Why bother?

[Admin]

The alternative to engaging in debate with those who propound irrational ideas is to keep silent and leave the floor to them.

No, we just need a different approach aimed at another target audience.

Let us not forget that for every couple of people debating, there are probably many others listening in, some of whom may be undecided.

I think these 'lurkers there to be educated' are largely a mythical beast!

Yes, I'm sure people do stumble across many of these threads on here and will undoubtedly find some of them interesting and informative, but there really isn't a 'target audience' who read and get educated. I suspect most lurkers are 'believers' (keeping note of what we're saying) or skeptical types (who may have an interest anyway).

[Admin]

Read a selection of skeptical forums and blogs. Listen to a selection of skeptical podcasts

On the other hand I could step in and say that I agree, that there are such examples. I stumble accross them at the JREF all the time.

I agree with Trinoc that a lot of this does go on, and that the JREF forum is one of the worst places for it. I talked about an insular mindset earlier and that place has it with a lot of their members.

I'm not saying it doesn't go on here at times (including from me) but I do think we generally have a much better and more open attitude here. We treat skepticism more like the process that it is rather than as being a position on matters - which it is not.

[Trinoc]

Shall I take it that this is a personal opinion then? Your statement was not that there are non rigorous skeptics, but that the relative activity of this subtype is increasing.

It is a personal observation. I'd class it as more than just an opinion, since I believe it is supported by the observed (by me) evidence. However, it obviously does not count as a rigorously established scientific fact.

If you wish to discount any observation that has not been subjected to rigorous, peer-reviewed analysis, you are welcome to dismiss what I have said (though to be consistent you would also have to dismiss just about everything else you hear or see for the same reason).

[Admin]

My MIL wears magnetic bracelets and tells you she already knew anything you tell her because she's psychicly (Sp? god that looks wrong!) connected to her son, I might think 'fine, I won't bother next time' and sometimes I think she's hears my silent scream but inside I know she's just grasping and wanting to make sense of what doesn't make sense to her. The problem is she's as insulted if I try to offer alternatives or even worse if I attempt to explain the difference between anecdote and clinical evidence. I'm probably most tempted to engage where it's people close to me, but not tempted enough to pay the price and I'm still curious what it is about me that wants another's agreement - why does it matter? Her beliefs don't hamper her life, I've no reason to disbelieve her when she says she finds them a comfort.

Harm is quite a difficult one to assess. I wrote a small piece on it for the blog thing here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/cms/whats-the-harm/

For most people, most of the time, most of their irrational beliefs will not cause harm; in fact, people probably hold them because they perceive benefits, such as coping with uncertainty etc.

The trouble is that these beliefs can and do lead to harm at times. With such beliefs, the potential for harm is always there.

Related to 'educating' people too though is that if you try to intervene or change someone's outlook, you invariably fail and they won't thank you for trying.

[Gordon Bennett]

Truth is beauty

[Pebble]

If you wish to discount any observation that has not been subjected to rigorous, peer-reviewed analysis, you are welcome to dismiss what I have said (though to be consistent you would also have to dismiss just about everything else you hear or see for the same reason).

If skeptics are becoming intolerant and inflexible, then this undermines the purpose of skepticism to my mind (personal opinion alert). There will always be extremists who latch on to each side of an argument and need to be dealt with if becoming too active. Thus the problem you raised is fairly important. There is oversight on this forum for dealing with believers who become too strident, my impression has been that the skeptics here are relatively muted in their responses, in general. If this is not so, is it time to consider an obviously even handed approach for dealing with intolerance from either side?

[Floppit]

John - I agree fully with your standpoint about harm in the article, at least if I have understood it correctly.

It is probably better to acknowledge that for most people, most of the time, that holding weird or irrational beliefs will not result in harm. In fact, people hold these beliefs because they get some benefit from them. Belief in the afterlife and that mediums can pass messages from the dead can give people the comfort of believing (they’d claim knowing) that their loved ones haven’t really died, or adopting a ‘holistic lifestyle’ of only eating organic food and only using alternative medicine can give people a feeling of empowerment by taking control of their health (the ‘illusion of control’), promoting well-being and preventing disease, for example.


However, such beliefs do pose the threat of harm. Someone who treats their family with homeopathic remedies rather than conventional medicine will not be harming anyone most of the time as most illnesses and diseases are fought off by the immune system anyway; but if a family member actually develops something serious and it is treated with homeopathic remedies, that is when the potential for harm occurs.

There is a difference between actual and potential harm but my problem still remains about where or when I have enough infuence to create a positive impact. I don't want creationism taught in schools, writing to my MP to say so makes sense, complaining to the school makes sense, but arguing with a creationist over it comes under the 'why bother?' heading.

