Jun 28 2010
Concern Trolls and Free Speech Nazis
One of the things that I love about the skeptical community is that it is a vibrant intellectual community that is not afraid to turn its critical eye inward. There is also sufficient diversity of background and perspective, superimposed upon a generally skeptical outlook, to provide some genuine conflict. While you won’t find many bigfoot believers in our ranks, we do run the spectrum from liberal to libertarian, militant atheist to Christian, scientist to artist, and politically correct to Penn Jillette.
The wringing of hands may at times seem tedious – but it’s all good. As long as we remember that at the end of the day we are all skeptics, a cultural minority looking to change the world.
Occasionally our diversity of approach does erupt into outright conflict, with the preferred medium usually being blogs. This happened recently in response to the appearance of Pamela Gay, an astronomer and co-host of the Astronomy Cast podcast with Fraser Cain, on my own podcast, the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe. Pamela is a Christian, and on the SGU we have a tendency to be less than respectful of unscientific beliefs, including religious beliefs that wander into the arena of science.
This post is not going to be about the epistemological conflict over the limits of empiricism – whether or not science can address issue of pure faith, and how faith is distinct from “religion” – the latter being a cultural construct that involves many things, including using faith to invade science. If you are interested in that discussion, you can read here.
Rather, I am going to talk about the conflict between courtesy and free speech (which does often involve the religion issue as well). The start of this latest exchange was the blog response of Seth to an exchange we had on a recent episode of the SGU where Pamela was a guest. First, as an aside, Seth starts with the following premise:
This is an area of some controversy in the skeptical movement. Many skeptics believe that religion and personal belief are separate from skepticism, and that by conflating skepticism with atheism people with my viewpoint are hurting skepticism.
He then attributes this attitude to the SGU and many others. I would just say, this is not quite right, and you can read my earlier post for more detail. First, he conflates religion and faith (that is very problematic), and also he conflates science and skepticism – also a bit sloppy. I think that science and methodological naturalism are distinct and separate from faith. But skepticism includes not just empirical science, but also logic and philosophy, and you can take a philosophical approach to faith-based beliefs. You just cannot say that science proves faith is wrong.
Seth also makes another false assumption – that the distinction being made is largely tactical – it is about not “hurting skepticism.” While this is a legitimate concern, it is distinct from the epistemological issues.
But on to the meat of this post – Seth was concerned about the following exchange on the SGU, about which he writes:
So imagine my surprise when I was listening to The Skeptics Guide to the Universe episode 255 on my iPod today and heard the following exchange: (around 21:50)
Fraser Cain: That’s where the soul is. (General Laughter)
Steven Novella: Yeah, right!
Fraser Cain: So you remove all that, and the bacteria has no soul.
Steven Novella: A souless bacteria.Bear in mind, Pamela Gay is on the phone at this moment. She is in the room. And her cohost from Astronomy Cast and the Host of the show she is a guest on are mocking the idea of the soul.
First, it must be noted that we and Pamela are friends. Pamela never voiced any concern over this exchange, and in a private e-mail to me following Seth’s post she expressed that while anti-religious talk may make her feel uncomfortable, we have never crossed the line with her and she likes coming on the SGU. Essentially – yeah, she is religious, but she is cool with it.
Seth’s post was followed by a thoughtful post from PZ Myers at Pharyngula. PZ makes some good points. I think he hits the nail most on the head with this statement:
The skeptic movement will be inclusive and allow anyone to participate, and participation means your ideas will be scrutinized and criticized and sometimes mocked and sometimes praised.
This is how I feel – our own beliefs are all fair game, whether religious, political, or social. We should not demand any litmus test for skeptical purity – that is not practical, reasonable, or healthy for any movement, let alone a minority movement like skepticism. Anyone who wants to participate should be welcome, in my opinion – even pseudoskeptics who don’t get it (but that doesn’t mean they get to speak at our meetings). However – everyone also has to recognize that your own beliefs are fair game for the criticism that is at the core of skeptical philosophy. That means that global warming dissidents, feminists, alternative medicine proponents, deists, free market zealots, anti-government conspiracy theorists, and communists all get to have their beliefs challenged, and have no reasonable expectations that their beliefs or their feelings will be spared.
Where I find the conflict within the skeptical movement to be most persistent and unresolvable is in the personal choices that people make with respect to balances between the dictates of free speech and intellectual integrity (a consistent application of skepticism with no sacred cows) and the desire for courtesy, creating a friendly and collegiate environment, and presenting skepticism in a positive light. Here we run the spectrum – at one end there are “concern trolls” who seem to advocate for an extreme of political correctness, and go out of their way to find offense. At the other end are “free speech nazis” (these are not my terms, BTW) who seem to go out of their way to be offensive, as if they are daring someone to ask for a modicum of courtesy so that they can cry “censorship” and get self-righteous about their freedom of speech.
