Skepticism Refocused
May 30, 2016 11:06 PM Subscribe
When "Rationalism" makes you dumber: Scientific American writer John Horgan's recent talk to a large skeptic conference was cut short when he called for turning skepticism towards "hard targets" such as psychiatric drugs, medical overtesting and militarism, and away from "preaching to the choir" rants against the paranormal and superstitious.
He also condemns belief in "sciency" hype like "the Singularity" or claims that the origin of the universe or human consciousness will soon be scientifically understood.
He also condemns belief in "sciency" hype like "the Singularity" or claims that the origin of the universe or human consciousness will soon be scientifically understood.
Jerry Coyne has a few things to say about Horgan lately on his website:
posted by smcameron at 11:26 PM on May 30, 2016 [6 favorites]
- Krauss on Horgan
- Criticizing skeptics, John Horgan officially becomes an Internet troll
- Shermer responds to Horgan
- Steve Pinker demolishes John Horgan’s view of war
posted by smcameron at 11:26 PM on May 30, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, I imagine you can make yourself quite unpopular in certain quarters questioning the lazy-ass Dawkins bullshit, not to mention some of the other stuff like suggesting an actual skeptical look at US healthcare orthodoxy.
posted by Artw at 11:32 PM on May 30, 2016 [43 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:32 PM on May 30, 2016 [43 favorites]
Capital-S skepticism seems more and more like a way for people to justify hegemony -- of all kinds. Witness the Sam Harris embrace of militarism and so forth.
posted by wuwei at 11:33 PM on May 30, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by wuwei at 11:33 PM on May 30, 2016 [27 favorites]
I clicked on one of those Jerry Coyne links and the post started with "I’ve had my contretemps with science writer John Horgan on this site, but, except for what’s in the title above, I’ll try to refrain from ad hominems" (the italics are in the original).
Guess how many times I actually groaned out loud by the time I'd gotten through that sentence.
posted by teponaztli at 11:33 PM on May 30, 2016 [28 favorites]
Guess how many times I actually groaned out loud by the time I'd gotten through that sentence.
posted by teponaztli at 11:33 PM on May 30, 2016 [28 favorites]
If you asked me fifteen years ago, I'd absolutely embrace skepticism.
Now that it is more or less responsible for birthing the alt-right with its Nazis with loli Twitter avatars, I'll take a pass, thankssomuch.
posted by Yowser at 11:36 PM on May 30, 2016 [31 favorites]
Now that it is more or less responsible for birthing the alt-right with its Nazis with loli Twitter avatars, I'll take a pass, thankssomuch.
posted by Yowser at 11:36 PM on May 30, 2016 [31 favorites]
I'm not real sure about all of this. Conceptually, I like where he's coming from. But there are wobbly planks in both sides of his platform. Campaigning against homeopathy is preaching to the converted? I dunno. They sell that stuff at the regular old pharmacy. As long as it's on the shelves next to actual medicine, people are going to give that stuff to sick kids, to sick old people, to each other. A hefty chunk of people buying and use no that stuff aren't true believers in homeopathy, they're people just looking for a remedy who don't know what they're buying.
And in his bit on psychiatric medicine, he cites the rising diagnosis of psychiatric disorders as indicating a rise in their occurrence. Classic bad science mistake. And I'm not comfortable encouraging the skeptic community to target people looking for respite from mental illness.
It feels like a good idea whose execution was slapped together more in service of contrarianism and trollery than thoughtful reflection.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:38 PM on May 30, 2016 [59 favorites]
And in his bit on psychiatric medicine, he cites the rising diagnosis of psychiatric disorders as indicating a rise in their occurrence. Classic bad science mistake. And I'm not comfortable encouraging the skeptic community to target people looking for respite from mental illness.
It feels like a good idea whose execution was slapped together more in service of contrarianism and trollery than thoughtful reflection.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:38 PM on May 30, 2016 [59 favorites]
Yeah, this thread is weirding me out. I think I must be on the wrong planet.
posted by smcameron at 11:39 PM on May 30, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by smcameron at 11:39 PM on May 30, 2016 [5 favorites]
I do find the idea of MetaFilter taking a meta look at this guy's meta look at skepticism to be kinda hilariously meta though.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:45 PM on May 30, 2016 [35 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:45 PM on May 30, 2016 [35 favorites]
I'm not real sure about all of this. Conceptually, I like where he's coming from. But there are wobbly planks in both sides of his platform.
