Getting to Grips With Physical Phenomena
SPR Conference in Wales

Sceptics Divided

The Newsweek article about the sceptics movement that I mentioned last week has appeared, nicely titled The Bullshit Police. I was interviewed by the writer, Michael Moynihan, but wasn’t quoted. No matter - it’s fine for journalists to get a broad range of opinions without having to describe them all.

The article is about the opposing currents within the movement itself, and it’s a fascinating read. Moynihan agrees with its worldview, but as the subtitle makes it clear is not an uncritical supporter (‘Inside a brilliant, nerdy, arrogant, sort of admirable, sort of insufferable movement that questions everything – and wants to upend the way you live and think’.) It’s interesting to learn about the confusions they have when it comes to climate change, and also about religion. The sceptic and the atheist aren’t the same beast necessarily.

The debate is not over the existence of God—almost all the skeptics I met . . . were nonbelievers. Rather, the argument is over whether skepticism should be synonymous with atheism, or whether the two movements should stay separate.

Jamy Ian Swiss, a close-up magician by trade, is one of the chief advocates for the latter view. Swiss lives in Southern California but is New York through and through. He’s voluble and opinionated, delivering withering judgments with the kind of lilting Brooklyn accent that one rarely hears in today’s Brooklyn. He’s a left-wing Jew who disdains religion (“The rabbi and the cantor were such assholes that they turned me into an atheist by the day of my bar mitzvah”) and is obsessed with science. He isn’t an academic, but his references to radical journalist I.F. Stone and knowledge of scientific history might persuade you that he should have been.

Addressing a group of California atheists in 2010, Swiss delivered a barbed speech on the relationship between skepticism and atheism. “Read my lips: there is no fucking God,” he roared. “But that is my personal belief, it’s not my public cause. My cause is scientific skepticism.” After the speech, PZ Myers, a widely read—and notoriously prickly—academic and science blogger, denounced “asshole” Swiss’s “incredibly repellent talk” and announced that he would “no longer consider myself a ‘skeptic.’?” The skeptic world, as it so frequently does, convulsed with charges, countercharges, ad hominem, and endless debates over whether God is a “testable scientific claim” or whether guys like Swiss were selling out atheism in an effort to expand the movement’s popularity.

This was a side of Myers that I wasn’t familiar with, so I took myself off to his blog to check it out. But before I could find it I came across posts taking shots at other people who I would also have thought were batting for his team. Fellow biologist Jerry Coyne, for instance, who with Myers started the TED row over Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock a few months ago. Coyne’s offence was to put in a good word for evolutionary psychology, a discipline that Myers is deeply suspicious of. Coyne notes that he started out as an opponent of sociobiology, as it was first known, but thinks that it has matured and is now a ‘valuable’ way of studying human behaviour. He decries the sceptics who debase it.

Sadly, some self-professed skeptics have decided to debunk the entire field of evo-psych, and for reasons that I see not as scientific, but as ideological and political. . . It pains me that skeptics are so dogmatic, so ideological, in viewing (and rejecting wholesale) a legitimate scientific field.

‘Pure ad hominem, unsupported by evidence,’ Myers snorts.

I detest evolutionary psychology, not because I dislike the answers it gives, but on purely methodological and empirical grounds: it is a grandiose exercise in leaping to conclusions on inadequate evidence, it is built on premises that simply don’t work, and it’s a field that seems to do a very poor job of training and policing its practitioners, so that it primarily serves as a dump for bad research that then supplies tabloids with a feast of garbage science that discredits the rest of us.

Another post that caught my eye attacks Steven Pinker on the subject of scientism. The target was an essay that Pinker wrote recently for New Republic titled ‘Science is Not Your Enemy’, which has attracted quite a bit of attention. The article is actually an impassioned defence of humanism, and in that regard – considering, as I do, that humanism is the only ‘ism’ seriously worth defending, at least in its true sense – I found it rather admirable. I filtered out the patronising comments that people like Pinker always make about science in such contexts. Not so Myers. As an academic he rubs shoulders with people in the humanities, and was angered by Pinker talking down to them. He was especially incensed by Pinker recasting great Enlightenment thinkers like Descartes, Spinoza, Hume and Kant as early pioneers of scientific thinking. Pinker writes:

Not only did many of them contribute to mathematics, physics, and physiology, but all of them were avid theorists in the sciences of human nature. They were cognitive neuroscientists, who tried to explain thought and emotion in terms of physical mechanisms of the nervous system. They were evolutionary psychologists, who speculated on life in a state of nature and on animal instincts that are “infused into our bosoms.”