While we have all likely encountered these extremes, most of us appear to be somewhere in the middle. It is also not easy to balance these concerns, as they are often at cross-purposes – so there is no perfect solution, you have to make a trade off and that will be driven for each individual by which concern resonates with them the most.
That is why I am not advocating for any particular balance. I don’t pretend to have the one true balance or compromise. I am advocating for tolerance and open discussion, and also just recognition that there are legitimate concerns on both sides and perhaps we can discuss it with each other without puffing our chests quite so much.
There are those, for example, who champion blasphemy as a form of social protest. PZ, Penn and Teller, Christopher Hitchens and others argue that nothing should be sacred. While individuals have the right to treat anything they want as sacred, they do not have the right to request that anyone else does so (a principle with which I agree). Some choose to make this point by going out of their way to blaspheme what others consider sacred – especially when they are being requested to respect the sacred. They have a right to this form of protest and free speech and I think it is important.
But also, not everyone should be expected to engage in this form of free speech. This has a lot to do with personality and style. It also has to do with (as PZ acknowledges) division of labor and specialization within the skeptical movement. I would add that context is also important – some venues and topics require more professionalism and courtesy than others. I would not go to a medical conference and decide that I needed to offend everyone’s religion just to make a point.
The SGU is one particular context. On our podcast we are open about our opinions. We champion the use of skepticism and reason in all areas. We feel free to use satire, sarcasm, and even occasional mockery to put absurd beliefs into perspective. But we also choose not to gratuitously attack individuals – we focus mainly on beliefs. We reserve our personal attacks not for the average believer, but for the promoters – those who are engaging in the public conversation and have made themselves fair game. They have no expectation of courtesy, and there the demands of public debate and exchange of ideas outweigh those of courtesy. With an individual “rank-and-file” believer, the balance is different.
Conclusion
I don’t expect this discussion to ever end – perhaps it shouldn’t. The complex balance of multiple social, ethical, and intellectual principles requires constant thought, discussion, and introspection. So let’s keep the conversation going. But I also advocate recognition that no one has the final “correct” answer – when value judgments and trade-offs are involved, there is no such thing.
58 Responses to “Concern Trolls and Free Speech Nazis”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Excellent, excellent post, Steve. I really couldn’t agree more.
I tend to fall on the “concern troll” end of the spectrum when dealing with my own pet skeptical topic, intelligent design, going out of my way not to call people names and insult them, but this is purely for political reasons – I don’t want to give the Discovery Institute the ammunition they need to disregard the arguments I’m putting forward and instead focus on emotional appeals.
I’m with the SGU on attacking promoters and the beliefs themselves rather than the everyday believers (who usually don’t know better) – I think that should be standard practice amongst skeptics who want to be taken seriously by their communities. If you insult people unnecessarily, they’ll dislike you for it and you won’t change anyone’s method of thinking.
Good post overall.
However, you make a list of generally looked down upon beliefs and include feminism? Really? What is so bad about believing in equal rights for women?
Eilonnwy, I don’t think Steve’s against feminism – he was just pointing out that any belief that you have is fair game in the skeptical movement, even something like feminism.
I really, really hope I’m right. :p
I find it interesting how thin-skinned people can be about their cherished beliefs. I mean, if you’re so confident that you have access to the ‘truth,’ you should be able to deal with a little mockery.
Especially when it comes to religion, even intense scrutiny seems often to be considered out-of-bounds, let alone ribbing, sarcasm, hyperbole, or general fun-making. There are no blasphemy laws anywhere about secular beliefs or concepts, but religion seems to need legal protection.
NaonTiotami – you said “…going out of my way not to call people names and insult them, but this is purely for political reasons”
I think most “Free speech nazis” would agree with this (at least I do and I probably fall more toward this side than not), at least to the extent that it involves non-public figures/rank and file believers.
And as Steve said, “…we also choose not to gratuitously attack individuals – we focus mainly on beliefs.” [that's not to imply that Steve is a "Free speech nazi", just that I agree with him]
@Eilonnwy:
I wondered the same thing; I’ve wracked my brain trying to figure out what Steven could be talking about here. Other than the discredited idea that some feminists believe “sex is rape” (which, if true, would be a belief deserving of criticism), I haven’t had much luck.
@Eilonnwy, @rdriley:
I guess it’s because the public often dissociates the actual goals of typical feminists from the word “feminism”, as though the latter implies both holding feminist ideals and being a jerk. How often have you heard people say “I’m not a feminist, but I do believe in equal rights and opportunities for women”?
Still, it was a little odd seeing it in the same list as alt-med advocates and global warming deniers.