I don't think the point is that it should be either or. He says
The gist I got isn't that stuff like homeopathy should be left alone so we can all go after string theory. It's that skepticism as a good thing, but it's selectively applied. Plenty of attention is given to stuff like homeopathy, but science criticism gets shouted down as obviously wrong. That seems like a problem.
(Also, having just wrapped up a semester studying the philosophy of mental health diagnosis, I'm not too put off by what he has to say about it.)
posted by teponaztli at 11:57 PM on May 30, 2016 [50 favorites]
I don't think the point is that it should be either or. He says
These beliefs and disbeliefs deserve criticism, but they are what I call “soft targets.” That’s because, for the most part, you’re bashing people outside your tribe, who ignore you. You end up preaching to the converted.I don't know if I agree that it's all just preaching to the converted, but I think I get what he means anyway.
Meanwhile, you neglect what I call hard targets. These are dubious and even harmful claims promoted by major scientists and institutions.
The gist I got isn't that stuff like homeopathy should be left alone so we can all go after string theory. It's that skepticism as a good thing, but it's selectively applied. Plenty of attention is given to stuff like homeopathy, but science criticism gets shouted down as obviously wrong. That seems like a problem.
(Also, having just wrapped up a semester studying the philosophy of mental health diagnosis, I'm not too put off by what he has to say about it.)
posted by teponaztli at 11:57 PM on May 30, 2016 [50 favorites]
I'm kinda... bored of movement skepticism beating the same deceased equines to the bone but I also feel the same way about this as when I read it the first time which is that he's all over the place:
- throwing in with a particular side of serious ongoing scientific controversies like medical testing, psychiatric drugs, war
- criticizing string theory and scientists reaching into the realm of philosophy. Okay there are a lot of different things one could say about this - scientific language giving credibility to claims that are not properly scientific etc. but at the same time even somewhat outré theorizing does have a place in science when it's open about what it's doing. I'd like to see way less Michio Kaku sort of stuff but I feel like Horgan is casting a wid net because he's got a bug up his butt (and books to sell) about what's wrong with physics. Just seems a bit too much like HL Mencken's ill-timed skeptical take on Einstein and mathematics in physics.
- accusing skeptics of not doing enough to debunk overhyped claims about genetics (there's definitely a good bit of skeptical writing about this stuff though maybe there could be more
- for good measure adding a couple of fringe-y things (like the "singularity') that most movement skeptics would be happy to go after anyway (and in fact you'll find it on rationalwiki etc.)
So I mean if he just wants to get people thinking about stuff then great it just gives a bit of an impression of him as a person whose reach exceeds his grasp.
(and I don't think stuff like homeopathy is really an unimportant topic)
posted by atoxyl at 12:05 AM on May 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
- throwing in with a particular side of serious ongoing scientific controversies like medical testing, psychiatric drugs, war
- criticizing string theory and scientists reaching into the realm of philosophy. Okay there are a lot of different things one could say about this - scientific language giving credibility to claims that are not properly scientific etc. but at the same time even somewhat outré theorizing does have a place in science when it's open about what it's doing. I'd like to see way less Michio Kaku sort of stuff but I feel like Horgan is casting a wid net because he's got a bug up his butt (and books to sell) about what's wrong with physics. Just seems a bit too much like HL Mencken's ill-timed skeptical take on Einstein and mathematics in physics.
- accusing skeptics of not doing enough to debunk overhyped claims about genetics (there's definitely a good bit of skeptical writing about this stuff though maybe there could be more
- for good measure adding a couple of fringe-y things (like the "singularity') that most movement skeptics would be happy to go after anyway (and in fact you'll find it on rationalwiki etc.)
So I mean if he just wants to get people thinking about stuff then great it just gives a bit of an impression of him as a person whose reach exceeds his grasp.
(and I don't think stuff like homeopathy is really an unimportant topic)
posted by atoxyl at 12:05 AM on May 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
These beliefs and disbeliefs deserve criticism, but they are what I call “soft targets.” That’s because, for the most part, you’re bashing people outside your tribe, who ignore you. You end up preaching to the converted.
This is an exceptionally myopic complaint when the US Republican presidential candidate doesn't believe in climate change and is making claims that vaccines cause autism. It doesn't matter whether they are soft targets, they are extremely pervasive, have real world effects, and the stakes are very high.
But sure, let's argue about multiverse theory, something that has literally no effect on anything.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 12:05 AM on May 31, 2016 [39 favorites]
This is an exceptionally myopic complaint when the US Republican presidential candidate doesn't believe in climate change and is making claims that vaccines cause autism. It doesn't matter whether they are soft targets, they are extremely pervasive, have real world effects, and the stakes are very high.
