This is a post I recently wrote for the miniblog, but the reaction it received (not necessarily just through blog comments) has lead me to think that I should put it up on the main blog, where it’s most visible. It deals with something that might be considered a bit controversial in the skeptical movement, but I feel it needs to be said by at least someone. I’m not trying to pick fights – I’m just thinking about this concept and what it could mean for the movement in general.
—
When I was visiting my grandmother today in hospital (she’s in for a knee infection, nothing too serious), the topic of childbirth came up via my mother talking about a friend of the family inducing their pregnancy early in order for her mother, who would be leaving the country before the baby was naturally due, to see the newborn child. My mother, who’s a higher-degree maternal and child health nurse, mentioned something along the lines of “People shouldn’t get it into their heads that inducing a pregnancy is a good thing to do – it will probably lead to a cesarean section, then trouble breastfeeding, which causes a whole lot of other problems later in life. People should learn to leave things like that to run their natural course.”
She, of course (she’s my mother, what did you expect?), has data to back up what she’s saying – she’s looked at the peer-reviewed scientific evidence on these topics and has come to the conclusion that such a thing can have long-term harmful consequences to a child’s development. But – and here comes the point of this rant-esque post – would some skeptics have accepted her claims as she said them? I’m going to have explain this further…
Skepticism, as a large, popular and interconnected movement, is relatively new, and its rise has been strongly tied to the prevalence of the new media forms: podcasting, blogging, tweeting etc. – in other words, things that use the Internet. Now, such popularity and ability to spread the message of critical thinking and the scientific method is obviously good for skepticism, bringing in new people all the time – but I fear, in my own paranoid little way, that the type of behaviour that is being promoted by these new communicative forms is not one that we should, as independent thinkers, be encouraging.
People have always been drawn to celebrities, and the rise of podcasting and blogging as skeptical media has thrust many popular providers of such content into what could be considered a kind of “skeptical celebrity scene”. People who I would place in this category include the cast of the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast, James Randi, Phil Plait, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Brian Dunning, Richard Saunders, and many others. They each have huge (and vastly overlapping) “fanbases”, with people like Phil and PZ having the ability to literally change the outcome of large online polls or send thousands of people to a blog or website, simply by mentioning it on their own blogs. In this regard, they have enormous power.
But, clearly, this isn’t the only power they wield. Due to the sheer number of people who listen to what these people say every time they open their mouth and put out a podcast (or wiggle those fingers and publish a blog post), they also have a great deal of influence over what people in the skeptical movement think about various topics. If one of these people endorses some particular thing, lots of people are going to think that it’s great, and-
…
Yes, I hear you. I hear you shouting at the screen (in your minds though – you don’t want to wake the neighbours, I understand). I hear what you’re saying about skeptics being “freethinkers” and “not bound to particular ideologies”. I understand that. You’re right… in a limited sense, though.
Sure, the concept of “thinking for oneself” forms the basis of skepticism, and a healthy distrust of authority is what tears some people away from the uncritical, cult-like grottos of religion and pseudo-science, BUT (and the size of this “but” depends on many things) I’ve been thinking about this, and it seems to me, hypothetically, that the celebrity-like status of the various well-known skeptics combined with the mass new-media consumption of material by the members of the movement could lead to a kind of… “anti-ideology”. Yes, that’s right, a form of active reaction against a particular pseudo-scientific ideology.
The one that springs to mind easily, simply because it formed the basis of my (probably forgotten, by now) introductory story, is the reaction by the skeptical movement against the pseudo-scientific notion that things that are natural (eg. herbs, crystals, growing long hair, running barefoot, a lack of EMF etc.) are the best things for you. Skeptics, rightly so, point out that other natural things are harmful, like sharks and arsenic, so this thinking (called the naturalistic fallacy) is flawed. Great. All fine here. However, I fear that with the growth of easy-access podcasts about these topics and the soundbite-esque nature of gathering information on the Internet, that some, if not many, of the people listening to the podcasts where the naturalistic fallacy is mocked and refuted may come away with the idea that the natural course of action isn’t the best, in other words: it forms an “anti-ideology” against natural things.