ADR150 – Would they agree with that? Because (to use an example) a lot of people who critique intelligent design seem to go out of their way to insult intelligent design proponents at the Discovery Institute. Are they “free speech nazis”? But then, I suppose the guys at the DI are not the rank and file believers in ID… Hmm…
@Eilonnwy&rdiley:
Agreed.
Even as a guy who argues with feminist about their views, I wouldn’t say they don’t generally have a point. It’s more the specific claims that I sometimes have a problem with.
Also: Communists?
I see that Americans have some kind of phobia about these things (state ownership, socialism, free ponies), but you can’t throw them in the same pot as homeopaths.
Maybe Communism not the ideal way to run the world, but do you think Capitalism is?
regarding feminism – I was actually not making any judgments about any of the things in that list – rather, these are topics I have heard discussed among skeptics. There is a fairly broad range of positions under the banner “feminism” and some definitely are the target of skeptical criticism. Just read the SGU forums.
Similarly – global warming “dissidents” fall under a spectrum from some legitimate skepticism to outright denial.
The point is – no matter what your beliefs, if they are even the slightest bit controversial, expect vigorous debate and even criticism within the skeptical movement.
I read Pharyngula. for about 6 weeks. There is no doubt that PZ is earnest in his position. But I don’t think his method will accomplish much except provide an excellent play ground for people who enjoy mocking.
My interest is in keeping religion out of public policy and public schools. I am also interested in promoting a school curriculum that teaches critical thinking from K-12.
Mocking and derision are unlikely not accomplish those goals, in my opinion. They will only deepen the chasm. Personally, if I am mocked my natural tendency is to become defensive of my viewpoint, rather than consider the point of the mocker. It raises anger, not thought. If I consider the mockers points at all, I find it hard to overcome the emotional tag I have attached to them in order to rationally consider their position.
Rational, respectful conversations are more likely to accomplish change. In my experience, courtesy and tolerance generally gets reciprocated.
Finally, I think that mocking often paints entire groups of individuals with one brush stroke. For example, the term believers is used often and includes apparently every non-atheist in existence. To these people they attribute a belief in creationism or similar non evolutionary story. But I consider broad generalizations suspect and often find they don’t stand up to critical thinking. Among my 15 “believer” friends only one rejects evolution outright. Most think that the science is right, but have some nebulous feeling that evolution developed as God intended.
I’ve always thought that it’s not whether you attack the belief or the person, but how you do either. It seems to me that some people deserve to be attacked and mocked as much as or more than their beliefs, but if such attacks are not measured and justified, then you’ve lost the high-ground of objective criticism and thrown yourself into the mud. Your worldview may be more accurate, but using fallacious arguments to make your points only weakens your image, lessens your appeal to those on the fence, and provides valid counter-points to those you are mocking.
Maybe I’m wrong here, but I suspect that scientists who are use to strong tone and language when debating other viewpoints don’t really see an issue, whereas non-scientists may find certain voices from these scientists to be impolite/discourteous?
In other words, when scientists are beating up other scientists, I suspect it doesn’t come across as personal attacks – but when non-scientists witness these exchanges, it comes across as very personal?
SARA – while your views are all reasonable, I would just point out that you are making some factual claims which may not be factually based.
The literature shows that most people most of the time do not respond to intellectual arguments. They respond to peer-pressure. This is not a judgment – it is the interpretation of the psychological literature.
One might then argue that making a belief socially acceptable or socially ridiculed might be an effective strategy – especially for those on the fence.
I think it is helpful, with respect to arguments about style, to separate what we are comfortable with, and what our experience has told us works in specific contexts, to broader conclusions about what works in general.
He writes a great piece with lots of good points and all you people can see is the word feminism. Nuff said.
Mockery has its place, but my perspective on courtesy in skepticism is that we must be careful not to replace argument with mockery. One of the reasons I can’t stand to read Pharyngula is that he very often descends into mockery, and that’s neither productive nor illuminating. Sometimes entertaining, but when it’s all mockery, it just becomes another form of us versus them. It becomes vindictive — “I’ll show them!” rather than “I’ll demonstrate why they are wrong”.
I do think everyone who comes to a skeptical discussion needs to be prepared to experience a little skepticism at their own claims. And really, if you have any confidence in your claims, you should not be afraid of this, and if you *don’t* have confidence in your claims, then subjecting them to skepticism is a good way of testing them.
But outright mockery gets tiresome, and really isn’t constructive. In addition to irritating those who might otherwise join us, it is puerile. Beavis & Butthead mock. Intelligent Design proponents mock. I would like to believe that, on the whole, we are better than that. Mockery is entertaining, and comedy has it’s place, but it cannot supercede argument. When the anti-vax brigade uses mockery (which they frequently do), it is usually because they lack a better attack. Mockery is easy. Anybody can do it. You don’t even need a solid logical foundation. Therefore, it provides absolutely no substance to a skeptical position — and can undermine it, by giving the appearance that one lacks actual facts.
