Comments on: Thoughts on skeptical celebrities and anti-ideologies

By: AndyD

AndyD — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:08:36 +0000

What I did notice with the Randi issue is a call for calm from the likes of Phil Plait — but even he said he’d had to set Randi straight on a couple of points. If anything, there was a request for a little leeway. Given it was his first major public “error”, that request probably wasn’t unwarranted. I found his notpology less than convincing and I thought that before I saw similar concerns expressed on blogs.

When I first started following the online sceptical movement I was probably just a cynic. And at 50 turning my views around takes some doing. But by reading the popular blogs I’ve learnt more about the difference between being sceptical and cynical. What others take from it will likely depend on how widely they read.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:48:19 +0000

the pushback against Randi’s AGW post began right on the comments of that post, and just picked up steam in the big skeptical blogs, until he posted a reaction, and then it simmered on a bit, more so on some big blogs.

The naturalistic fallacy is so prominent that whenever someone says something is natural, I do immediately question it, but not by saying it’s false, but by wanting evidence. That’s the difference I think between skeptics and believers, skeptics don’t dismiss out of hand, they want evidence.
Of course not everyone will be convinced by the evidence presented, for whatever reason.

By: Jack Scanlan

Jack Scanlan — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:34:47 +0000

@AndyD: Yes, the backlash against Randi’s AGW statement does show a good sign, but was that started by individuals, or did it take prominent members of the community to lead the charge?

I don’t doubt that a lot of the people in the skeptical movement can and do think for themselves, but I worry about the new people that we attract via the new media forms — they might not be getting the skeptical message as clearly as some of people who have been in the movement for a while.

By: Bastard Sheep

Bastard Sheep — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:31:52 +0000

I am actually surprised we do not already see this kind of thing happening more often. The only examples I can think of are ones that were prime opportunities for just what you describe to happen, but they didn’t. Those of course being when Randi recently spoke about AGW questioning it using some bad sources (he was smacked down rather than people switching blindly as I would have expected to see), and when Netti Pots were actually studied and discovered to be of value, if used only occasionally and only when one has a cold.

I think this situation is something always in the back of everyone’s minds, from the lowly skeptics such as myself right through to the celebrity-skeptics. I don’t really see it as being that big a deal though, unless it is a topic that causes a huge schism in the movement. For the most part people will just be looked at as having gained a new golden calf, they’ll be talked to by the rest and hopefully realise any errors in judgement.

By: AndyD

AndyD — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 01:56:45 +0000

I agree with EVERYTHING you said! :)

On the other hand, I think the response to Randi’s recent AGW comments shows a lot of sceptics are still able to bring their “heroes” down a peg or two when they demonstrate a lack of research and a questionable conclusion.

I don’t think anyone doubts we’ve got a fair share of the gullible and naive on our side too — or that any one of us is completely immune from near-blind acceptance sometimes. The difference is our willingness or ability to rethink our views when challenged with more information.

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.

Why does Life of Brian come to mind here?