To use a recent example (yeah it's still kind of on my mind!), the same MIL went to great lengths to tell me not to worry about D's symptoms (what I saw as neurological red flags) because he was coming round from dreams. I did try to explain why I was still worried directly but not for long or with much persistance. Instead I put my efforts into getting the second doctor to do their own assessment and then compare with the first doc - that led to a second emergancy CT scan, debating with my MIL would only have led to an upset MIL and a frustrated, even more upset me.

I still don't get why someone would debate directly with believers or bother to deconstruct arguments so bloody easy to deconstruct. I get why someone in the media such as Richard Dawkins does it, that is in the real hope of spectators being influenced; although i think had he spent more time debating with those following (following is the wrong word - I mean something nearer to 'pandering' but can't find the respectful version) believers and less with believers it may have been more effective.

Why discuss ghosts here? Writing an article would make sense on most subjects but what's to debate?

Science is amongst the best ongoing debate there is, it's bloody beautiful with dispute at it's core yet on some subjects the book closes, such as creationism, so much so that morphing takes place to squeeze back in (ID), as soon as it's sussed the book shuts again because there's no new evidence, it's not interesting or relevant enough to bother. It's not that creationist thinking isn't harmful just that there's no point arguing with the creationists rather than the politicians.

[Tony Williams]

There is a difference between actual and potential harm but my problem still remains about where or when I have enough infuence to create a positive impact. I don't want creationism taught in schools, writing to my MP to say so makes sense, complaining to the school makes sense, but arguing with a creationist over it comes under the 'why bother?' heading.
....

Science is amongst the best ongoing debate there is, it's bloody beautiful with dispute at it's core yet on some subjects the book closes, such as creationism, so much so that morphing takes place to squeeze back in (ID), as soon as it's sussed the book shuts again because there's no new evidence, it's not interesting or relevant enough to bother. It's not that creationist thinking isn't harmful just that there's no point arguing with the creationists rather than the politicians.

I have a lot of sympathy with that, although politicians mainly reflect the public mood (they want to be re-elected, after all). And the public mood is presumably influenced by the popular press and TV, which tend to treat anything paranormal as either possible or probable. They seem to lap up most such stuff, whether it's ghosts, alien visitors, astrology, homeopathy, faith healing or whatever. Fortunately our "news" media don't seem to have latched on to creationism yet, but given the resources behind the Discovery Institute and the (to me) startling and depressing results of surveys about the acceptance of evolution, complacency is ill-advised.

I find arguing with those who hold beliefs which are unsupported or contradicted by the available evidence (I'm being very diplomatic with the wording here!) of some practical benefit to me. It often prompts me to do more research into the evidence, which means I learn a lot and can sharpen up my counter-arguments.

[Floppit]

I find arguing with those who hold beliefs which are unsupported or contradicted by the available evidence (I'm being very diplomatic with the wording here!) of some practical benefit to me. It often prompts me to do more research into the evidence, which means I learn a lot and can sharpen up my counter-arguments.

Ok - so you can learn something but wouldn't you learn more arguing with people equally able to use logic well?

I'd 1000 times rather start a thread on probability and get a much needed maths lesson than start one on amber teething necklaces ploughing through obvious woo. I might learn something researching amber teething necklaces but not half as much as I do in a subject where I don't know the answers that pushes my academic and logical ability beyond basic use of google scholar.

Time and energy are finite resources so I put down books based on faith such a 'A Road Less Travelled' (a core text on a MA course) and read one on logic instead (spurred on by this very forum!). As yet I'm unconvinced I've missed anything with my non bothering approach.

[Mulder]

I still don't get why someone would debate directly with believers or bother to deconstruct arguments so bloody easy to deconstruct. I get why someone in the media such as Richard Dawkins does it, that is in the real hope of spectators being influenced; although i think had he spent more time debating with those following (following is the wrong word - I mean something nearer to 'pandering' but can't find the respectful version) believers and less with believers it may have been more effective.

Many believers, not to mention 'neutrals' (those who don't have any strong views either way), are simply unaware that there IS any contrary information or research out there. The media tends to reflect the 'believer' agenda mostly, I suspect, because it sells papers. What Dawkins said about religion will have come as news to many (most?) religious believers. Quite simply, many believers are not in possession of relevant information, having only heard one side of the issue. For instance, I have talked to Jehovah's Witnesses who were not even aware of the origins of the Bible - their own sacred text! Debates, as well as articles, can put these facts before them.