I am not a skeptic, but I believe that all claims about the natural world need to be supported by evidence and critical analysis before they can be accepted as true.
Steven Novella:
This would, then, suggest that the best way to promote science would be as the ID proponents promote their idea — propaganda. I am uncomfortable with this. If people are believing scientific claims because of what is socially acceptable or not, then they are really not any more scientific than they were before. In fact, I’d argue that for the most part, that is how people already behave. For the most part, they believe science is reasonable. They also believe they aren’t smart enough to understand it, and so expect to be fed the correct facts by their science class or whatever. And for the most part, this works. Yes, there are Creationists out there, but for any situation where science has a direct bearing on people’s lives, they tend to listen to it. It gives them unreasonable expectations of doctors, and unreasonable expectations of the government and BP in cleaning up the current oil spill — we know the basic science, so why can’t the doctors and engineers just *fix* it?
So if you wish to follow a Grecian ideal and have society led by a cadre of intellectuals, with the masses guided into the correct beliefs, that’s fine. I aspire to something higher. I wish for most people, eventually, to understand what science is and be able to judge these things on their own merits. Maybe I’m being too idealistic, but I do believe that we as a species are capable of it. I don’t think skeptics are biologically unusual, for the most part.
On mockery:
Steven’s point above is really quite important in this discussion. Being polite and respectful is often utterly useless when dealing with the woo crowd. It might result, as SARA suggests above, in a reciprocally respectful discussion, but after all that level-headed, calm and courteous talk, you’re still left with someone who thinks vaccines cause autism.
Does outright mockery work any better? From experience, I’d honestly have to say “not really,” but it’s certainly not any worse. Think of it this way: in the battle against woo, we have a certain number of weapons at our disposal. Calm, respectful discussion is one. Mockery is another, more nasty sort of blade. Dry, straight on presentation of the scientific facts is yet another. I don’t think it makes any kind of sense to refuse to use one of our weapons just because it isn’t particularly “nice.”
And if you think the war analogy is a bit much, I’d argue that there are already actual human casualties in, for starters, the anti-vax crusade. If that’s not war, I don’t know what is.
@Calli to me it sounds kind of like your advocating we change humanity, not just the specific political goals of Sara.
@SARA it’s not clear at all to me that the point of Pharyngula blog is to accomplish those political goals. Actually PZ hates politics. Even if it was I don’t think it’s going about it the wrong way. The purpose of political-motivated blogs (like Daily Kos) is to communicate and encourage activists. The Daily Kos doesn’t hope that Republicans will just randomly show up and decide that they are wrong, like you apparently think PZ hopes to do with Pharyngula and IDers. Instead the Daily Kos wants to encourage liberal activism, get them to donate & volunteer to candidates etc.
Similarly Pharyngula has built an engaged community. So far PZ just asks us to vote on pointless polls, but eh.
This is a difficult topic. I highly respect the opinion of Steve and the other members of the SGU. More than respect it extends to a level of trust about what they are telling us. I am not thin skinned and I expect challenges to my thoughts and ideas. You have often spoke about the “Big Tent” view to skepticism. I do not always feel that is an accurate portrayal. Admittedly I am a Deist and believe that religion is a construct of man. I do not subscribe to the idea that there are any supernatural explanations to the natural world. I am convinced that science is the best route to further human knowledge. I avidly listen to SGU and am often disappointed by the zeal and the sometimes scorn detected from the SGU. I completely agree that SGU scorn is reserved for all believers of zany things. It is an emotional impression, but I feel if you are not an atheist you are not really part of the skeptical movement. I cannot be alone in this feeling and it must probably drive away people who otherwise might be more active. Since I would like to see the skeptical movement as large as possible, I think that this could be addressed. It is my opinion is that Brian Dunning does an excellent job of pinning down religious idiocy without the mocking tone I get sometimes from SGU. I know Brian is an atheist but you really have to work to figure it out sometimes. Where as Massimo’s podcast is sometimes impossible for me to listen to be cause he is completely denigrating at times.
I strongly believe in skepticism, but others, who do not, might stay away. I think critical thinking and skepticism is important for everyone. It would be to our benefit to try to be as inclusive as possible.
Steve P.
Calli – as I said, it was not a judgment of what we “should” do, just pointing out the facts.
It is OK to argue for how you think the world “should” work and then strive for that. But don’t take as a premise that people do work that way, if it is not supported by evidence.
To be clear – I am not advocating abandoning reason for propaganda. First and foremost, my favorite tool is calm rational fact-based discussion. But context is important.
When dealing with those advocating anti-scientific and ridiculous claims, treating them respectfully gives their views respect they do not deserve. Ignoring them grants tacit approval. This is quite a dilemma.