Pinker finds them all the more remarkable for having crafted their ideas in the absence of formal theory and empirical data.

The mathematical theories of information, computation, and games had yet to be invented. The words “neuron,” “hormone,” and “gene” meant nothing to them. When reading these thinkers, I often long to travel back in time and offer them some bit of twenty-first-century freshman science that would fill a gap in their arguments or guide them around a stumbling block. What would these Fausts have given for such knowledge? What could they have done with it?

To which Myers retorts:

Hooooly craaaaaap.

Look, there’s some reasonable stuff deeper in, but that opening . . . could he possibly have been more arrogant, patronizing, and ahistorical? Not only is he appropriating philosophers into the fold of science, but worse, he’s placing them in his favored disciplines of cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and social psychology. Does the man ever step outside of his office building on the Harvard campus?

Pinker commits the fallacy of progress and scientism, Myers thinks.

There is no denying that we have better knowledge of science and engineering now, but that does not mean that we’re universally better, smarter, wiser, and more informed about everything. What I know would be utterly useless to a native hunter in New Guinea, or to an 18th century philosopher; it’s useful within a specific context, in a narrow subdomain of a 21st technological society. I think Pinker’s fantasy is not one of informing a knowledgeable person, but of imposing the imagined authority of a modern science on someone from a less technologically advanced culture.

It strikes me that these sorts of disagreements are becoming more common. Sceptical scientists are taking public exception to each others’ positions, not just to the opposition’s. And it's interesting that some are starting to discover problems with ideological dogmatism. But it makes sense. As the sceptics movement grows (everyone Moynihan talked to used the word ‘movement’, he notes) it is bound to fracture and factionalise to some extent, as all movements do. Of course sceptics will always unify around core disbeliefs - God, supernaturalism and quack medicine, etc. But as they find some of their own, less central beliefs and interests coming under attack they might increasingly turn their attention to each other.

Could there one day be a major schism? And if so, what would it look like? Would it be ideologists and dogmatists on one side, moderates on the other? Or would it be the fuzzier, more open-minded speculative types ranged against the hardcore materialists?

It’s hard to say how the sceptics movement will develop in the future, but we can be reasonably sure it won’t always look the way it does now. In that changed environment, it’s possible that some people who call themselves sceptics might hold more nuanced views about psi-research than seems now to be the case.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I still don't know how a movement can grow with the type of language skeptics seems to use on a regular basis (harassing, name-calling, vicious). Then again the "latest" ideological trend never appealed to me anyways nor their automatic rejection of anything remotely "supernatural". How can they (or anyone) be so arrogant as to assume that human-made methodology alone can explain all of existence? Though in the future that might change still, but it may not be what the antibelievers want.

"the movement" can grow exactly because there are tiresome characters within it using distasteful language.
I can easily see some folks saying to themselves "hey, i'm into scientific scepticism, i'm not into being a total jerk".

scepticism does not & should not negate curiosity and fairness.

as the movement grows in popularity it will be diluted by moderates who will need to assert their claim to the tag 'sceptic'. as a diverse body of people adopt the label, the rabid bunch will not be able to dominate.

all just speculation here !

Given that Myers has publically accused a prominent skeptic of rape, which follows other bloggers on his network accusing other skeptics of sexual harassment and a skeptic writing in the Scientific American that she was harrassed by a colleague, I would say that the schism is about as major as schisms can get.

What underpins these disputes, though - regardless of the merits of the accusations - is a conflict between skeptics who prioritise social justice and skeptics who prioritise scientific scepticism, and tend to be dubious about the former's hardline egalitarianism.

I'm in the same camp as the first two commenters here, Kelli and Billy. The primary thing that jumps out at me whenever I go to a sceptic blog or video is the coarse language. Time after time, all I can find are polemics unnecessarily peppered with excess profanity, derision and ad hominem attacks. Whether it's directed at their subjects of interest or each other, these atheist/sceptic wonks come across as irrationally enraged.
I know this point is getting old by now, but the fact is, the average activist sceptic is indistinguishable in spirit from a fundamentalist Bible-beater or Muslim extremist.

They claim to have concern for vulnerable victims of "woo-woo" pseudo-science, but that's a line of horse squeeze. (See - I can cuss, too!) It's all about the ego.
Sure, the spiritual and paranormal world is rife with frauds, but most victims of disreputable hucksters are deeply hurting - that's why they're vulnerable to begin with. Many are intellectually sharp, but in their grief and/or angst, they more likely to find more solace from a life-affirming snake oil salesman than from a snarky blogger calling them an idiot for seeking relief to begin with.
But a mutually respectful dialogue between proponents and sceptics requires an internal dignity that professional debunkers apparently don't seem to possess.

