How to be a good skeptic

[Lemming]

It seems to me that, little by little, critical thinking is making headway in the public consciousness. Homoeopaths and mediums appear to be on the run; and there's some sterling work done by the likes of Dawkins lately. But there's an awful lot of woo out there, and just when you think things are getting better, something else comes along which sucks up people's minds (witness "The Secret/LoA" which was a surprising (to me) overnight success; I had thought that kind of magical thinking had died in the late 70's early 80's. I guess I hadn't been paying proper attention.)

Anyway ... the point of this post is to ask for some advice, if I may. Although I've always had a sceptical outlook, I'd not been very vocal about it until about two years ago I began to watch with much dismay as my friend's wife died of Naturopathy. She was diagnosed with malignant melanoma about 5 years ago but rejected conventional treatment in favour of potions made from mistletoe, among other things, at 250 quid a throw. She refused palliatives until the very end, as the scum who was "treating" her told her it would interfere with her getting better. Evil. She died just before Christmas 2006.

After her death, it dawned on me that actually, this stupidity - the irrational belief in "alternative" medicine - isn't just harmless nonsense. It harms and kills people. And that was the point at which I began to take it a bit more seriously.

I post quite a bit on a business networking website - ecademy.com, which you might or might not have heard of. I'm actually (and accidentally) leader of a club on the site devoted to scepticism, and I often engage with woo-woos on what ecademy call the "front page" - a shared social forum using drupal-style blogs.

Now, the question: I'm usually pretty direct in my postings. When someone posts a claim (a recent example: "there's tons of gold-standard research which proves that reflexology is effective") I ask for references. Of course, they never appear, and it's impossible to pin the claimant down; they obfuscate, wriggle, change the subject and do everything they can to suggest that logic, reason, and critical thinking aren't necessary or even appropriate when evaluating their claims.

I sense that ultimately these exchanges end up with me coming out as the bad guy, picking on the poor, innocent homeopath/ metaphysicist/ medium/ LoA-er and why don't I go away and mind my own business. I also think it might get pretty boring for the readers after a while, and I end up preaching only to the converted. Not really what I'm aiming for.

It's not an ego thing - I don't really care what people think about me - it's more about how effectively the claims are debunked, and educating others to think more critically about grand claims.

So, the question is this: can anyone suggest a better approach than the one I'm currently using? I'm not a fan of point-and-laugh skepticism, although I do sometimes try to provoke discussion by writing tongue-in-cheek articles, but I recognise that if the message is to be understood it has to be accessible, understandable, and not put people off.

Your thoughts?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Hi Lemming, I'm not sure there is a better way. People are hugely resistent to changing their long held beliefs.

One wonders who the Internet really helps - sites like this do come up quite high on Google searches, however for every site like this, there does seem to be many, many more woo sites.

As skeptics, all we can really do is just keep pushing the information out there - people do sometimes listen and change their minds, and often it just takes a eureka moment where they see the real evidence and realise how they;ve been wrong all the time.

Sorry to hear about your friend's wife - it's something I always wonder, in how many people are really hurt by this type of thing. We all know the damage that can be theoretically done by these con artists, but it is hard to really ascertain how much physical damage is done.

No one ever said being a skeptic was easy unfortunately....

[Lemming]

As skeptics, all we can really do is just keep pushing the information out there - people do sometimes listen and change their minds, and often it just takes a eureka moment where they see the real evidence and realise how they;ve been wrong all the time.

That's what I hope for, and sometimes I get a bit of feedback that it's worked that way, but it's frustrating when you spend time explaining something in detail and still the responses are e.g. "Yes, of course, science says such-and-such, but evidence doesn't matter; it works, so why question it?"

We all know the damage that can be theoretically done by these con artists, but it is hard to really ascertain how much physical damage is done.

To be fair, I suspect the damage done by the woo-woos is a lot less than we might imagine. Most of the time the placebo pills and therapies they offer do no harm and keep patients from tying up an overburdened NHS. Michael Heap presents a quite illuminating article on the subject: http://www.mheap.com/placebo.html - it certainly gave me pause for thought, although the caveat must be that the practitioner must know the limits of his knowledge; for example, if he is to be capable of properly referring his patients to qualified doctors, he ought to be proficient in medicine. Which, I guess, negates his argument.