One solution is to carefully choose situations in which ridicule is most appropriate and effective – ridiculing the ridiculous. Further – don’t confuse childish mockery with clever sarcasm. Sarcasm can be very effective and informative.
I am also evolving into the opinion of using stories and socially-effective strategies along side dry facts and logic – to illustrate the evidence, not instead of the evidence.
Bottom line – there are many in the skeptical community who have a very nuanced position with regard to this question. Engage openly in the conversation and you will see that.
I don’t know, in my experience, feminism is a perfect example of the kinds of topics that Steve is talking about with “concern trolls” limiting the discourse on the one hand and “free speech NAZIs” going out of their way to antagonize others under the banner of righteousness.
Maybe it’s gotten a little better, however, when gender equality issues come up one can almost certainly expect a good deal of nastiness. This nastiness often, in my opinion, exceeds the usefulness of having such a discussion.
Perhaps your experience is different. I may have simply stumbled into a few isolated threads which are not indicative of the overall tone of the conversation.
@ locutusbrg: “It is an emotional impression, but I feel if you are not an atheist you are not really part of the skeptical movement. I cannot be alone in this feeling and it must probably drive away people who otherwise might be more active.”
Speaking strictly from personal anecdote, when I started listening to the SGU in 2006, I was an extremely theologically liberal Presbyterian, while being clear in my opposition to anti-scientific forces, namely religious fundamentalism via anti-evolutionism.
I admit that I would sometimes cringe when I felt like my beliefs were being mocked by the SGU. But as I read more and listened more, I got over it. By 2008, I was calling myself an agnostic, and by 2009 an atheist.
My point is just that the bright light of skepticism will turn some away and spark the curiosity of the movement in others.
ADR150
Thank you for your insight, I agree with your statement. I am thrilled when people embrace critical thinking and do not want to in any way support nonsense. I was just trying to find a way to spark more curiosity than turn some away.
I am not certain I have any answers. I am trying to give feedback that may help improve the expansion of skeptical thinking.
Steve, it seems that your audience here tends towards the “tone troll” end of the spectrum. A lot of people seem very certain that rudeness never works. They’re dead wrong. A lot of people on Pharyngula (and similarly Orac’s blog) have testified that the tone of that blog is exactly what turned them around from their previously held beliefs. I personally have turned around two global warming deniers by being rude as hell and showing them that they aren’t even qualified to participate in the debate. Two may not seem like a big number, but deniers rarely change their minds and it’s something I’m proud of (plus, I’m just a lowly commenter, not some fancy-pants with a blog).
I also see some false dichotomy going on up above. Folks seem to think it’s either polite, fact-based discourse or outright mockery. How about fact-based, well-reasoned mockery? That’s what PZ and Orac both deliver and I have very rarely seen an exception to this. Whether you like that tone or not (especially as someone who is already on the side of reason) doesn’t really matter.
Bottom-line is there are places where people insist on putting the emphasis on tone, and they have no luck keeping out obnoxious trolls or turning them around. Pharyngula and RI actually keep trolls out fairly effectively or minimize their effect on a discussion through their strident attitude. I prefer the latter, but I have a low tolerance for BS all around.
Febo “I am not a skeptic, but…”
Are you sure about that? What makes you think you are not?
About the topic of this post. One of the false assumptions that people sometimes make (without realizing it) is that skepticism is about where you stand on certain topics. Skepticism is more about a process than specific subject matters. This is why atheism does not equal skepticism, although atheism is well represented in the skeptical movement. Some of the worst self identitfied skeptics are loud and outspoken atheist. I understand the broad need for activism in this regard, but the real change will take place in a more grassroots fashion- with tact, respect, and well reasoned arguments.
I want more leaders in the skeptical movement who communicate well to the general public, and are good educators. We have enough people who are good at ridicule, but speak to a narrow audience. They can be entertaining, but I think they may not have the impact that their reputations imply. Not that my opinion is that important, but a few people who I think are/have been doing great things in speaking to a general audience (in addition to skeptics): Neil Degrasse Tyson, Massimo Pigliucci, Steven Novella, Dean Edell… of course there are many more.
I am deeply concerned about the constant mocking of “the sugar diabetus” on SGU, are you afraid of people finding out that “the beetus” actually is sugar diabetes (well Diabetes mellitus, the honey sweet urine flow) as opposed to Diabetes insipidus!
And what about the elusive “type 3 diabetes” http://www.naturalnews.com/028967_electropollution_diabetes.html
Honestly though, going by the logic of most concern trolls and “white knights” you could as well shut down the whole skeptical community. Everything we do deals with somebody’s deeply held beliefs – and more often than not in not very flattering terms.
@ locutusbrg: “It is an emotional impression, but I feel if you are not an atheist you are not really part of the skeptical movement. I cannot be alone in this feeling and it must probably drive away people who otherwise might be more active.”
