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.

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!

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).