Skepticism—Wet & Dry

In the arguments for and against being definitively skeptical, the social climate and moral responsibilities of skepticism are often overlooked. This is an abridged version of the after-dinner speech given at this year's NZCSICOP Conference.

As a Skeptic, how do you react when you're at a party and someone asks you your star sign?

What do you do? Do you compromise your skeptical principles, smile winningly and admit to being a Virgo, but it doesn't really count 'cos you've got Scorpio rising? Do you attempt to laugh it off by claiming to be an Asparagus? Do you tell them that you don't believe in such rubbish and go off in search of a more skeptical soulmate?

There is that awkward dichotomy between the dry and wet skeptic, the advocate and their silent partner. Most Skeptics vacillate between the two, dampening or drying out.

Dry skepticism — the skepticism of those who pounce on pseudoscience and denounce it for being silly, stupid or downright dangerous — is unpopular. It's usually painted as dog-matic, narrow-minded, heavy-handed and even reactionary. The problem is, many of the same character traits exist in those people confronting us. Ever tried to suggest to a dried-in-the-horn Steinerite that maybe dried cow manure isn't the answer to falling soil fertility? You won't get very far.

Rationality Rules

A willingness to look at a subject rationally is supposed to be the hallmark of the scientist, and indeed, many scientists are willing to take a look at possibilities. Think about the cold fusion fracas of a few years ago — lights burned late in laboratories around the world. No-one was sure how it was done, if it was done, but if there was the possibility, by god, they were going to try it out.

Those areas which do have true validity, where something really is happening will eventually overwhelm any dissent from scientific orthodoxy by the sheer weight of proof, by observation, by experimentation and by reason. It may take a while, but it'll get there eventually.

Sure, the idea of meteorites was poo-pooed for a long time, but the principle of "show me" works pretty well. But for every idea that did eventually pan out, there are thousands which have fallen and sunk without trace.

What are we to do with fringe ideas — reject all and miss the one good idea in a thousand, or spend time and money on all? In these days of funding shortages and falling staff levels, can we really expect our scientists to investigate all the claims of the fringe followers?

Needles and Haystacks

I have a male colleague who puts it this way: think of science as a search for a tiny valuable needle in a huge haystack. You're hunting for it, not really sure if it's there or not. Suddenly you come across the farmer's daughter. No matter how alluring or interesting she may be, she's not going to be much help. Odds on, you'd never find the needle you wanted and the farmer's daughter would distract you sufficiently that you'd forget what you were doing there in the first place.

So you ignore her, stand up and beg to differ. What have you achieved? You're not going to convert the True Believer, but you may make some of the less convinced ones think a little more, you may even touch a faint skeptical nerve in one or two.

Who knows, maybe you'll even find a grain of truth hiding under the large quantity of cow manure that's been spread around.

It can be too easy to dismiss things out-of-hand and become as rigid and ridiculous in one's beliefs as those you purport to challenge.

Think about this — if you plough at the time of the new moon, the harmonic influences and astral harmonies will ensure that you get less weeds than if you plow during the day.

Let me put it another way. Plow during the day and the flash of sunlight as you turn the sod will encourage germination in the weed seeds you uncover. Do this at night and there's less likelihood of weeds germinating.

More believable? Same knowledge, just cast in a different way. For many dry skeptics, the argument becomes more important than the actual search for understanding and knowledge. It can be too easy to dismiss things out-of-hand, and become as rigid and as ridiculous in one's beliefs as those you purport to challenge.

So you have to be prepared to listen at least a little to what is being said and to think about it — make the effort to spot the needle even if there are more interesting things in the haystack.

Science progresses through challenge. Pseudoscience sidesteps challenge, bursts triumphant from the haystack and announces to the world "Look what we've found!" Small wonder no-one wants to know about your needle, no matter how bright and shiny it is.

That's one of the most frustrating things about being a skeptic — how well purveyors of crank ideas communicate, and how readily their ideas are promoted and supported by the media.

Media Jugular

People ignored by the scientific community, particularly those with no scientific standing themselves, are not likely to use learned journals as an arena for debate. No, they tend to go straight for the jugular and end up on Holmes or in the Listener.

A classic case was on Beyond 2000. A British astronomer — an astronomer note — was supporting astrology, saying that planetary magnetic interactions determine various personality factors. The report mentioned that his colleagues wouldn't take him seriously, and compared him to Einstein and Galileo, struggling against the close-mindedness of the scientific establishment.