@ ADR150: “I admit that I would sometimes cringe when I felt like my beliefs were being mocked by the SGU. But as I read more and listened more, I got over it. By 2008, I was calling myself an agnostic, and by 2009 an atheist.”
Well let me add to this. I have always be a Deist, and I still am. I used to feel a little like locutusbrg, that perhaps I was not a full card caring Skeptic because I was not an atheist. But, that faded away and today I’m like “$%@! that noise.” I’m a very good skeptic. A defender of critical thinking, and an enthusiast of science. I am teaching my young kids to have this same passion for science and reality, whilst looking out for the forces of woo. I’m a very good member of the skeptic movement and I’m creating skeptics out of those close to me. All this without becoming an atheist….not bad huh?
I would adopt a phrase which one of Alexander McCall Smith’s penned characters have recently shared, i.e. science cannot cure stupidity and greed. In addition, I would add that history has shown us that religion cannot cure stupidity and greed.
@OxRod: “I’m a very good member of the skeptic movement and I’m creating skeptics out of those close to me. All this without becoming an atheist….not bad huh?”
Agreed. Just to clarify, I didn’t mean to imply that my journey from liberal theism to atheism is the only result of an increased interest in skepticism, but it was my path.
I also think its important to remember that, as PZ said in the post referred to, “there is no such thing as a ‘pure’ skeptic who applies critical thinking to every single aspect of their lives, so of course [one] can be a member in good standing of the skeptical community — but let’s not pretend that [they are] applying skeptical values consistently.”
We all should keep this in mind and be self critical.
“He writes a great piece with lots of good points and all you people can see is the word feminism. Nuff said.”
Hmm. When I see the word feminism I think of Jocelyn Bell Burnell and Rosalind Franklin, frankly.
I agree that both tactics are needed. I’d probably still believe that John Edward could talk to the dead if it weren’t for South Park ripping in to him. But please, only take the ridicule route if you’re actually good at it. Making fun of something poorly doesn’t make the thing you’re trying to make fun of look bad, just you.
But like PZ said, no one is purely skeptical. I can’t think of many things more irrational than to believe yourself to be completely rational.
Oxrod
Thank you for the support statement.
I also encourage skepticism and critical thinking in others. I am part of the skeptical movement. I do not need a name badge to identify me as a skeptic. I don’t need meetings to feel secure. If others see science as the only frame for how they live their life I have no problem with that. I would never attempt to convince anyone that Deism is for everyone. I find Athesim bleak and unappealing but that is just a opinion. There is no argument I can give that I feel would logically move anyone. I don’t even want to try. The information age and available skeptical resources allow me to promote skeptical thinking without having to have my own blog, podcast, or amazing meeting. I am glad those things exist, but I do not need acceptance. I find that a soft hand promotes better than a ridiculing fist. I recognize steve’s public position and responsibility to not promote nonsense in any way. I have the luxury of exposing people to critical thinking slowly without trying to smash a sacred cow.
@Steven Novella: “The literature shows that most people most of the time do not respond to intellectual arguments. They respond to peer-pressure. This is not a judgment – it is the interpretation of the psychological literature.
One might then argue that making a belief socially acceptable or socially ridiculed might be an effective strategy – especially for those on the fence.”
I agree with what you’re saying, regarding how most people think, and come to change their beliefs, but I actually *did* have my mind changed by intellectual arguments – the SGU, in fact. I was raised in the Assemblies of God (it actually wasn’t *bad*…), liked science, got an engineering degree, but was still in the church on into my 30′s. I was a skeptic of things not related to church (UFO’s, bigfoot, psychics, etc.), but was still a believer, when I found the SGU somehow, and started listening from Episode 1. If the SGU had specifically advocated humanistic atheism as the only acceptable belief system, or ridiculed religion in general, I might not have stuck around – but the ridicule was generally aimed at specific ideas, and specific people, so I kept listening. Little by little, I learned that some of the things I believed weren’t supported by evidence, and eventually I abandoned religion. I’m not saying that I’m a typical person – most people probably aren’t persuaded by intellectual arguments – but they worked for me, and people like me might have a fairly high representation amongst the group of religious people that would actually listen to a science podcast.
In my opinion and what I think Steven is trying to get at is that skeptics need not align themselves with either the trolls nor the Nazis. Every situation requires a different strategy to get you point across. I think the difference between a good skeptic and a great skeptic is that a great skeptic recognizes the strategy that will work and goes with that strategy wether it be reasoned discussion or mockery.
Add me to the list (e.g. along with sowellfan) of those who credit intellectual arguments – and particularly those individuals patient enough to make them – for changing their beliefs.
Perhaps this approach only works with a certain personality type – say, someone with rationalist leanings (or pretensions, as the case may be), who (for one reason or another) wound up defending a weak position that s/he could not indefinitely sustain.
