Comment Policy
The comments for this site are closed.
Archives


TAM 8 Summary – Saturday (Part 1)

Saturday proved to be another rousing conference of diverse minds and varied expertise, beginning with further perspectives on the state and position of skepticism movement, drifting into talks of aliens and paranormal investigations, and concluding with an interview of one of the world’s most famous atheists. There was even some humor thrown in amongst the heady talks, so I felt that Saturday was a real treat!

After another live podcast of The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe (discussing nukes in space, PepsiGate, and Deborah King’s “energy vampires”), Massimo Pigliucci began Saturday’s talks. His presentation, entitled So, You Think You’re a Skeptic, Don’t You? (PDF link), discussed the problem of hubris – most skeptics do not have technical scientific expertise and to reject a scientific notion without proper expertise is a form of anti-intellectualism. Pigliucci cited pillars of the skepticism community as erring in this way, including Penn and Teller, Bill Mauer, James Randi, and Michael Shermer. He sees the issue is ideology, explaining that denialism of scientific claims (such as climate change) due to political ideology is similar to denialism of scientific claims (such as evolution) because of religious ideology. In conclusion, Pigliucci voiced that fallibility should not be determined by the skeptic community, but rather by scientists and philosophers who have specialized expertise. Skeptics should instead debunk the bunk, educate the public about critical thinking, and support the best science available. I agree with Pigliucci’s distinctions, as I feel we should never go beyond the areas of our expertise and understanding in scientific matters.

Next on the agenda was the Grassroots Panel, moderated by Michael Feldman and consisting of Richard Saunders, Chip Denman, Jamy Ian Swiss, Jen Newport, and Sid Rodriguez. The panelists offered their takes on forming grassroots skeptic organizations and the pros and cons of smaller outfits compared to national organizations. Everyone was in agreement that there are certain perks to being local, including the social aspect, ability to fuel larger groups, being less intimidating than national organizations, and being more effective in influencing local policy. Swiss warned that local skeptical activism can be powerful, but also comes with a lot of responsibility and can lead to legal issues. Denman urged those who could to take courses in speaking to the media, saying “it will save you”. Newport criticized virtual grassroots activism in that some pieces are more opinion than truth and that misinformation can spread quickly. Saunders agreed, but said that when online activism is used for good it can be very productive. Everyone seemed to agree that virtual activism would not replace physical groups, with Swiss emphasizing the importance of social interaction and Newport interjecting that she feels “it is activist to be there for people to find you”. The panel was very informative and interesting, nicely balancing the good and bad that can come with setting up a local skepticism group.

Following the panel, cognitive psychologist Bruce Hood took his place on the stage to discuss Why People Believe the Weirdest Shit, which focused on developmental factors of supernatural beliefs. Hood first discussed that “personal experience” with the paranormal can be explained through expectations stemming from belief, in that the brain’s neural firing fills in inferred information (such as “seeing a ghost”) for what is believed and “should” be. He then discussed spontaneous supernatural beliefs that can be traced through childhood cognitive development, such as mind-body dualism, preference for Creationism over Darwinism, wishful thinking, and essentialism. Essentialism, the belief in an underlying reality or true nature shared by members of a category that one cannot observe directly but gives an object its identity, is at the heart of sentimentality toward objects, belief in religious relics, and experiencing psychic connections among people. Hood concluded that it is not enough just to be skeptical, but that we need to know why people believe in the paranormal. He also posited that believing may be more natural than abnormal, since it seems to be how the brain works. The concept of essentialism was very interesting to me in that there are many skeptics (myself included) that do have secular supernatural beliefs such as sentimentality to certain objects.

Up next, Steve Novella moderated the Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Chiropractic, and Other Dubious Health Care Systems panel in which Simon Singh, David Gorski, Ginger Campbell, Harriet Hall, and Rachael Dunlop participated. Gorski began by affirming that the distinction between science-based medicine and other healing techniques is that scientific-based medicine will abandon approaches that are shown to be ineffective and that this is a very important position. Novella questioned the legitimacy of alt-med regulation and licensure, to which Hall replied that you can license anything and that is an issue because with licensure comes credibility. Gorski voiced concern about who sets the standards, stating that if it is not scientists then it must be those within the discipline, to which Singh added that criticism within alternative medicine is nonexistent and that this is not the case in science-based medicine. Campbell suggested that homeopathic medicine does not belong in Walmart, to which the entire panel urged the skeptic community to push for its removal by TAM 9. Regarding how much difference can be made by educating the public about unfounded alt-med cures, Campbell said a lot could be gained and that it must be discussed (without superiority) with your friends and neighbors. Finally, Novella asked about expanding resources into researching alternative medicine claims, to which all panelists mostly agreed that completely unsubstantiated claims (like homeopathy) should receive no funding. Gorski and Dunlop supported looking into herbal medicine a bit, as did Singh who added that “wacky” claims need a bit of research as well, since some have indeed turned out to be legitimate. This panel was very informative and I really enjoyed the passion expressed by each panelist. I feel that a push to remove homeopathic medicine from Walmart would be a worthwhile endeavor and hope some movement regarding this does take place; I would certainly be an active participant.