Clearly this is a bit extreme. Nobody is going to think that everything natural is unsafe or unhealthy just because someone on the Internet said something “like” that (which could be taken out of the context and distorted). But that’s not really my point. Not all naturopaths think that all of Western medicine is rubbish – usually they’ll just want to promote their brand of pseudo-science as a “complimentary” therapy. The same could go for this “anti-ideology” against natural things. These people wouldn’t think that aspirin is bad because it has a natural source, but they could believe that the things that my mother said about inducing pregnancy and the dangers of not breastfeeding are not true, on a gut reaction, simply because they are natural. They would react against what they perceive as the naturalistic fallacy being employed, even though, in this case, it is not, and is actually backed up by peer-reviewed study.
Yes, yes, it seems like this could be a little unlikely, and that situations such as the one I described might not happen very often. But what about other examples? What if, hypothetically, a study came out that was completely peer-reviewed and valid, great sample size, triple-blind methodology, which showed that vaccinations were harmful, or at the least, ineffective? What would happen then? Of course, the skeptics that had medical knowledge might accept it, but what of the masses of people in the movement without that? With the constant barrage of arguments against the ideology of the anti-vaccinationists fresh in their minds, would they so quickly switch from vaccine-defense to vaccine-rejection?
Of course, in that example I assumed that the skeptics with medical knowledge and therefore the ability to set the record straight would not be able to do so, but the methods by which the “anti-ideology” of vaccine safety was originally spread could easily be used to switch the perceptions of the skeptical movement about the study from disbelief to informed acceptance (I’m looking at you, Steven Novella).
But what if some of the skeptical masses don’t accept the word of the experts anymore? What if they become so attached to their “anti-ideology” that they split from the mainstream? Some of you are laughing at this idea, but it’s something that has me at least a little bit worried. Communities on the Internet can quickly become insular – just look at the Australian Vaccination Network – not accepting criticism or dissenting viewpoints.
So, my main point here is that the skeptical celebrities that we hold up and adore so much need to push that message of thinking for yourself a lot more than they already do, and with that remind their audience that any ideology, whether it be original or reactionary, is a bad thing. I think a great example of someone actually doing this at the moment is Brian Dunning, who has the podcast Skeptoid. Brian stresses in his podcast that he shouldn’t be held up as the pinnacle of knowledge, and often makes sure to balance everything with the relevant facts and shows where the “anti-ideology” could lead if it were followed through with (I’m not sure if he does this on purpose, but it doesn’t matter – the important thing is that he does it).
I’d love to see more skeptical podcasts and blogs remember to think about going over the critical thinking tenants of skepticism every once in a while, just to remind their audience to always go where the evidence leads, not where their hearts, who may have picked up an intellectual bias, tell them to.
(As a side note, it’d also be good for these high-profile skeptics to fact-check as much as possible and tell people when they’ve made mistakes – because their errors can carry into the collective knowledge of the skeptical movement. I guess that’s true of any popular person, but it’s especially necessary in skepticism – we like to have beliefs that are correct and justifiable.)
—
Comments by other skeptics (on Twitter and such) after reading this piece on the miniblog have been interesting, and have lead me even more to the conclusion that skeptical celebrities need to try, as much as possible, to distance themselves from using their popular status as a way to get people to believe what they’re saying without evidence. It goes against the spirit of the movement, and is obviously unhealthy.
I think you raise some good points. I don't know that I am as paranoid as you are though. Skeptics and non-skeptics are human and we all fall pray to similar biases/habits/behaviors that being said I think that the skeptical community handles itself well.
I am also not sure that we have an anti-ideology or that we are in danger of developing one. I don't think you can fit skeptics into a nice diametrically opposed grouping. I think that it's our reliance on multiple points of evidence and the scientific method that shield us from forming an ideological viewpoint.
I think also that a lot of podcasts I listen to manage to get the critical thinking message across well enough. Though perhaps some new segment is needed on the YAS where we are challenged to think skeptically about a problem – like a case study or 3 where you have to detect and filter your own biases and focus on the evidence?
In short I think that you points about reinforcing the skeptical viewpoint are solid – must remember there are always new skeptics who need to be informed. I just don't think there is much of an issue about us not being skeptical of our skeptical idols.
An amazing post, Jack, and definitely something to keep in mind.
Cheers. I just hope lots of people read it and understand its message.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by naontiotami: New (possibly controversial) Homologous Legs blog post: “Thoughts on skeptical celebrities and anti-ideologies” http://is.gd/7Q6ox...