The process was slow & incremental in my case, and didn’t really turn me around until I started doing my own research; e.g. going deeper than the counter-arguments that I had run up against in internet forums, and beyond the biased, apologetical literature that I had consulted earlier.
Nonetheless, I will never forget those who pointed me in the right direction – especially those who did so patiently and politely, taking care not to insult me personally, even as they took down beliefs that I cherished.
Style does matter.
Although I identify as a ‘skeptic’ (for want of a better label) I am frustrated by some of the conflicts that you point out.
Rather than the delicate dissection of labels like ‘naturalism’, ‘atheism’ and ‘agnosticoicism’ (SWIDT?), etc, I think the skeptic movement has enough to tackle in general harm minimisation topics – medical malpractice, fraudulent service providers and the promotion of critical thinking, logic and rationality.
My interest is in keeping religion out of public policy and public schools. I am also interested in promoting a school curriculum that teaches critical thinking from K-12.
Mocking and derision are unlikely not accomplish those goals, in my opinion. They will only deepen the chasm. Personally, if I am mocked my natural tendency is to become defensive of my viewpoint, rather than consider the point of the mocker. It raises anger, not thought. If I consider the mockers points at all, I find it hard to overcome the emotional tag I have attached to them in order to rationally consider their position.
I have to agree with this, and wonder if educators are more likely to see it this way. Why shouldn’t we address extremely ridiculous propositions with honest answers. Why not respectfully explain why evolution DOES NOT violate the second law of thermodynamics, for example. Why are so many people drawn toward religion? Is religion, or taking truth based on faith the opposite of science? Why are so many drawn toward this worldview?
As far as I can tell, extreme polarization, the debate between “concern trolls” and “free speech nazis” isn’t restricted to science. We’ve seen some pretty vitriolic commentary on fox news, talk radio, and Congress as well. My main issue is that personal insults is a huge distraction from a search for the truth, and usually an emotional shortcut laden with logical fallacies. I’ve certainly seen both sides use them, even the side that has the truth on their side, but is using fallacious arguments to make their case (ad hominems, tu quo quo, etc).
I identify as a skeptic but I believe in X despite a complete lack of evidence for X and I think others should respect my belief in X because it is unfalsifiable.
Steven Novella: “However – everyone also has to recognize that your own beliefs are fair game for the criticism that is at the core of skeptical philosophy.”
Define the beliefs of “skeptical philosophical.”
Gosh the thing I hate most about these discussions: what’s wrong with just having a fun blog? Why does it all have to be about the “movement”?
Reminds of me of this Humanist article I read that complained about a woman doing a youtube diary of taking the abortion pill. Despite the fact that it was obviously targeted at other women who might be anxious about the procedure, the column was worried that this set the wrong tone and was going to be hardly convincing to folks in the anti-choice camp. Well too fucking bad, not everything has to be about politics!
@Paisley: if you have looked for Steven’s answer to this and haven’t found it… I don’t believe you. Steven is a prolific writer.
I abhor the tone at Pharyngula, both that adopted by PZ, and by so many contributors there. No disagreement of opinion is minor enough that insults cannot be resorted to as a first response (with the infantile questioning of the other person’s intelligence being the norm), and no poll can ever be allowed to go untrashed if the respondents to it don’t agree with PZs worldview.
His class warrior rants such as “Keep that in mind, rich assholes of the world. When you throw down huge amounts of cash for luxury items, the rest of us aren’t watching you admiringly. We think you’re vain and pretentious and, well, revolting, in the most pathetic sense of the word.” just served to emphasize that it is not a great place for sensible discussion.
Steven,
Great post but with only one correction: The political views in the skeptical movement are not just liberal or libertarian. There are a number of self-identifying conservatives as well. There are probably a good percentage of these conservatives who are actually libertarian, but a number of skeptical conservatives are out there as well. Often in the US we conflate religious conservatism with political conservatism. The religious minority that has overtaken the political machinery (as they have here in Texas) do not speak for the vast majority of conservatives. You may have more allies on the right than you realize.
-mikerattlesnake
Your suggestion that several people on pharyngula became skeptics because of rude comments is anecdotal evidence and hardly conclusive evidence. I can offer anecdotal evidence that a more gentle rational approach has allowed me and a colleague to convince a group of previously “teach the controversy” thinkers that ID and creationism has no place in the science classroom.
I have scanned the literature for evidence which supports either “niceness” or “rudeness” and haven’t found anything to support either position.
If anyone knows of any scientific research that points in either direction, I would be greatly interested.
Some people will never be happy until everyone talks and behaves exactly like everyone else.
Polite, civil, and boringly amorphous.
I like to read a good natured intelligent piece by Steven Novella and then I like to head off to Orac’s blog and have a good belly laugh.
