Skeptical about skepticism

[snugglekitty]

This post was inspired by a great post a friend recently wrote about privilege.

Last night mrpet and I went to see a talk about the Panic Broadcast of 1939, in which a radio dramatization of War of the Worlds caused some people to believe that the US was being invaded by aliens. It was a great talk. I had not really looked at the organizing group, which was Boston Skeptics. mrpet and I were the stealth believers in the audience.

So, I have kind of a problem with skepticism. The guy we met last night explaining their movement said that it was "promoting scientific inquiry," and I am all for that. I think the scientific method rocks. But... a lot of times, when I have heard this viewpoint expressed in the past, it turns out to mean "we are debunking your superstitious nonsense with the cold, clear light of reason." And in turn, that winds up meaning "all that is real is what we can prove in a laboratory. If you can't prove your beliefs in a laboratory we will mock them."

Yes, there are some frauds in this world - people who are making claims they do not believe. They deserve to be exposed. There are also a huge number of flakes in this world - people who sincerely believe things that are debatable or improbable - whether they should be protected is something I'm less convinced about. But I do have some issues with this mindset, and here they are.



1) There is a difference between scientific inquiry and the scientific establishment. For scientific inquiry to work, you have to go into it with an open mind. And then there's the whole issue of what studies get funded. There's so much that we assume and take for granted. Most of the great scientific thinkers have been laughed at for testing theories that the majority found to be patently ridiculous. If science is really so objective, why is it so resistant to any new idea?

2) Somehow, skeptical folks always seem focused on disproving things like ghosts. Why are they never skeptical about things that those who believe in science take for granted? For example, I would love to see skeptics tackle the question of, "Why are you safer giving birth at home than in a hospital if you have a normal pregnancy in the US?" or "Why do doctors still use forms of care whose efficacy has been disproved by science?" or "Why do we teach kids things in school that we know now are not scientifically true?"

3) If something is not proven in a laboratory, that doesn't mean it's impossible. It means it wasn't proved in a laboratory. We may not yet have the tools to be able to understand or even measure certain effects.

4) A lot of folks who profess skepticism seem to lack a sense of wonder or a belief that we don't have all the answers yet. I mean, look at our scientific worldview of a hundred years ago. Is it so implausible to think that our worldview might be completely different again in another hundred years? Heck, it was very recently that some of the top minds in physics thought there was nothing much left to discover, just t-crossing and i-dotting, and that was before Einstein revolutionized the field.

5) One of the things that I love about science is that good science is not monolithic. We have data and we have theories and then we have interpretation. Saying x, y, or z is not rational, well, according to who? I am tired of hearing people say things like, "SCIENCE says you are wrong!" As though science is your dad that is going to come out and show little me the error of my ways and I will cower and agree. Science says a lot of different things. Cite me some sources.

6) Developed Western bias much? The medicinal and worldview traditions of thousands of years must be wrong, because now we know The Truth and can shed some white on the people? Oh those poor superstitious natives - We Must Save Them!

7) My biggest issue with this is that there seems to be no "live and let live" in the community. I am not an evangelist. I don't believe that my way is the Right Way or that everyone should be a pagan or that reiki will fix your backache if you let it or if you just TRIED polyamory you'd love it. I want to live in a world where everyone believes that different ways are valid and your way isn't wrong just because it's not mine - even if our beliefs have nothing else in common. The vocal skeptics I've known don't seem to share this belief. There's no exception for, "but it works for me." It seems to go straight to "either you're a fraud or you're deluded."



Even so, I don't feel I am educated enough to know whether my impressions are true. Ironic, no? It's very possible that most of the vocal skeptics I've known have been jerks and that could be reflected in what I describe above. Maybe the nicer skeptics I know are just low-key about their beliefs. But I suspect it's going to be difficult to find a book to read to find out more about this that doesn't make me feel attacked for mine.

Comments

[catya.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah. what you said.