But sure, let's argue about multiverse theory, something that has literally no effect on anything.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 12:05 AM on May 31, 2016 [39 favorites]
accusing skeptics of not doing enough to debunk overhyped claims about genetics (there's definitely a good bit of skeptical writing about this stuff though maybe there could be more
Really the part I agree with most is that we need more criticism of iffy genetics, iffy evo-psch, iffy social-psych, iffy medical breakthroughs, and iffy reporting about all those things.
posted by atoxyl at 12:08 AM on May 31, 2016 [20 favorites]
Really the part I agree with most is that we need more criticism of iffy genetics, iffy evo-psch, iffy social-psych, iffy medical breakthroughs, and iffy reporting about all those things.
posted by atoxyl at 12:08 AM on May 31, 2016 [20 favorites]
Now that it is more or less responsible for birthing the alt-right with its Nazis with loli Twitter avatars, I'll take a pass, thankssomuch.
Wait what?
posted by atoxyl at 12:09 AM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
Wait what?
posted by atoxyl at 12:09 AM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is an exceptionally myopic complaint when the US Republican presidential candidate doesn't believe in climate change and is making claims that vaccines cause autism.
Those really aren't soft targets at all. Not that Dawkinists spend much energy on them at all when there's Muslims out there who might have built a clock or whatever.
posted by Artw at 12:09 AM on May 31, 2016 [33 favorites]
Those really aren't soft targets at all. Not that Dawkinists spend much energy on them at all when there's Muslims out there who might have built a clock or whatever.
posted by Artw at 12:09 AM on May 31, 2016 [33 favorites]
Wait what?
You're not aware of the strong "skeptic"/fedora wearing asshat crossover?
posted by Artw at 12:10 AM on May 31, 2016 [14 favorites]
You're not aware of the strong "skeptic"/fedora wearing asshat crossover?
posted by Artw at 12:10 AM on May 31, 2016 [14 favorites]
Those really aren't soft targets at all. Not that Dawkinisra spend much energy on them at all when there's Muslims out there who might have built a clock or whatever.
Well, I suppose that they're 'soft targets' in the sense that there is a preponderance of evidence contradicting those views, unlike multiverse theory and the concept of the singularity which are basically thought experiments at this point and thus devoid of any evidence either way.
Re your second point, Dawkins et al are a bunch of tools and are terrible representatives of skepticism or rationalism as a philosophy, if such a thing can even be said to exist.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 12:11 AM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, I suppose that they're 'soft targets' in the sense that there is a preponderance of evidence contradicting those views, unlike multiverse theory and the concept of the singularity which are basically thought experiments at this point and thus devoid of any evidence either way.
Re your second point, Dawkins et al are a bunch of tools and are terrible representatives of skepticism or rationalism as a philosophy, if such a thing can even be said to exist.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 12:11 AM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Now that it is more or less responsible for birthing the alt-right with its Nazis with loli Twitter avatars, I'll take a pass, thankssomuch.
Yup. Sam Harris and his "westernized zen buddhism" are going down the same well trod path as his spiritual ancestors did when they wanted to justify their extended war crimes spree across Asia.
posted by wuwei at 12:16 AM on May 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yup. Sam Harris and his "westernized zen buddhism" are going down the same well trod path as his spiritual ancestors did when they wanted to justify their extended war crimes spree across Asia.
posted by wuwei at 12:16 AM on May 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
What the world needs is less skeptics(who just happen to hate women, minorities, the poor, trans men and women(that's twice now), the "wrong" religions, etc) and more skepticism.
posted by Yowser at 12:16 AM on May 31, 2016 [39 favorites]
posted by Yowser at 12:16 AM on May 31, 2016 [39 favorites]
The point with homeopathy is this:
These beliefs and disbeliefs deserve criticism, but they are what I call “soft targets.” That’s because, for the most part, you’re bashing people outside your tribe, who ignore you. You end up preaching to the converted.
When you repost an article on bookface about how homeopathy is unproven and dangerous, the only signal there is a signal to your in-group. Nothing reaches the out-group. To the out group it is by definition preaching or proselytizing. The process is no different than the actual preacher with a megaphone on your college campus who felt your soul needed to be saved. You might feel you are doing good work; but all you are doing is engaging in social grooming with your in-group.
posted by MillMan at 12:19 AM on May 31, 2016 [20 favorites]
These beliefs and disbeliefs deserve criticism, but they are what I call “soft targets.” That’s because, for the most part, you’re bashing people outside your tribe, who ignore you. You end up preaching to the converted.
