Scientific skepticism, at its core, is about good cognitive hygiene \u2013 having respect for the evidence, using valid logic and avoiding fallacies, and having respect for the various mechanisms of self-deception and pitfalls of human thinking. These are all generic and undeniable intellectual virtues \u2013 not unique to science or skepticism. No one, not even the most strident true believer, openly advocates the use of logical fallacies or unsound arguments. Gullibility and true belief, rather, result from a significant lack of understanding of these common mental foibles.<\/p>\n
Combined with errors in thinking is a profound human need to believe. The result is the tendency to arrive at beliefs for cultural or emotional reasons, and then to commit errors in thinking in order to defend and maintain those beliefs. The overall effect is to insulate belief from falsification.
\n
\nSusan Blackmore equates such belief to mental viruses \u2013 which she calls memes. She argues that beliefs (memes) have undergone Darwinian evolution over the course of human cultural history. Those beliefs that are more psychologically attractive have a greater rate of infection. Further, those beliefs that better insulate themselves from disproof have a greater survival rate. Some beliefs incorporate elements that anticipate future attacks and protect against them (like HIV attacking the immune system). Others make themselves more infective by including mechanisms for their own spread \u2013 the commandment to proselytize. I think the analogy is apt \u2013 there is differential survival for different versions of different beliefs, adaptive radiation, variation, mutation, replication, etc. All the elements of an evolving system are there, and the selective pressures are obvious.<\/p>\n
The cure for mental viruses is good cognitive hygiene and inoculation with all the tools of skepticism.<\/p>\n
I want to focus on one aspect of this contest between belief and skepticism \u2013 that of insulating beliefs against falsification. This is not a specific fallacy, but rather the end result of many fallacies, often working in concert. It is extremely common \u2013 even ubiquitous, something we all need to understand and guard against.<\/p>\n
Subjective Validation and Confirmation Bias<\/p>\n
These are the most common tools of belief insulation, and we all commit these errors to some extent. Subjective validation essentially means that we rely upon subjective (rather than quantitative or objective) assessment in order to validate a claim or belief. This is often used in reference to cold readings: the cold reader may ask, \u201cDoes the letter M have any significance for you?\u201d and the subject might validate this statement by searching for any correlation \u2013 \u201cYes, my brother\u2019s wife\u2019s mother is named Mary.\u201d Subjective validation can seem very compelling \u2013 most people are very impressed with the fact that they can find a correlation that appears to validate a statement or claim. This can lead people down the road to a firmly held belief that is entirely wrong. The problem with subjective validation is that is uses open-ended and subjective criteria, so it can be used to essentially validate anything, which means that it really validates nothing.<\/p>\n
Confirmation bias means that we seek out and remember information that confirms what we already believe, and we do not seek out, we fail to notice, or we rationalize away information that contradicts our beliefs. Again, this can have a very powerful psychological effect on our beliefs, because it can make us feel that the evidence overwhelmingly supports our position.<\/p>\n
Logical Fallacies<\/p>\n
A number of logical fallacies can be employed to render a belief immune to disproof. My favorite is the \u201cno true Scotsman\u201d argument – a method for rejecting disconfirming evidence. The form it takes goes like this: All Scotsman play golf. But I have a friend who is Scottish and he has never played golf. Well (here comes the rationalization), no true Scotsman has never played golf.\u201d This is a form of recursive logic, or circular reasoning. It essentially defines the group as having the quality that it is claimed the group has, and using this to say that any member of the group without the quality is, by definition, not truly a member of the group. QED.<\/p>\n
Special pleading is the all purpose logical fallacy for defending belief systems. This is simply the strategy of inventing a new and special reason to explain away any disconfirming evidence or lack of confirming evidence. Each claim may, of itself, be plausible and even reasonable. The fallacy comes from the endless and open ended way in which new excuses are invented as needed to defend one position.<\/p>\n
Many beliefs incorporate a \u201cget out of jail free\u201d card in their repertoires. This is an all-purpose belief element that can be used to deal with any inconvenient facts. Creationists, for example, maintain that God created the world the way he wanted to, unencumbered by anything as mundane as the physical laws of the universe. Therefore, any and all evidence can be dismissed with the all-purpose explanation of \u2013 God wanted it that way. Since God can do anything, anything can be explained as simply the will of God. That\u2019s total immunity.<\/p>\n
More subtle versions of this abound as well. I have had conversations with extreme Libertarians (I don\u2019t have anything against Libertarians, it\u2019s just an example) who defend the notion that the free market is the best at everything. When I give an example of a free market that did not appear to work, their answer is, \u201cWell, that wasn\u2019t a truly free market,\u201d or \u201cif there were no government taxation or costly regulation the market would have sufficient money to solve X\u201d \u2013 \u201cX\u201d being any objection you can think to raise. Again, in any specific case the argument may in fact be valid, but when used ad hoc to brush aside any and all contradictory evidence, it becomes a mechanism for belief-insulation.<\/p>\n
Conspiracy Thinking<\/p>\n
Conspiracy theorists are the masters at insulating their beliefs. The conspiracy model in itself incorporates the necessary elements to render any belief immune to contradiction. Any and all evidence that contradicts the conspiracy theory can be explained away as a fabrication of the conspirators. Any lack of evidence can likewise be explained as a cover up. There is therefore no evidence or lack thereof that can disprove the conspiracy theory.<\/p>\n
They also have their get out of jail free cards. Any apparent contradiction or implausibility with a conspiracy can be handled by simply seeding more power and reach to the conspirators. Why hasn\u2019t any one of the hundreds of people who must have been privy to the conspiracy come forward? Because \u201cthey\u201d got to them \u2013 \u201cthey\u201d used their power and influence to intimidate and silence them. When a conspiracy does not make sense on one level \u2013 just deepen it. Hey, we don\u2019t know how deep the rabbit hole goes. This is why grand conspiracies over time evolve toward grander and deeper conspiracies, until you end up with an omnipotent cabal running the entire world (Men in Black, the Illuminati).<\/p>\n