[lady-anemone.livejournal.com]

Thanks. :)

[findingthegirl.livejournal.com]

I'm a skeptic- a very low key skeptic. I'm generally a live and let live kind-of person, and have no problem admitting that things like acupuncture and reiki work wonders at times when scientifically based treatments aren't helping. I do have a problem with things like the non-science based anti-vaccination movement, because people are dying as a result of it. [There was a heart-breaking story in Australia of an infant who died of whooping cough in an area where parents were refusing to vaccinate their children. The baby wasn't old enough to get her vaccine yet and the lack of herd immunity in the area caused her death.]

Also, despite being someone who borders on the line between agnostic and atheist, I definitely have a great sense of wonder at the universe- both the parts which we can see and the parts that we cannot. I'm still spiritual- I just don't keep to the traditional definition of spirit [and I definitely don't claim that everything will eventually be understood by science]. Greta Christina, who at times is a fiery atheist and skeptic, wrote a lovely post about atheists and transcendence here: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/05/dancing_molecul.html

I totally understand your frustration with the skeptical movement- Some of the more outspoken writers can be rather, well, snotty about believers. It's like they never heard of a thing like liberation theology. Also, there are some who come at it from a rather colonial point of view. Historically though, atheists have been a somewhat marginalized group. I understand where the anger is coming from, although I don't always like the way it is directed. There are zealots in every group that tend to spoil public perception.

I hope that this makes sense. I have deep respect for your beliefs and share many of them, just from a different angle. *hugs*

[lady-anemone.livejournal.com]

Wow, wow! Thanks so much for telling me this. I didn't know that you were a skeptic. My huge esteem for you raises my perception of the movement a great deal.

I have seen your sense of wonder, and I love it. :) And I wondered if there was another side, too - there are pagan one-true-wayers, reiki one-true-wayers, EFT one-true-wayers and they basically all drive me nuts.

*big hugs* Thanks so much for chiming in and I hope you don't feel that I have disrespected your position. I am trying to learn more.

[heartexalted.livejournal.com]

Great post, and I really empathize with what you have to say. One thing that skeptics seem to forget is that science does not prove propositions true or false. Rather, it interrogates theories by testing hypotheses and deciding whether the results support or do not support the theory. "Supports" does not mean "true," nor does "does not support" mean "false."

In the case of the latter, if someone does a formal, controlled scientific experiment to test the effectiveness of Reiki, for example, and the experiment itself does not suggest a clear effect...then that does not mean that Reiki isn't real. It simply means that it does not yet register on the radar of this particular (i.e., scientific) worldview.

[lady-anemone.livejournal.com]

Great comment, thank you for chiming in.

[findingthegirl.livejournal.com]

:D Oh, I don't feel disrespected at all. I really enjoyed your post and just wanted to chime in with my own experiences.

[notpiecebypiece.livejournal.com]

I like this post!

I consider myself pretty spiritually open-minded, and I find the most difficult people to talk about spirituality with are (generally, but not always) atheists -- similar to the kind of skeptics you are talking about, I think. sometimes some of them think anyone who believes other than they believe is dumb. I don't think that about them!

[alisoninsweden.livejournal.com]

Actually, as a scientist, I often feel attacked for my belief in science. This has been on my mind lately because I’ve been advocating a lot in favor of the flu vaccine (normally, I feel that whatever others want to do with their own bodies is none of my business, but in the case of vaccines, if enough people don’t get it, it harms the entire population, so that is why I care). A lot of people throw my Ph.D. back in my face, as if it automatically means that I am a clueless moron who lives in an ivory tower with no valid experience of “the real world.”

It makes me angry when people refuse to believe in things like evolution and global warming despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It makes me angry that by making that statement here, it is probably viewed as controversial and I’m probably pissing someone off, and it makes me angry that I am expected to apologize for that.

That said, I do agree with most of your points above. Personally, I am open to new ideas, and I do agree that alternative medicine works at least in some cases. When I’m sick, I visualize my immune system attacking the virus. If I had cancer, I would visualize the tumor shrinking (in combination with the most advanced conventional medical treatment available to me). I think things like this do help, and there are at least some properly designed, peer-reviewed studies that agree. Some of it may be the placebo effect, but also, I believe that we have much more control over our own physiological processes than conventional wisdom would say. For example, things like emotional state and stress level have a huge effect on immune function, and a lot of people don’t realize this.