When you repost an article on bookface about how homeopathy is unproven and dangerous, the only signal there is a signal to your in-group. Nothing reaches the out-group. To the out group it is by definition preaching or proselytizing. The process is no different than the actual preacher with a megaphone on your college campus who felt your soul needed to be saved. You might feel you are doing good work; but all you are doing is engaging in social grooming with your in-group.
posted by MillMan at 12:19 AM on May 31, 2016 [20 favorites]
Mod note: Let's not make this a general "Skeptics Suck: Y/N" fight, please, and concentrate more on the content of the link.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:23 AM on May 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:23 AM on May 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
When the lone elected Green MLA (state-level legislator) in British Columbia is using his credentials as a climate scientist to preach against GMO's (and the when Elizabeth May, the federal leader of the party is prepared to consider WiFi dangerous), when whooping cough is making a comeback because of anti-vaxxers, when mumps and measles are both making a comeback because of anti-vaxxer crap, when parents in Alberta refuse to take their child to a real doctor and instead try to treat his meningitis with horseradish based on the advice of a homeopath, I'm pretty sure there is a need to keep attacking the "soft targets." The attacks on religion are predictable and self-defeating, though. It makes all skeptics look like racists, but, then again, we live in an age where racism has come out of the closet and is acceptable again.
posted by My Dad at 12:31 AM on May 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by My Dad at 12:31 AM on May 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
There are no attacks on questionable science because a large part of their base just parrot whatever opinions they hear from their thought leaders in lieu of actual research.
Skeptics, by their very nature, should not all end up holding a collection of homogeneous opinions.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 12:34 AM on May 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
Skeptics, by their very nature, should not all end up holding a collection of homogeneous opinions.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 12:34 AM on May 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
My Dad, you just confounded a whole bunch of questionable issues, with some legitimate concerns and pretty much made a perfect example of my point.
For example you may be correct about measles, but whooping cough was doing just fine moving through vaccinated populations and the mumps vaccine maker is in court for allegedly faking their tests to retain the mumps vaccine monopoly.
I feel like self-identified skeptics are being manipulated to push some corporate agendas. Which would explain why the movement almost blindly supports the pharmaceutical and gmo/pesticide industry.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 12:49 AM on May 31, 2016 [19 favorites]
For example you may be correct about measles, but whooping cough was doing just fine moving through vaccinated populations and the mumps vaccine maker is in court for allegedly faking their tests to retain the mumps vaccine monopoly.
I feel like self-identified skeptics are being manipulated to push some corporate agendas. Which would explain why the movement almost blindly supports the pharmaceutical and gmo/pesticide industry.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 12:49 AM on May 31, 2016 [19 favorites]
@atoxyl
"- throwing in with a particular side of serious ongoing scientific controversies like medical testing, psychiatric drugs, war"
He ends with this: "I don’t expect you to agree with my framing of these issues. All I ask is that you examine your own views skeptically... Shouldn’t ending war be a moral imperative?"
I think he is responding especially to the Sam Harris (et al) push to justify the "War On Terror" on "rational" grounds (i.e. a fight against savages).
He is also linking to the fact that ending war used to be a major concern for free-thinkers such as Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Linus Pauling etc. but today most people, including even many peace activists, see war as inevitable. This is often linked to pseudo-science about innate aggression in human genes. He questions whether or not these are rational beliefs (he even wrote a 2012 book devoted to that) and whether they might be somewhat self-fulfilling.
I think his "side" about wanting to end war is the only humane side, and is embraced by most people to the extent that they believe it is possible. (Note that wanting "world peace" has come to be mocked as a "beauty queen" style statement in part due to "sciency" hype around war being genetically innate.)
About psychiatric medicine he is not an absolutist, acknowledging the value to some especially in the short term. But he is alarmed, as I think we all should be, at the rapid medicalization and chemicalization of what have been for centuries existential dilemmas solved through non-chemical lifestyle changes and social support.
Not that the past ways were better than present ones by any means, but alarm at the fact that merely affixing scientific sounding titles to conditions such as sadness or angst has in a matter of years prompted broad and largely unexamined consensus that these things must have "cures" that come in expensive pill form, indeed that it is irresponsible to not drug oneself this way.