I think you raise some good points. I don't know that I am as paranoid as you are though. Skeptics and non-skeptics are human and we all fall pray to similar biases/habits/behaviors that being said I think that the skeptical community handles itself well.
I am also not sure that we have an anti-ideology or that we are in danger of developing one. I don't think you can fit skeptics into a nice diametrically opposed grouping. I think that it's our reliance on multiple points of evidence and the scientific method that shield us from forming an ideological viewpoint.
I think also that a lot of podcasts I listen to manage to get the critical thinking message across well enough. Though perhaps some new segment is needed on the YAS where we are challenged to think skeptically about a problem – like a case study or 3 where you have to detect and filter your own biases and focus on the evidence?
In short I think that you points about reinforcing the skeptical viewpoint are solid – must remember there are always new skeptics who need to be informed. I just don't think there is much of an issue about us not being skeptical of our skeptical idols.
I suppose I am a bit paranoid, but it pays to be wary of something that could potentially occur before it does occur – we can be better prepared that way.
This post is really just an intellectual exercise in seeing how the skeptical movement could change, splinter and come to represent something that it never used to stand for. Of course, I'm not saying that the entire movement would ever become disillusioned with the ideas of skepticism, but that individual people or groups would pull away from the whole with a large following.
I suppose the ideal state of the movement is to become a loose whole – cohesive enough to share ideas, thoughts and arguments, but not so close as to create large amounts of tension. This may come naturally from the nature of skeptics (freethinking people who have a problem with intellectual authority which isn't backed by science), but the pressure from new media to get all of your ideas from a couple of people with microphones and an Internet connection is something that can't be ignored.
People usually don't realise how hard it is to be a skeptic intellectually – many would just rather say "Yes, I accept that" or "No, I don't accept that" without putting too much thought into the whole exercise, and the podcasting and blogging worlds really implicitly emphasises this attitude.
I suppose I am a bit paranoid, but it pays to be wary of something that could potentially occur before it does occur – we can be better prepared that way.
Agree with you here. What's a way we can instill a basic level of wariness without a) becoming paranoid to the point of inaction (ie second guessing yourself) b) turning our writing or podcasts into preaching?
This post is really just an intellectual exercise in seeing how the skeptical movement could change, splinter and come to represent something that it never used to stand for. Of course, I'm not saying that the entire movement would ever become disillusioned with the ideas of skepticism, but that individual people or groups would pull away from the whole with a large following.
I suppose there is a danger that if certain members within the movement obtain real celebrity ( by which I mean TV shows etc) that we might have an issue self regulating. At the moment I still see the movement as somewhat of a subculture. I also see our opposition to the fanciful as a limiting feature in popularity.
People usually don't realise how hard it is to be a skeptic intellectually – many would just rather say "Yes, I accept that" or "No, I don't accept that" without putting too much thought into the whole exercise, and the podcasting and blogging worlds really implicitly emphasises this attitude.
Off to put a disclaimer on my blog now
Though on that point something TRS said on think tank two episodes ago got my skeptical hackles up.
TRS?
OMG! Like you don't know who TRS is, I mean like WOW! He's like THE idol of Australian Skepticism (The Richard Saunders)
Can you point me toward some stuff that might make me feel more paranoid
Heh – easy, Sean – the latest Token Skeptic podcast! :p http://www.tokenskeptic.org – features a discussion with a friend who is a Science Communicator, that overlaps many of the things mentioned here.
Did I sound too tough Jack. Sorry if it was perceived that way by yourself and others. Take it as a compliment that I chose to write double my normal comment word count.
To clarify my point above, I think we as a community already are skeptical of ouselves. That's not to say that there isn't room for improvement etc. I also would question what critical thinking outcomes we can achieve and measure through podcasts.
Off to listen to this podcast that this podblack person is pushing
Hey I am just be skeptical of skeptic proto-idol
Are you calling me a proto-idol? I take offense. :p
Sorry I meant Teen Idol
Podblack,
Just finished listening. Michael made some really good points. I also can't fault him really on what he had to say. I must say that I was viewing this skeptical of skepticism from a narrower angle.
It seems that it comes down to a bias that we think we are are good communicators/educators and those fields of expertise somehow don't require the same level of due diligence that we demand of others.
