Skepticism for the harassed

Matthew Willey finds Skeptics in the Pub hasn't been as much fun lately

This Friday is our Skeptics in the Pub night. I like going, but I do feel inadequate. Keep this to yourself, but I have performance issues. I try, as convener, to make the process democratic, but I find myself in the position of lead skeptic, and I am frankly a little wanting in that department

I am doing a master's course, working full time, looking after demanding children and learning sign language in the evenings. And working with the local astronomy group on a submission to the council. And looking after demanding children

I know we all have hard lives. This is not special pleading. But it makes me dread Friday nights in the pub with some of the other guys. Being the convenor of the group makes me the mark, it seems, for people who have done their homework.

This is especially true of contentious subjects. We have people with deeply held beliefs show up at out SiTP meetings. Fair enough, we are a broad church. And gosh, they can argue. I am afraid that their research is extremely thorough. Often they have given their position a lot more thought then I have. Often they have research, books, graphs with which they make their point. They have emails from scientists in the field with whom they have conversed. They have trumped me. I am left with nothing but the firm belief that they are wrong and I am right.

Sometimes this has not ended well, I fully admit. I have been told that I am not a true skeptic, and I worry about this, my cover has been blown. I am clearly a fraud, and have no right to take a central place in this group. All I have is my busy life. I've been up since 5.30 and I came out with ketchup on my shirt. My opponent seems to have been at the library most of the day, and, judging by their sharpness of tongue, has rehearsed this debate in the mirror. I get my ass kicked.

So how do I live with being not-a-very-good skeptic? How will I gird my loins for this Friday?

Three things, I reckon.

Thing one: The True Skeptic Thing…

If you want to affirm your place as a false skeptic, google the term 'true skeptic'. I did it for this piece. The first seven entries contain three that are pure bunk. One linked to an occultist site about 'Magik' one to an energy healer called Dr Gary Schwarz, and one to Winston Wu's Scepcop site. Wikipedia is there too (which I regard as neutral in this kind of armchair research, since it appears on every conceivable search page). So let's say half of the top results are definitions of "true skeptic" against which I would rebel being applied to myself. I would hate to think of Winston Wu clapping me on the shoulder for services to skepticism.

The gambit of using the term "true skeptic" is fallacious, as well as being dishonourable. The fallacy involved is, I think, an ad hominem attack. I am having my skepticism questioned, and therefore my position on this or that contentious topic is also in doubt. However, I sometimes get my logical fallacies wrong, so pointing out that a given attack is fallacious is a risky stragegy.

Still, skepticism is defined in a variety of ways, and who gets to apply this label and who gets to remove it is part of the argumentative armoury that exists out there. The label is a rhetorical device. No longer will I trouble myself is my skeptical credentials are questioned. I care not. Whether I am a true skeptic or otherwise, you still have not convinced me that you are right and I am wrong.

Thing Two: How do you fight an encyclopedia?

So settling into my bread and dips on a skeptical evening I am also expected to evaluate chunks of research from people I have never heard of. My opponent may have read several books on this topic, have a box file of research papers, and is personally acquainted with a Doctor from Harvard who supports his view. Nevertheless, I cannot bring myself to agree that the world is, indeed, flat as he asserts.

Supporting the Flat Earth theory is a large and respectable body of literature and science of which, until this moment I have been unaware. Some of it seems to involve high-order trigonometry, and has something to do with the bending of sepace. Einstein is mentioned as a convert believer in this theory. I've been up since 5.30 and I came out with ketchup on my shirt. Where do I start?

My ally in this is scientific consensus, which I understand to be generally thought to be true. This is my shot. How come yours is such a minority opinion? Of course this is prepared for. A careful examination of the way that science closes ranks on controversy and defends itself against the small group of secientists who have a radical view on the world. In short, it's a conspiracy.

I don't need to have a complete understanding of the science in order to defend it. I can't possibly be expected to do so. I can invoke what I know of the plausibility of cabals and conspiricies, or even the academic inertia that my opponent cites as the reason that the spherical Earth hypothesis persists in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

I have at my back the massed knowledge of centuries of hard working geologists, physicists and astronomers, but no matter. The key thing is the conspiracy. Adherance to this is difficult to explain away. Please, explain to me again how everybody apart from you has gotten it wrong? Now, perhaps this time without equating yourself to Galileo, explain it to me, please?

Thing Three: I want to have fun

I've been up since 5.30 and I came out with ketchup on my shirt. Did I mention that? I'm tired and can't remember.

Skeptics put themselves out there. They stand up and say hey this is what we stand for, this is what we believe. This, sadly, makes us a little bit of a target. I have a difficult job that involves small-scale politics, and I spend an unhealthy portion of my week being a target. I don't want to do it on a Friday night.

I want to go and have fun. I want interesting conversations and to laugh about stuff, to find common ground with people who value the same things as I do. We are not there as fodder for someone's sociopathic obsessions. My best and most favourite skeptical night recently was discussing the role of religion in education with two Christian fundamentalists. Make no mistake, I disagree with these people all the way down to the bedrock, but the conversation involved listening and turn-taking, we went off-topic, we laughed at jokes and we actually found some common ground upon which we could agree. We left at the end of the evening looking forward to repeating the experience sometime.

I contrast this with debating the nature of the flat earth, or similar, and although we migh express very similar acceptance of science and rationalism, it seems we have forgotton the simple art of enjoying ourselves. I tell myself it-s okay to walk away at the end of an evening not having convinced everyone of your point of view. It-s okay to go home in the knowledge that people are wrong and you are right because, you know what? Everyone left at the end of the evening smiling and looking forward to next time.

Now straight to be little fella, you've got an early start tomorrow