MySpaceRedditTechnorati FavoritesFriendFeedYahoo BookmarksDeliciousFacebookDiggGoogle BookmarksYahoo MailGoogle ReaderStumbleUponShare

5 Responses to “TAM 8 Summary – Saturday (Part 1)”

  • Thanks Dylan for the comprehensive summary.

  • I disagree with Pigliucci, Shermer knows more than enough about science. His books and spontaneous conversation on pseudoscience show a unique expertse.

    Penn and Teller’s entertaining communication of critical thinking is a useful addition to popular culture.

    Being cautious about extraordinary claims is not hubris, and it is the very antithesis of anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism is king in pseudoscience cults, especially “feel don’t think” type groups, it is hardly a problem in skepticism as far as I have seen (so far).

    • I think you misunderstood what happened, Lawrence. It’s hard to get a feel from it with a short summary and Massimo’s talk is not the easiest to communicate, either. Even if you looked at his slides (which I’m sure you did), there are few notes to give them context. If you get a chance to see the video once it’s produced, I highly recommended it. I think you would like it a lot.

      What Massimo talked about: Shermer denied anthropomorphic global warming until he was educated enough about the growing evidence. At that time, he “flipped”. I was actually in the audience when he made the speech he called “The Flipping Point”. Massimo praised Shermer for that.

      He did not criticize Penn and Teller for their show, either. He even said that he often uses clips from “Bullsh*t” in his classroom. He criticized them for the one episode in which they denied climate change and his criticism was dead-on in my opinion. They admit to bias, but in this episode they consulted only one “expert” and that guy was not at all qualified. Unfortunately, it’s taking them (Penn, at least – I’ve rarely heard Teller talk about the topic) a long time to come around to trust the scientific consensus on this topic. They are, though.

      He never said that skepticism was a form of hubris. On the contrary, he said that mistrust of science and expertise is hubris. He criticized taking a stance based on political ideology – something that MANY skeptics are guilty of, liberals and libertarians alike, is hubris. What he criticized is skeptics speaking from authority and expertise they do not have. His examples were about skepticism of climate change because he could discuss very public incidents in which leaders in the community overstepped.

      I realize that you have probably not seen this kind of behavior. You’ve been lucky in that most of the skeptics you have met are scientist who, once in a while, help out the activists. But when you get a little deeper into the activist community, where the scientists are fewer (maybe half?) you will see a LOT more of it. For example, I spent time today in the comments on a blog in which none of the participants had expertise in the area, but all thought themselves qualified to argue about it.

      There is an entire segment of the community who feels that “skepticism is what you make of it”. This is a perversion of post-modernism and entitlement that I find particularly troublesome as many think that the movement is about “progressive ideals” (translation: ultra-liberal ideals) rather than about critical thinking.

      This is one of the reasons I started Woo Fighters. The attitude above tends to be more common in the 20-40 age group and I feel that strong role models (like you!) who are well-trained in science, especially those in the cognitive sciences who understand the belief engine, are the future of the movement because you’re more likely to understand the boundaries.

      Okay, this comment is WAY too long, so I’ll shut up now! Just know that you’d have loved Massimo’s talk. Read “Nonsense on Stilts” if you get a chance!

      • Lawrence Patihis:

        Acknowledged, I probably would have liked the talk in a fuller context and with the qualifications he must have made.

        I too was a bit disappointed with the skepticism over climate change because there is a big difference between paranormal belief and projecting CO2 increase. I forgave Shermer for at least adapting his view in light of new evidence (if I remember correctly). Some skepticism about climate change might help test things fully and put demands on the scientists which help spur research, but on the other hand a precautionary approach might be better in the case of climate change. The mechanisms for climate change seem logical with good connectivity to existing science.

        Dylan: great post, full of great stuff.

  • [...] TAM 8 Summary — Saturday (Part 1): “Saturday proved to be another rousing conference of diverse minds and varied expertise, beginning with further perspectives on the state and position of skepticism movement, drifting into talks of aliens and paranormal investigations, and concluding with an interview of one of the world’s most famous atheists. There was even some humor thrown in amongst the heady talks, so I felt that Saturday was a real treat!” [...]