I hesitate to label myself as an atheist, because I don’t want to be associated with the mean-spirited, humorless people that this word brings to mind. So when people ask me what I believe in, I generally answer that I am a scientist. I’m really into theoretical physics, which to me is just as mysterious and amazing as any of the other belief systems.

[heresiarch.livejournal.com]

your points all make a lot of sense. the "clear light of reason" is itself a historically situated way of thinking. many social & critical theorists have been challenging secular humanism for the ways it marginalizes non-western (or non-dominant) points of view, and universalizes a particular strain of western thinking.

you might actually find interesting some recent trends in a field called science studies -- basically critical social analysis of how science is produced. bruno latour's "we have never been modern" is a classic, while donna haraway writes amazing but dense feminist critique of science (while being very down-to-earth herself). her latest is called "when species meet," about rethinking the relationships between humans and other animals.

[findingthegirl.livejournal.com]

I was just going through my Google Reader and found a website called "The Symphony of Science". It holds musical videos of scientists giving lectures on the wonders of nature and the Universe. One in particular almost made me cry at the beauty of it.


from symphonyofscience.com

*hugs*

[lady-anemone.livejournal.com]

Thanks for chiming in. :) I agree - and I find it strange that atheists can be such fervent believers in what they don't believe.

[lady-anemone.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing, Alison. That was very brave of you. I respect your belief in science, especially because unlike many believers of any system you link that belief with action - both in your work as a scientist and in volunteering for medical studies.

I do not think of you differently as a person, or value you less as a friend, for having these beliefs.

[lady-anemone.livejournal.com]

I really liked what you had to say here. Thanks especially for the recommendations - I will look into them.

[findingthegirl.livejournal.com]

Sorry, just one more comment! Greta Christina, the writer whom I linked to before, also wrote an essay about atheists and anger. It's fiery and full of rage, and I don't agree with all of it. However, it does seem to provide a rational explanation for the anger of some atheists beyond the idea that 'believers just aren't enlightened'. If you'd like, you can take a look at it here: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

[note: While I enjoy Greta Christina's writing greatly, I don't necessarily agree with all of it. I definitely think there are far more shades of grey to religion and spirituality than she seems to imply and want to emphasize my respect for those with belief systems other than my own.]

[pink-pet.livejournal.com]

Hi, I guess I missed this when you first posted.

... I suspect it's going to be difficult to find a book to read to find out more about this that doesn't make me feel attacked for mine.

Ask and you shall receive : ) Carl Sagan wrote and excellent book on this topic. It addresses many of the points you raise in your post. As you know, I'm not much of a reader, but I read this one cover to cover in a few short days.

The book is Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257180275&sr=1-1

I'd love to know what you think of it if you read it.

[lady-anemone.livejournal.com]

Thanks for chiming in. I saw the Sagan book but I wasn't sure it would work for me because of this description: "Along the way he debunks alien abduction, faith-healing, and channeling..." But, you have read this and you think it would be friendly to a non-skeptic energyworker?

[pink-pet.livejournal.com]

I read it a while ago, and I know I have it on the shelf somewhere, but I haven't looked at it lately.

But from what I recall, he is writing it from the perspective of trying to persuade people why it's important to be a skeptic, and the limits of what science can and cannot tell us. He is not writing it for people who are already skeptics.

So it's not a preaching-to-the-choir book, or a book that mocks or makes fun of people who aren't skeptics. It's more a series of essays urging the reader to consider being more skeptical when they encounter information in the media or from other sources.

One of his major premises is that, if it wasn't for science and the scientific process, we'd still be in the dark ages burning witches. And he draws some really interesting parallels between alien abduction stories and the stories from generations past of people being possessed by demons.

Anyway, you may not agree with his conclusions, but I don't think you'd feel insulted by his tone or presentation.