Skepticum

The May/June 2007 Skeptical Inquirer has a number of great articles. Two of them were outstanding and as they can’t be found online yet, I’d like to give a brief review.

1. Alan Scott’s (Physics professor at University of Wisconsin-Stout) “Danger! Scientific Inquiry Hazard” presents the idea that just as we have hazard symbols for radioactive, biological and chemical materials, the world needs a hazard symbol for scientific affronts–”these things that impede progress toward a true understanding and appreciation of the physical world.”

Common affronts to science include pseudoscience, relativism, romanticism, antiscience, secrecy, deceptive consumer marketing and religion. These categories are not mutually exclusive, nor are they completely devoid of being beneficial to humanity.

2. Todd C. Riniolo (teaches Psychology and a special course in Skepticism at Medaille College, Buffalo, NY) and Lee Nisbet (teaches Philosophy at Medaille College, Buffalo, NY) co-author “The Myth of Consistent Skepticism; The Cautionary Case of Albert Einstein,” in which they discuss the concepts of “selective skepticism” and “consistent skepticism.”

…we all have limitations and built-in biases that hinder our ability to apply the methods of skepticism objectively and consistently. Nonskeptics and professed skeptics alike are equally vulnerable to developing beliefs that have not been subjected to rigorous skeptical inquiry.

Danger! Scientific Inquiry Hazard

Here is how the authors define the hazards:

1. Pseudoscience is by definition false science. It usually describes some topic that uses scientific terms and descriptions but fails to appropriately weigh evidence and present unbiased, well informed, objective conclusions.

Here the author gives the example of feng shui, but I think a better example would be astrology, especially because it bares a name that is close to astronomy… thus even in its presentation it tries to mimic a science. Another good example is homeopathy, which the author mentions but this mention gets placed in the Relativism section (possibly a printing error).

2. Relativism is the philosophical belief that absolute truths don’t exist or at least are not accessible to human experience. Adherents to this philosophy argue that science is just a culture with its own norms and language.

The author takes a stand here on the importance to convey the profoundness of science as part of understanding science. Here he paraphrases Kurtz and Montellano in saying, “we must not embroil ourselves in a runaway multiculturalism that treats scientific knowledge as a culture that is equivalent to ‘other ways of knowing’ or the multifarious other truths.”

3. Romanticism is the philosophy that some mysteries of the human experience should not be explained away by science, because to do so would coldly destroy the beauty, glamor, or fascination of the mystery.

Examples here are tales of alien abduction, hunted houses, etc. But a more subtle example I would consider those who go to pet tigers in their cages forgetting the tiger is a wild animal. Those same people then want the animal shot dead. As Chris Rock said “the tiger didn’t go crazy, the tiger went tiger!”

4. Antiscience is a cultural movement rebelling against the establishment of science. .. people who ‘fear science and react by belittling it; they deny its objectivity.’

The author gives as the main example those who are against any form of biotechnology or genetic engineering. Ethical issues aside, opponents of sciece claim scientists try to play gd.

5. Secrecy can impede the progress of science, and openness is a hallmark of good science.

The author gives as an example the attempt of the US Government to remove thousands of documents on germs and warfare from websites after Sept. 11, 2001. Science restrictions are becoming increasingly pervasive, to where parents and science teachers can can’t purchase chemistry kits for their kids any longer, and the government tracks online purchases of certain basic chemicals (normally used in basic chemistry classes) in an attempt to “curb terrorism”.

6. Deceptive marketing techniques can also hurt science literacy… Advertisements masquerading as news articles and television news segments are examples of stealth marketing.

My most recent pet peeve is Noni Juice. Markes of the juice (which is in fact mostly grape juice and packed full with sugars) claim this juice can heal anything. What they don’t tell people is how incredibly high in potassium this juice is and should be used sparingly by people with certain diseases.

7. Religion’s symbol can range from neutral to extremely detrimental. Any religious philosophy that impedes a person’s accurate understanding of the behavior of nature is an affront to science.

The author gives as examples issues such as stem cell research, biological evolution, etc.

He concludes, “By recognizing affronts to scientific inquiry, we can better prepare ourselves and the public to be critical thinkers. ”

The Myth of Consistent Skepticism

The authors argue that “not only do we lack the time and universal expertise to be consistent skeptics, but our minds have a variety of built-in biases that directly hinder nonselective skepticism”

A number of studies are quoted, including research from Tetlock that has shown experts are not completely objective, as they “go to great lengths to maintain belief systems, even in the face of strong evidence that should force them to consider their viewpoints.” The authors also discuss Einstein’s beliefs as an example that there is no consistent skeptic, “Einstein, a professed believer in political liberty, virtually refuses to criticize the Soviet government and justifies the murders and creation of slave labor camps.”

In conclusion they say,

skepticism is an ongoing, self-correcting process, not an end to be achieved…. We are all selective skeptics. Ironically, calling ourselves skeptics may make us less skeptical in objectively evaluating claims because it may create a false sense of our willingness to subject all our beliefs to the principles of inquiry.

Ironically, the authors are being skeptical of their own skepticism… That’s the true definition of a skeptic.

Comments RSS