Why discuss ghosts here? Writing an article would make sense on most subjects but what's to debate?

Ghosts are a good example. There is a big gap between the media portrayal of hauntings (accepted by most people) and real life cases. The 'reality' ghost hunting shows simply reinforce this misinformation. There is very little accurate published information about ghost research as so much of it is done by biassed observers. It is my impression that few skeptics do ghost investigations so even they may not have a clear idea of what such research reveals.

I have had debates with 'ghost hunters' where simply asking relevant questions has made them realise that most of the 'information' they are gathering is little more than reflected assumptions.

You won't change anyone from being a fervent believer with a quick argument. However, a long term, non-confrontational engagement, simply asking pertinent questions and suggesting relevant research can pay dividends.

[Admin]

There is a difference between actual and potential harm but my problem still remains about where or when I have enough infuence to create a positive impact. I don't want creationism taught in schools, writing to my MP to say so makes sense, complaining to the school makes sense, but arguing with a creationist over it comes under the 'why bother?' heading.

I think there's an issue regarding how much difference we can make to things as individuals because, to be honest, we can't really do anything much as an individual. This is why I do keep stating the case that we, as skeptics, need to start working as a team (what UK-Skeptics was intended for).

I do get into this conversation every now and then but I have to back off a bit. I have a lot of ideas for what we could and should be doing but I'm not in a position to implement them just yet so I don't say what my ideas are for fear of giving them away!

Basically though, I say that we need to work along the lines of a business model (planning, monitoring, etc.) and we need to start addressing issues that are important to people and which affect their lives rather than concentrating exclusively on the paranormal and stuff like that.

Some articles examining the claims of 'Autism Cures' would prove to be of a lot more worth to people than examining the TV show of the latest 'celeb psychic', for example!

But step 1 is getting skeptics to accept that cooperation and teamwork is the way forward.

[Tony Williams]

But step 1 is getting skeptics to accept that cooperation and teamwork is the way forward.

They might be skeptical about that!

That sounds interesting, though. Since most of the serious issues raised here are connected with people's false beliefs, both education and the media (and in some instances politics) would seem to be the most promising areas to address.

[Floppit]

Mulder, you make me wish I was less cynical!

I do get into this conversation every now and then but I have to back off a bit. I have a lot of ideas for what we could and should be doing but I'm not in a position to implement them just yet so I don't say what my ideas are for fear of giving them away!

Hell, I can't speak for anyone else but personally I'd be far more engaged talking and thinking about those ideas than all turning out to agree there's no such thing as ghosts! My big bug bear is that Peer Review isn't taught in schools - not even at the most basic level of what the hell it is, never mind just how far reaching it's impact is on science.

Some articles examining the claims of 'Autism Cures' would prove to be of a lot more worth to people than examining the TV show of the latest 'celeb psychic', for example!

In the 90's I worked as a team leader in Behavioural Early Intervention in Autism and there is both a wealth of woo and some excellent research surrounding autism. It's a fascinating subject and one that reflects utterly the interplay between professions, the state, science and the media. Working directly with parents funding their own programmes highlights the need to understand what the smeg journals are and why they matter though. Without that understanding all the 'non fiction' books are the same and Gluten Intolerence becomes equal to methods of teaching in the quest to relieve suffering and maximise potential. I got out of that trade because of the hopeless skills shortage, teams of teachers were made up from just about anyone who'd volunteer, American consultants priced themselves so highly families avoided their input and the lovely Norwiegens eventually preferred to play at home in state funded, well executed programmes. Anyway, I digress, except to say I think the above would make a far more worthwhile, useful and meaty subject along with topics such as spinal chord damage recovery, stroke recovery, alcohol, mental health, ADHD, education, and at times, sociology.

Do you think as a group, we could agree on something, anything, worthwhile to do and achieve?

[Pebble]

Exploring this idea a little. Autism cures as an example.

Easy (but tedious): collate all published research in this field; collate all claims of efficacy; divide latter into evidence based and non evidence based; use approved method (e.g. SIGN) to assess quality of evidence in published research; publish findings on UKS and in general journal; publicize in media.

Hard: Convince politicians; autism groups and special schools to redirect resources away from non evidence based interventions toward evidence based ones.

Nigh on impossible: Convince distraught parents not to continue to 'try things that might help' or to fight LEAs to supply that which they personally believe works for Johnny.

Written like this it seems possible, but this is a huge and protracted undertaking (years worth) with the full support of an autism group it becomes quite possible.

Is that the kind of project people would buy into?

[Pebble]

Brain left switched off. Previous post should refer to 'Interventions for Autism' not cures!