I think we need to lighten up a bit here.
Paisley,
“Steven Novella: Define the beliefs of “skeptical philosophical.”
Nice try.
Steven Novella is about as likely to fall into your trap as quantum consciousness is to be true.
Give it up.
mikerattlesnake — maybe I am a “tone troll” but to me there is a huge difference between the tone of Orac’s mockery and PZ’s.
1. I almost always learn something from Orac’s posts. He explains things in detail in between the mocking. And his commenters are likely to add even further knowledge and/or detail.
2. PZ might do this more often than I realize, but when I do click over there, it’s usually a “red meat” post tossed out for his commenters to chew on. And chew, they do. With their mouths open.
3. Orac’s mockery lacks the depth of cruelty that PZ seems comfortable with. Orac is much better at separating the person from the burning stupid.
4. Orac is much funnier.
The only similarity I see is that they are both on ScienceBlogs.
BillyJoe7, being polite and civil does not mean that you have to be exactly like everyone else. All too often, though, it seems as though people think that their point is more valid, more strongly made, or more interesting if it’s wrapped in an insult, and all too often this just isn’t the case.
It’s especially pointless when it’s obvious that tagging an insult on is going to derail the subject so that the insult can be dealt with. This is probably half of the reason that people stick them in there, they’ve learned that their point will not be so well rebutted if a person needs to first of all rebut the insult.
An unnecessary insult often comes across like this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd03JCA
just my quick 2 cents
Beliefs are powerful and important part of people’s identities. When you denigrate a personal belief that someone uses to define themselves, you are not merely hurting their feelings, you are tearing down something that they consider a part of themselves. To a truly devout person this would be no different than ripping off a limb. I think it’s wrong to act with blatent disregard to peoples feelings on this topic. Skeptics have the right to critiscize but you have to treat people with respect even if you dont treat the beliefs with respect.
“Beliefs are powerful and important part of people’s identities. When you denigrate a personal belief that someone uses to define themselves, you are not merely hurting their feelings, you are tearing down something that they consider a part of themselves. To a truly devout person this would be no different than ripping off a limb. I think it’s wrong to act with blatent disregard to peoples feelings on this topic. Skeptics have the right to critiscize but you have to treat people with respect even if you dont treat the beliefs with respect.”
This is an argument I hear quite often, I don’t think anyone who uses it ever really takes it to its logical conclusion. If all beliefs are to be respected or even people with insane beliefs where is the line drawn? Who gets to decide what beliefs can be ridiculed and which can’t? If its your belief that people with a different sexual orientation, are to be stoned to death, should I respect you? Sorry, but I think not. Your beliefs are what make you you. And if you have horrible beliefs your probably a horrible human and don’t deserve respect. If your beliefs are just silly well i’ll probably cut you some slack, but I wont pretend those beliefs aren’t silly.
I had to learn, as an atheist, that while I like to make fun of religion in my personal life, that believers take it really seriously. I am free to do it, but effectively calling someone a superstitious idiot is sort of a douchebag move. I am liberal, try to be sensitive to people’s feelings, and this extends to the stupidly religious.
Wow. I should have checked back on this that day.
But to respond:
@ Steve – Thanks for that information. How depressing.
@ eean and others – I realize PZ not trying to change the world with his blog.
(superdave)”Skeptics have the right to critiscize but you have to treat people with respect even if you dont treat the beliefs with respect.”
…
(halfdead)”If all beliefs are to be respected or even people with insane beliefs where is the line drawn?”
Anybody catch that? Halfbraindead woulda got his ass to’ up at pharyngula for a slip like that.
But you guys are too busy being polite and accommodating.
“Anybody catch that? Halfbraindead woulda got his ass to’ up at pharyngula for a slip like that.”
I’m not sure what point your making, I know he said people should be respected and not their beliefs, I disagree, peoples beliefs make them who they are.
Just curious tho what does “woulda got his ass to’ up at pharyngula”
mean? Seriously ive read that sentence several times but i’m at a loss.
Ahh nm I got it. Ive posted at Pharyngula I never had a problem with minor slips being jumped on.
Of course, another good reason not to resort to the standard insults, particularly with respect to intelligence, is that far too many people use it when they are arguing with someone at least as intelligent as them. I’ve seen one of the most brilliant people I know ( top physics degree, particle physics doctorate, self-made multi-millionaire in their twenties) called stupid by a kid with an overblown ego (“well yes, I was not top of my class, and yes, it was not one of the top universities, and now you mention it, you’re right, I’m still not running the lab ate age thirty”), over a point that the complainant had just read differently to how it was intended.
People really should think a bit more carefully before lobbing the “stupid” insult, and think twice whether the rest of the world hails them as a genius, or if it’s mainly their own assessment.
“What is so bad about believing in equal rights for women?”
the wrong thing is the word “for”.