I do think though that presenter like yourself are making headway in that area.
I also got the impression that Jack was angling for the cult of personality as opposed to methods of outreach/communication.
"I just don't think there is much of an issue about us not being skeptical of our skeptical idols."
http://fatoneinthemiddle.com/2010/01/26/i-am-not-... – I'd say that you are wrong.
Funny I am reading this as a post about someone being skeptical of idols and or peers about referencing evidence – does this not support my point that we are critical?
Also when we look at this situation(skepticism of the skeptics) how are we determining whether there is an issue, by feeling, by anecdote or by evidence. I'll be the first to admit that I don't see there is a significant issue based purely on what I listen to. That means that I may be missing huge parts of the conversation, that I might be oblivious to parts of the conversation based on my upbringing, gender etc.
"does this not support my point that we are critical?"
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165554
I would say that it demonstrates that Heidi Anderson has clearly experienced ad hom attacks, stereotypes being promoted as 'best' and people unquestioningly supporting idols with blanket statements – enough that her post gets written in response? That doesn't support that being critical is being supported by skeptics on the whole.
But maybe you are oblivious to parts of the conversations that have been done, with people avoiding taking part.
Is this a reflection of skepticism on the whole though. I am aware of the stoush over Skepchick branding and methods etc. I can't deny their are people jumping to defend Skepchick, those critical of it and a whole host people that are reacting emotionally to what should be a simple examination of the evidence. But is this a reflection on the whole of skepticism or just a clique of friends supporters?
I am pretty sure that I have read posts from Podblack criticising the Sex sells approach for nigh on two years?
"…a whole host people..are reacting emotionally to what should be a simple examination of the evidence."
What examination of the evidence? Is there data to support/not support the Skepchick way of doing things? I wasn't aware of this. :/
That is my understanding as well – well not credible( by which I mean aside from subscription count etc) evidence at this point in time. Essentially we should be all stepping back and saying how do we find out if their method is successful, if it is what are the dangers of going down that route.
Subscriber count should not be used to judge the worth of a particular "brand" – popular does not necessarily mean effective.
You'd have to judge it purely subjectively, by looking at the intellectual traits of the people involved in those groups and deciding for yourself if you find those traits desirable in the skeptical movement. Obviously there are some that everyone would agree on, but we need to have discussions to figure out the tighter details of what is or not acceptable for each other.
Subscriber count should not be used to judge the worth of a particular "brand" – popular does not necessarily mean effective.
I was saying that subscriber count was not really credible(sufficient?) evidence for judging a site as successful -p opularity is not necessarily an indicator of effectiveness (unless of course one of you goals is to be popular) it might indicate that you are reaching more people, but it is incredibly hard without some measurable outcomes, to determine whether you are successful. That being said I don't know what Skepchicks goals are. A cursory examination of the blog does not state any aims or outcomes. Indeed what are the goals of the skeptical movement and how do we measure success at achieving these goals. As such I think its hard to judge Skepchicks success because their goals for skepticism may differ from mine, yours, the movements.
You'd have to judge it purely subjectively, by looking at the intellectual traits of the people involved in those groups and deciding for yourself if you find those traits desirable in the skeptical movement. Obviously there are some that everyone would agree on, but we need to have discussions to figure out the tighter details of what is or not acceptable for each other.
Sure we can look at Skepchick and the image they portray and make a decision as to whether or not we feel comfortable with their direction. We all do this anyway. What would be good is if we had solid measurable goals and some objective evidence on which to base an opinion. To say well okay they are raising the profile of skepticism but is their brand good for women in skepticism.
I don't know that the Skeptcal Movement has yet defined really what its goals are and how we might measure success. I do note that DJ Grote seems to have made some adjustments at JREF towards better non profit management (mentioned in FRG).
The point of writing this blog post was to highlight what I thought might BECOME an issue in the future of the movement, not to say that there is a problem happening at the moment. I'd like to prevent this thing from occurring before it does as opposed to dealing with it after it (potentially) becomes a problem.
Of course, with groups like the Skepchicks (about whom I am still trying to form a balanced and rational opinion) you do have the issue of branding and kind of (potential) uncritical loyalty, but I don't see the Skepchicks has having so much sway in the movement that they could cause serious problems.