Everyone loves an underdog, specially one whose cause can be put in the 10-15 seconds beloved by the live media.

Science can't work like this — by its very nature it needs to have room for caveats, to discuss other approaches, to reference sources. :

Sadly, the ever-increasing tendency to micro-miniaturise news has left science as a fact source and precious little else. Drop the context, leave out the contention, and you are left with what is often meaningless facts, or apparently magical processes.

Advertising Superstition

What chance does a person have of assessing the validity or otherwise of what they are being told? We are used to being told what to do, what products to buy, what things to believe. I read a comparison recently equating advertising's cultural function with that of superstitious beliefs.

Common repetition, unsupported claims, apparently magical properties — we've all seen these, whether it's the hungry enzymes in your detergents or the pulling power of a sportscar.

One quote I liked said that advertising is aimed at the optimism of the credulous, rather than at the minds of the skeptical. Small wonder that the advertising-supported media operates along the same lines, pushing show over substance.

If I may be permitted to preen a little, I was rather flattered and somewhat flabbergasted recently to be told by a potential advertiser that readers of the New Zealand Science Monthly were "too intelligent" to accept the generic message of a certain large telecommunications company.

Given the high proportion of skeptics among our readers, I have a certain degree of pride in this perception, however frustrating it is for the magazine's cashflow.

Be that as it may, combine a general ignorance of science and the scientific method with the tendency for people to believe authority figures and you produce a culture ripe for a slide into superstition. It's very easy for people these days to use scientific jargon to give a respectable sound to a crazy idea. It works. You too can get $70,000 to investigate "quantum particle analysis of Kirlian-type energy fields."

Scientists Not Immune

Scientists, themselves, are not immune to the odd dive into weird and wonderful beliefs, usually in an area outside their area of study. Social psychologist Kimball Young noticed this disconcerting fact, remarking in 1924 that "very often among scientists is found the most curious mixture of modernism in a specialised field, coupled with an intense adherence to some medieval or primitive superstition which is unworthy of them."

This has led to the suggestion of awarding a degree with wording along these lines:

The University certifies that John Wentworth Doe does not know about anything but biochemistry. Please pay no attention to any pronouncement he may make on any other subject, particularly when he joins with others of his kind to save the world from something or other. However, he has worked hard for this degree and is potentially a most valuable citizen. Please treat him kindly.

Most scientists, and many skeptics are more conspicuous by their absence from any controversy. Few are prepared to be accused of the dogmatism and narrowmindedness that seems to be the sobriquet of those with opinions.

Some have seen this, ironically, as a loss of faith — a loss of faith in the responsiveness of people to education, in their ability to reason. At times, it's not surprising that faith has been lost. It's all too easy to be overwhelmed in the flood of crystal holding, urine quaffing and channeling.

Admitting to being a Skeptic tends to make people rather defensive. In many ways, it's like admitting to being a feminist. Yes, 'ma Skeptic, but...

There's the belief that all points of view, all visions of the world have equal validity. The power of science itself has been undermined by the suggestion that it is all a subjective construct. Being logical is somehow equated with being mechanistic, being rational now seems to mean lacking in imagination.

Social Skepticism

In these times of self-actualisation, self-awareness and self-monitoring, it is not the done thing to question people's beliefs, to make them uncomfortable. It's considered somehow "poor taste." You're supposed to be emotionally sensitive, non-confrontational and socially and environmentally friendly.

I'm not sure how wet skeptics can operate in this environment, except perhaps in the privacy of their own homes. There's a certain degree of smugness in this approach — a holier-than-thou attitude that no doubt provides a nice feeling of superiority without the danger of having to expose yourself.

Obviously there are times when it is pointless to argue a case, when you achieve nothing except enmity and a further downgrading of skeptical mana if you press your views. An ounce of wit or courtesy will do far more to advance your case in many situations than any amount of authoritative citations.

There is the danger, however, that you miss the broader implications in your laid-back approach. After all, it can't harm people to believe in the benefits of creative visualisation, organic food and acupuncture, can it?

The report on the Bristol Cancer Centre has shown that it can. Cancer patients died faster under that alternative regime than those following alternative medicines.

Are we to sit idly by and let that happen for want of a little debate of the issues.

Vicki Hyde is the editor of the New Zealand Science Monthly.