I promised not to talk philosophy on this blog, but I lied. I'm compelled to post this.
Through a series of events that I won't go into (but some of you may be aware of), I have come to think of myself as a skeptic. ...This wasn't a label I bothered to use up until this year... it just never occurred to me: "scientist*" was enough.
It turns out there's a rather large community of skeptics on the web. I've taken to following some of them... but I find most of them off-putting, since they're too big into bashing Christianity. ...Not that I don't appreciate a good religion-bash now and then, but most of these people just won't shut up about it. It gets tedious.
So last night, I watched a movie that community skeptics are really excited about. For me, watching it drove home a lot of the thoughts I've had about skepticism on the web. Namely, I like the idea, but I don't think many of the proponents really "get" it. ...And I think they miss a few key points. I want to make three here:
- In this movie, as elsewhere, there's a mantra that things like homeopathy "don't give any facts". ...What they mean to say is that they don't give any scientific facts. And there's a big difference. It's a fact that they dilute their compounds incredibly. It's a fact that Sally Suckerman took the stuff and was feeling better within a month. ...And so on. They give facts, it's just that the quality of the facts is non-scientific. Some people actively avoid scientific facts... if they are doing so by choice, there's nothing we can say to convince them otherwise. But to say they are giving no facts at all is just... well... unnecessarily hurtful. Maybe this is a tiny point to make, but it's something that bugs me.
- There is little focus on the influence belief has on health, performance, and quality of life. Often, believing is enough. I point to Derren Brown (a hard-core skeptic) for evidence.
- There's a lack of thorough skepticism about science itself. The movie I mention makes lots of references to science that is harmfully biased, like the pharmaceutical industry. Skepticism only works if you can apply to yourself and those you trust.
I like being a skeptic, and I like that it
seems to be a concept that is spreading. ...But I think we have to apply some of our own rules to ourselves if it is going to have any lasting meaning.
That said, there are some
wonderful points in Skeptoid's movie. I loved his analogies for not teaching pseudo-science is science classes. I love that he snuck in black holes at the center of the universe as one of those "cool things" that may or may not be provable. (I'm not convinced black holes are what we think they are.) I think he did a good job of highlighting the most important falacies. It was a well-produced video, with a very steady camera and some cool graphics in the clinical trial section. And I really
loved his explanation of how theories always have room for improvement! In fact, I think that was a point that needed to be stressed even more. I think that's the underlying virute of skepticism, science, and critical thought... and it should be sung to the mountains. ; )
Okay, that's off my chest. Now back to less controversial matters. : )
* Well, "supportive of science".