This is where skepticism is dearly needed, skepticism not blind disagreement. I see that as his "side" there. What would be the "other side"?
posted by blankdawn at 12:58 AM on May 31, 2016 [29 favorites]
"- throwing in with a particular side of serious ongoing scientific controversies like medical testing, psychiatric drugs, war"
He ends with this: "I don’t expect you to agree with my framing of these issues. All I ask is that you examine your own views skeptically... Shouldn’t ending war be a moral imperative?"
I think he is responding especially to the Sam Harris (et al) push to justify the "War On Terror" on "rational" grounds (i.e. a fight against savages).
He is also linking to the fact that ending war used to be a major concern for free-thinkers such as Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Linus Pauling etc. but today most people, including even many peace activists, see war as inevitable. This is often linked to pseudo-science about innate aggression in human genes. He questions whether or not these are rational beliefs (he even wrote a 2012 book devoted to that) and whether they might be somewhat self-fulfilling.
I think his "side" about wanting to end war is the only humane side, and is embraced by most people to the extent that they believe it is possible. (Note that wanting "world peace" has come to be mocked as a "beauty queen" style statement in part due to "sciency" hype around war being genetically innate.)
About psychiatric medicine he is not an absolutist, acknowledging the value to some especially in the short term. But he is alarmed, as I think we all should be, at the rapid medicalization and chemicalization of what have been for centuries existential dilemmas solved through non-chemical lifestyle changes and social support.
Not that the past ways were better than present ones by any means, but alarm at the fact that merely affixing scientific sounding titles to conditions such as sadness or angst has in a matter of years prompted broad and largely unexamined consensus that these things must have "cures" that come in expensive pill form, indeed that it is irresponsible to not drug oneself this way.
This is where skepticism is dearly needed, skepticism not blind disagreement. I see that as his "side" there. What would be the "other side"?
posted by blankdawn at 12:58 AM on May 31, 2016 [29 favorites]
For example you may be correct about measles, but whooping cough was doing just fine moving through vaccinated populations and the mumps vaccine maker is in court for allegedly faking their tests to retain the mumps vaccine monopoly.
I think you're getting a little mixed up with your science. That's okay. I have first-hand experience. Do you?
Vaccines don't necessarily stop a disease in its tracks, but mitigate the effects. The purpose of the mumps vaccine, for example, is "herd immunity." If fewer members of a population are vaccinated and a disease such as mumps is present, you can catch the disease even if you are vaccinated. For example, my son received the MMR (and boosters) in Canada. We spend part of the year in Japan. Japan does not mandate the MMR vaccine regimen (a result of Andrew Wakefield, as a matter of fact). So none of the kids are vaccinated, and mumps outbreaks are common. There was one at my son's school here in Japan, and everyone caught the mumps, including my son. The difference? He was off of school for 4 days. The unvaccinated kids were off school for 10 days.
Back in Canada, a religious community outside of Vancouver has stopped all vaccinations. As a result every winter there is a whooping cough outbreak. And, once again, because there is no herd immunity, whooping cough is passed on to vaccinated kids, such as my son's best friend. What may have happened in his case, actually, was that he was due for his booster the following fall - he was at the tail end of the vaccination's effectiveness. He missed 6 weeks of school.
So what exactly am I "confounded" about, that you presumably understand oh so much more, pray tell? Keep in mind that I only know about Canada and Japan, not much about the US, which does have lower health outcomes than other OECD countries.
posted by My Dad at 1:17 AM on May 31, 2016 [14 favorites]
I think you're getting a little mixed up with your science. That's okay. I have first-hand experience. Do you?
Vaccines don't necessarily stop a disease in its tracks, but mitigate the effects. The purpose of the mumps vaccine, for example, is "herd immunity." If fewer members of a population are vaccinated and a disease such as mumps is present, you can catch the disease even if you are vaccinated. For example, my son received the MMR (and boosters) in Canada. We spend part of the year in Japan. Japan does not mandate the MMR vaccine regimen (a result of Andrew Wakefield, as a matter of fact). So none of the kids are vaccinated, and mumps outbreaks are common. There was one at my son's school here in Japan, and everyone caught the mumps, including my son. The difference? He was off of school for 4 days. The unvaccinated kids were off school for 10 days.
Back in Canada, a religious community outside of Vancouver has stopped all vaccinations. As a result every winter there is a whooping cough outbreak. And, once again, because there is no herd immunity, whooping cough is passed on to vaccinated kids, such as my son's best friend. What may have happened in his case, actually, was that he was due for his booster the following fall - he was at the tail end of the vaccination's effectiveness. He missed 6 weeks of school.