No one ever said being a skeptic was easy unfortunately....

Quite. But when you consider the alternative ...

[Cuddles]

Now, the question: I'm usually pretty direct in my postings. When someone posts a claim (a recent example: "there's tons of gold-standard research which proves that reflexology is effective") I ask for references. Of course, they never appear, and it's impossible to pin the claimant down; they obfuscate, wriggle, change the subject and do everything they can to suggest that logic, reason, and critical thinking aren't necessary or even appropriate when evaluating their claims.

I sense that ultimately these exchanges end up with me coming out as the bad guy, picking on the poor, innocent homeopath/ metaphysicist/ medium/ LoA-er and why don't I go away and mind my own business. I also think it might get pretty boring for the readers after a while, and I end up preaching only to the converted. Not really what I'm aiming for.

To be honest, I don't think there's really much else you can do. Put the information out there and show that it is being ignored, if people still choose to believe the nonsense instead of reailty, in the end it's their choice. As the cliche goes, it's impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Most agressive Penn and Teller style tactics can be amusing for skeptics and can let off a bit of steam, but you're never going to convince anyone of anything by calling them an idiot. Similarly, if you go the other way and take more of a "everyone is entiteled to their own beliefs line", you may be more popular with the woos, but you're still not actually going to convince anyone of anything.

It's worth remembering that it may not be as bad as it often seems though. People very rarely change their mind all in one go, and even more rarely admit it during an argument. There are many people who have slowly come round to the skeptical viewpoint, and they almost always say how it was being constantly bombarded with evidence contradicting their beliefs that slowly brought them round. You're unlikely to see any sudden conversions, but every little really does help.

To be fair, I suspect the damage done by the woo-woos is a lot less than we might imagine.

You might be interested in looking at the Wall of Harm. People often argue that we are making a big fuss over nothing and that even if they don't help, at least they don't hurt anyone either, so a poster at the JREF forums decided to collect examples where real harm was done by alt med. The fact is, people do get hurt, either by the treaments themselves or simply from lack of real treatment. Since the vast majority of alt med is compeltely useless, any harm is too much.

It's also always worth remembering that even in the best case, alt med is a waste of time and money, often time and money that people can't afford to waste. Also bear in mind that in this country, many alt med treatments are offered by the NHS, especially homeopathy, so it's actually our time and money being wasted. This also pretty much negates the "keep patients from tying up an overburdened NHS" argument.

[SKIRRID5]

I know this isn't the actual topic, but I'd like to have a little grumble here.
Why is this website even called UK Skeptics? It should be Sceptics. Why must we go along with the creeping Americanisation of the language? It's bad enough losing our English billion, not to mention the perfectly good word disinterested...

[Mongrel]

I know this isn't the actual topic, but I'd like to have a little grumble here.
Why is this website even called UK Skeptics? It should be Sceptics. Why must we go along with the creeping Americanisation of the language? It's bad enough losing our English billion, not to mention the perfectly good word disinterested...

*Ahem* http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.p...or_sceptic.php

[dashwood]

So, the question is this: can anyone suggest a better approach than the one I'm currently using? I'm not a fan of point-and-laugh skepticism, although I do sometimes try to provoke discussion by writing tongue-in-cheek articles, but I recognise that if the message is to be understood it has to be accessible, understandable, and not put people off.

i know exsactly what you mean, i think it was dawkins who said, we are trying to explain quontum theory with language originaly evolved to shout insults at the monkey in the opposite tree.
you need to be very good with words to convay the right meaning and tone, or you come across as arregant or, like me, stupid and illiterate.

[Skeptiger]

Lemming - I too spend (spent) a lot of time on Ecademy but I have drifted further and further away because much of it seemed to be becoming an excuse to woo louder than the next person, ram more outrageous Secret-type claims down each others throats, and spend more time worrying about SHAM (the Self Help and Actualisation Movement) than actually doing anything business related. I am sad I had never noticed your group up until now, but then I hadn't expected to find a sceptic there!

