrong” camp achieve some kind of superior status in the community.
Comment by Akusai — May 2, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
(Caveat: I do not claim to speak for Daniel. These are my thoughts and mine alone)
Akusai,
Daniel Loxton has done what almost all of us have done at one point or another and what you yourself claim to be doing: discuss the strategies that he feels would most benefit the community. He has never, to my knowledge, told anyone that they are “doing it wrong”.
I, on the other hand, have. And I will continue to do so. That’s not telling anyone what to do. It’s telling them what is. So setting aside your hatred of Daniel for a moment, let’s talk about your hatred of people like me.
Your suggestion that everybody dance to their own drummer faces two serious problems:
1) The purpose of language is to communicate. If the meanings of words were flexible, language would cease to be useful. There is no community of skeptics without a definition of the word. Who am I to say what that definition is? Nobody. I didn’t decide it. It was decided by the community just as the meaning of “community” was decided by a community. I simply communicate it.
2) A bunch of people running around in different colored shirts, all claiming to be wearing “green” and promoting greeness is just silly and unproductive. You may call yourself whatever you’d like. But if you claim to speak for “Skeptics” and you don’t know the secret handshake (i.e., what skepticism is), then you are misrepresenting Skeptics.
Yes, that creates an “ingroup”. It’s unavoidable. It is not possible to join forces and work together toward a common goal without some identifying label.
You may claim that we do not share goals, but you’d be wrong. If we do not at least agree that Skeptics promote and teach skeptical thinking, then we are not a movement. But we do agree. And those who do not are welcome to pitch a tent on some other cause.
Getting back to Daniel…
Yes, Daniel has asked that people promoting skepticism and identifying with this community focus on the core topics and refrain from open discussions of divisive issues. He’s asked. He’s asked that people try to get along and channel that energy to better meet our goals.
Daniel has never claimed that skepticism should not be applied to all areas of life. He has simply asked for a focused effort of activism.
And, by the way, the only people who think that blocking tweets is anything more than avoiding the annoyance of long-winded and irrational brick walls are those who are blocked. It’s not a sign of weakness or a sign that you’ve won or that he can’t counter your arguments. It’s not a sign that he doesn’t want to discuss. It’s a sign that e doesn’t want to deal with you. Get over it.
Comment by badrescher — May 4, 2010 @ 9:35 pm
Wait a second. Are you people attempting to have an intelligent conversation with the “eat a dick” guy?
http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2010/04/true-facts-about-boobquake.html
This is a post about being civil to each other, yes? I think arguing with him may be an uphill battle.
Comment by Bag o' Dicks — May 5, 2010 @ 7:43 am
Bag,
Yeah, I know. It’s silly. Sometimes my anger gets the better of me.
Comment by badrescher — May 5, 2010 @ 10:09 am
[...] manner towards them as they accuse the New Atheists of behaving towards the religious, and as the Grassroots Skeptic puts it: Almost nobody is going to be able to respond to a perceived attack in any positive way. [...]
Pingback by Shaming the Atheists | Quiche Moraine — May 6, 2010 @ 8:24 am
badrescher:
Really? The meaning of words isn’t flexible? Strange that every linguistics course I’ve ever taken disagrees. It’s precisely because the meanings of words are flexible, indistinct, context-dependent, and mutable, that clear communication is both so important and so difficult to achieve.
And what is the “community” definition of “skeptic”? Better yet, the “community” definition of “skepticism.” I could cite some moderately authoritative sources–say, Shermer’s “Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. Skepticism is a method, not a position” or Sagan’s “What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and–especially important–to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument”, but that’s not the “community” definition, that’s one person’s definition that some in the community might cite as their particular view.
It’s important in any discussion to be clear with how you’re defining terms, and confusion over such definitions can be detrimental to the discussion. But when you’re dealing with a process like skepticism and a loosely-affiliated movement of people who use that process, how each person perceives the details and sets priorities is necessarily going to be different. The definitions I provided above, I think, are things that the vast majority of self-described skeptics would agree with, but the scope of those definitions, the kinds of claims that they may reasonably apply to, the outcome of those reasoned examinations–those are up for discussion, debate, and individual difference. Your personal definition–or your personal interpretation of the definition–of the term “skepticism” may rule out mixing it at all with politics or religion or economics or whatever, but that’s your perspective. Others will differ, and as you said, you’re not anyone to decide what the definition is.
Bag o’ Dicks:
Wait a second, are you adopting the handle “Bag o’ Dicks” and expecting people to care what you have to say?
Not that it matters. Dismissing someone’s ability to make a cogent argument because they once said something that gave you the vapors is called an ad hominem fallacy. Now, maybe this is just my personal interpretation of skepticism, but I’d think being able to recognize that fallacy and not use it is Skepticism 101, and that a person who can’t make their arguments without resorting to fallacies is a bad skeptic, but that’s me.
Comment by Tom Foss — May 20, 2010 @ 9:08 pm