It doesn't help that the mainstream media seems to think that rational discussion doesn't sell. If Robert had been quoted in the Newsweek article, it would have opened up a whole new line of discourse, but that might have required some intellectual work on the part of the reader. We wouldn't want to risk that, would we?

Moynihan agrees with its worldview, but as the subtitle makes it clear is not an uncritical supporter (‘Inside a brilliant, nerdy, arrogant, sort of admirable, sort of insufferable movement that questions everything – and wants to upend the way you live and think’.

Sadly, they Do Not want to question everything. That's one reason the term "skeptical" movement is a sham. A true Skeptic would question materialism as well as so called supernatural experience. But, if you hear somebody say "I had a dream that a football game would end a certain way." "Then when I watched it the exact thing happened that I saw in my dream."

Now, a true "skeptic" would say "Well, maybe you did have a precognitive dream." But, you might also be adding things in your own memory and arranging them to "seem" like the dream happened. "Lets set up a test." The next time you have a dream like that, write it down. Give it to somebody you trust. Then lets see how accurate it is.

However, the current "skeptical" movement member would say something like this. "Bullshit, dreams are just a mishmash of the days events and there is no way to see the future because the future hasn't happened yet. IT' SCIENCE!

See the difference? :-)

Actually Steve your observation is proof of precognition because people like that always know the answer before the question has been asked :)

Spot on Steve! If I could express seemingly complex issues that succinctly, I'd have added another comment to the Physical Mediumship post by now!

Sadly (re what Billy said earlier) I have doubts whether the movement will become 'diluted' by moderates. There's been a debate going on between 'dry' and 'wet' skeptics from the word 'go'. The 'wets' (e.g. Marcello Truzzi) haven't got any repressed anger to vent. The 'dry' variety have and that is precisely why they're attracted to the movement in the first place.

They see the aggressive rhetoric and selective moral compass of people like Randi and his ilk, and think it's ok to be the same. And it gives them a visceral buzz linked to an ideology.

'Wets'/moderates really aren't looking for the same thing and may well remain smaller in number. Unless the movement becomes less male dominated, of course.

Bensix said "a conflict between skeptics who prioritise social justice and skeptics who prioritise scientific scepticism, and tend to be dubious about the former's hardline egalitarianism."

If it's true that these are the two camps (social justice and scientific scepticism), then it's not hard to see why they would lose cohesion. Scientism is more likely to believe in eugenics than egalitarianism -the Brights despise the masses because they think that evolution favours the best (cleverest), which they like to think they are.

Quite. I don't remember seeing any articles re the former in SI. Perhaps I missed something?

As I may have said before: The 'Brights' concept has to be the saddest oxymoron out. Bigoted extremism linked to egotism is one of the chief components of the anatomy of stupidity, surely? It also indicates that those who espouse that belief openly, lack social self-awareness. What on earth do they think that everyone else thinks of them?

It does have a corollary in the 'true believer' world though - e.g. 'healers' and 'mediums' who know (privately) that they could use their own backsides as a reading light in the event of a power cut.

I for one am amused by Myers's attacks on Coyne, since I saw them as two peas in a pod. I'm actually in agreement with Myers here (I can't believe I just wrote that, since I never thought I would agree with Myers on anything at all). Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have less credibility than they have ever had; and the latter especially is actually scientific materialism taken to its illogical extreme/end point, when it comes to psychology and sociology that is.

For the first time in years I am finding the skeptics' circus entertaining and interesting, not such a borefest.

Off topic sorry, but when would one expect the 'Survival E books' list to be updated?
2010 was last update.

My question is off topic as well! My question concerns Uri Geller, was he ever caught cheating?

I think 'yes', although others may disagree. If he has, then I'm of the opinion that he has also been caught not cheating, on occasions. A bit like James Randi, really!

Heated argument among academics of any persuasion is normal and, to a certain extent, healthy. But the vitriol and hate, not to mention obscenity, issuing from the mouths of our skeptical friends brings to mind Shakespeare's famous line: "Methinks he doth protest too much."

When there is no way to win an argument with logic the skeptic's only recourse is to shout loudly and attack with vicious venom. The violent drivel uttered by skeptics of all stripes belies their desperation to escape the onslaught of the oncoming scientific revolution that will inevitably vaporize the materialism they live and die by.

We are on the right side of history and they are destined for its dustbin! They deserve from us not rancor to match their own but our pity or, more charitably, our sympathy.

The comments to this entry are closed.