Anyway, from the short time I have been reading/listening/researching scepticism and science, there is little doubt it is an uphill battle. I too get stumped when I get hit with various logical fallacies. When someone says "you can't prove something doesn't work, therefore by (flawed) reason it does", to answer that their logic is wrong generally ends up in offence or a heated debate.

It is refreshing to be surrounded by people who also prefer to question rather than accept a claim outright because it makes them feel better (which is why most people accept LoA - basically, if I can sit on my bum and do absolutely nothing and everything good will drop in my lap, laziness dictates that I will want to believe it). Scepticism and critical thinking is undoubtedly the more difficult path. And I am learning that some people simply won't be convinced, regardless of the evidence.

How to be a good sceptic? Keep testing every claim. And keep learning...

[Lemming]

Lemming - I too spend (spent) a lot of time on Ecademy but I have drifted further and further away because much of it seemed to be becoming an excuse to woo louder than the next person, ram more outrageous Secret-type claims down each others throats, and spend more time worrying about SHAM (the Self Help and Actualisation Movement) than actually doing anything business related. I am sad I had never noticed your group up until now, but then I hadn't expected to find a sceptic there!

Theres a handful of more vocal sceptics, and also quite a few who are just quietly sceptical but don't say much. Anyway, you are more than welcome to join the group if you'd like - the more the merrier; if you PM me either here or over there I'll be happy to provide a link to the club/forum.

How to be a good sceptic? Keep testing every claim. And keep learning...

Aye, but it's hard work (although rewarding). It would be a lot easier to just believe everything I'm told - but what would be the point?

[Lemming]

As the cliche goes, it's impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Cliche it might be but I've not come across it before. Very nice; thanks.

It's worth remembering that it may not be as bad as it often seems though. People very rarely change their mind all in one go, and even more rarely admit it during an argument. There are many people who have slowly come round to the skeptical viewpoint, and they almost always say how it was being constantly bombarded with evidence contradicting their beliefs that slowly brought them round. You're unlikely to see any sudden conversions, but every little really does help.

Good point. And remembering that even in the midst of debate, the people you are talking to aren't the ones in the conversation; it's the ones in the gallery who are looking in and not taking part.

You might be interested in looking at the Wall of Harm. People often argue that we are making a big fuss over nothing and that even if they don't help, at least they don't hurt anyone either, so a poster at the JREF forums decided to collect examples where real harm was done by alt med. The fact is, people do get hurt, either by the treaments themselves or simply from lack of real treatment. Since the vast majority of alt med is compeltely useless, any harm is too much.

Sure, and remember I've seen at first hand what alt-med can do; but as we are so keen of telling the woo's, evidence is not the plural of anecdote. It's easy to construct an argument saying that harm might logically come from this, but it's another showing that it does. There again, the recent Homoeopathy/Malaria scandal demonstrates that very eloquently.

It's also always worth remembering that even in the best case, alt med is a waste of time and money, often time and money that people can't afford to waste. Also bear in mind that in this country, many alt med treatments are offered by the NHS, especially homeopathy, so it's actually our time and money being wasted. This also pretty much negates the "keep patients from tying up an overburdened NHS" argument.

Hmm, true, although isn't one of the arguments for NHS homoeopathic hospitals that they are cheaper? AIUI doctors aren't any longer permitted to prescribe placebos; what if NHS homoeopathic hospitals are a back-door way of doing just that?

I'm not saying that is definitely the case, just something I've speculated on; although reading I've done recently (an oldish report on an enquiry into funding for the Tunbridge Wells hom hospital) seems to suggest that the vast majority of doctors interviewed who refer their patients to homoeopathic hospitals only do so at the patient's insistence.

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not for one moment suggesting that there is any medical or evidence basis for homoeopathy. All the evidence is that it works only as placebo. Just that given that fact, how come so many GPs do refer their patients? It just doesn't make sense; seems like there's a piece of the jigsaw missing somewhere.

[if..]

A mental flash-card I always use:

Any book claiming divine origin can be safely rejected immediately.