The problems with gender in skepticism are, in a way, irrelevant to the point I was trying to make with this post (not to say that they aren't important to the movement in general – they most certainly are). I feel that the masses of the movement are just as likely to form a clique around a male skeptic as a female skeptic.
The point of writing this blog post was to highlight what I thought might BECOME an issue in the future of the movement, not to say that there is a problem happening at the moment. I'd like to prevent this thing from occurring before it does as opposed to dealing with it after it (potentially) becomes a problem.
And I think it was a good post. I also think that if young skeptics such as yourself are thinking this way that "the movement" will be in good hands and that somewhere along the line some of your skeptical idols/mentors/influnces must have been doing the right thing.
Of course, with groups like the Skepchicks (about whom I am still trying to form a balanced and rational opinion) you do have the issue of branding and kind of (potential) uncritical loyalty, but I don't see the Skepchicks has having so much sway in the movement that they could cause serious problems.
I don't read the skepchicks and I only come across Rebecca Watson on SGU.
The problems with gender in skepticism are, in a way, irrelevant to the point I was trying to make with this post (not to say that they aren't important to the movement in general – they most certainly are). I feel that the masses of the movement are just as likely to form a clique around a male skeptic as a female skeptic.
I got that. Yes I think there is always the danger of us as humans falling prey to a personality /celebrity worship. But as a counterpoint to guests link to the Skepchick fiasco look at what happened to Randi when he was a little loose with his opinion on climate change? If that wasn't evidence of the Skeptical community being critical of an idol, I don't know what is.
I can relate. My wife has a Masters degree in Midwifery and she would agree with your mum. In her experience intervention has a snow ball effect. She’d also say that Doctors are way too eager to use the tools in their toolbox, rather than wait for the process of childbirth to happen naturally. She’d be the first to leap to use modern medical technology in the case of an emergency, but she’d say if there’s nothing wrong, why disturb a natural process.
My wife is a Skeptic just like me. She has no tolerance for crystal healing, but she’s very supportive of having a quiet, low-light birth place, because the babies are born much calmer. It’s pragmatic.
There’s a tension between midwives and obstetricians and I think the well known skeptical figures who are also medical professionals tend to side with their colleagues. So I have a bit of trouble when I listen to them.
Mmm, I haven't really experienced such conflict myself (ie. in writing, online, etc.), but my mother does express the same opinions of some obstetricians as you and your wife do. It all comes down to expertise, really – some people like to think that they have more answers than they actually possess, and this harms their relationships with other professionals in the fields in which they're pretending to exert an influence.
Of course, I think this is why my parents wanted me to become a doctor (which I'm not doing) – they thought I would be the kind who would understand these issues more than what they perceive as the "arrogant, know-it-all physician". Not that I'm saying that are doctors are like that, but you know what I mean.
[...] the reaction it received (not necessarily just through blog comments) has lead me to put it up on the main blog — and here on the Young Australian Skeptics website — where it’s most visible. It [...]
These are excellent points you make, and ones I consider all the time when I'm writing or doing interviews. I'm just glad I'm always right!
Dammit, I can't come up with a comeback that doesn't sound stupid or insulting! Argh, you have bested me, Dr Plait. :p
Thanks for the reading my blog. Just because I think we should be intellectually critical of our skeptical celebrities, it doesn't mean we can't think they're awesome.
Lol. Phil you should listen to Kylie's latest Token Skeptic as well – linked further up
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Global Atheist, Jack Scanlan, Jack Scanlan, Dave The
Singer, Mick D. and others. Mick D. said: RT @naontiotami: New (possibly controversial) Homologous Legs blog post: "Thoughts on skeptical celebrities and anti-ideologies" http://is.gd/7Q6ox [...]
Reminders that we should always be skeptical, even of leading skeptics, aren’t ever amiss I don’t think. I’m not sure, though, that there is too much danger in an anti-ideology developing. Plenty of people disagree with PZ on his blog about specifics, even if they’re fanboyz/girlz. I think, psychologically, we all have at least some need for leaders. I don’t think a movement without leaders is headed anywhere but failure. The great thing about skeptical leaders, I think, is that they aren’t self-appointed, and their leadership will last only as long as they keep making rational sense. Once they stop, the “underlings” will shred them and new heroes will rise, so to speak.