So what exactly am I "confounded" about, that you presumably understand oh so much more, pray tell? Keep in mind that I only know about Canada and Japan, not much about the US, which does have lower health outcomes than other OECD countries.
posted by My Dad at 1:17 AM on May 31, 2016 [14 favorites]
But sure, let's argue about multiverse theory, something that has literally no effect on anything.
Yes...yes, no one is putting that to any practical use, goodness no....
*surreptitiously kicks tesseract further under desk*
posted by AdamCSnider at 1:23 AM on May 31, 2016 [25 favorites]
Yes...yes, no one is putting that to any practical use, goodness no....
*surreptitiously kicks tesseract further under desk*
posted by AdamCSnider at 1:23 AM on May 31, 2016 [25 favorites]
Skeptics, by their very nature, should not all end up holding a collection of homogeneous opinions.
But you're never going to get a best selling book (or get more than one book published at all) unless you build up a group of followers with "a collection of homogeneous opinions". It's another kind of 'herd immunity'.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:40 AM on May 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
But you're never going to get a best selling book (or get more than one book published at all) unless you build up a group of followers with "a collection of homogeneous opinions". It's another kind of 'herd immunity'.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:40 AM on May 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
I love you all.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 1:40 AM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Samuel Farrow at 1:40 AM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
British paranormal researcher Hayley Stevens has written a trenchant response to this:
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:48 AM on May 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
I view Horgan’s comments as extremely dismissive of the work that many skeptics have achieved in a whole range of areas of society. From bringing to the public eye the dodgy behaviour of rich psychics, to having a hand in defunding homeopathy on the National Health Service in the UK (where funding is currently in a bit of a crisis situation), to protecting cancer patients from harmful treatments that might not help them… if these are considered soft targets then I have no choice but to politely disagtee.She also links to two longer critiques by Daniel Loxton and Steven Novella that do a thorough job of taking Horgan to task.
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:48 AM on May 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
From Neurologica blog (Steven Novella's blog) : John Horgan is “Skeptical of Skeptics”.
posted by Pendragon at 2:01 AM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Pendragon at 2:01 AM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
the mumps vaccine maker is in court for allegedly faking their tests to retain the mumps vaccine monopoly
psycho-alchemy, are you suggesting that because Merck may be lying and its mumps vaccine may not be 95% effective as it claims, that means the science behind mumps vaccines is questionable? That's a terrible claim. The Merck court case is about protecting their monopoly, because if their vaccine isn't effective then another provider could step in and provide a more effective vaccine and take sales from Merck. Nothing about the court case suggests mumps can't be managed via vaccine.
I feel like self-identified skeptics are being manipulated to push some corporate agendas. Which would explain why the movement almost blindly supports the pharmaceutical and gmo/pesticide industry.
And I believe some people develop such a most righteous anger at the worst excesses of industries that it blinds their ability to rationally examine situations. Merck may suck, but that doesn't mean every mumps vaccine is ineffective. That's suggesting we should become vegetarian because McDonalds makes terrible hamburgers.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 2:29 AM on May 31, 2016 [11 favorites]
psycho-alchemy, are you suggesting that because Merck may be lying and its mumps vaccine may not be 95% effective as it claims, that means the science behind mumps vaccines is questionable? That's a terrible claim. The Merck court case is about protecting their monopoly, because if their vaccine isn't effective then another provider could step in and provide a more effective vaccine and take sales from Merck. Nothing about the court case suggests mumps can't be managed via vaccine.
I feel like self-identified skeptics are being manipulated to push some corporate agendas. Which would explain why the movement almost blindly supports the pharmaceutical and gmo/pesticide industry.
And I believe some people develop such a most righteous anger at the worst excesses of industries that it blinds their ability to rationally examine situations. Merck may suck, but that doesn't mean every mumps vaccine is ineffective. That's suggesting we should become vegetarian because McDonalds makes terrible hamburgers.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 2:29 AM on May 31, 2016 [11 favorites]
I noticed some of this when reading capital S skeptic forums and messageboards a few years ago. More and more they seemed like outlets for the nuclear power industry and the GMO industry to rally support and defeat critics, with a little Dawkins-esque New Atheism thrown into the mix. I ducked out of that scene pretty fast.
"Why don't we have a more nuanced debate about these issues? They're serious and complicated." "You're an anti-science clod!" - Skeptics. I'm not really a big fan of this movement or whatever you'd call it. I'm not even anti-nuclear or anti-GMO, I just questioned the 100% pro fervor that seemed really weird and off-putting to me.
posted by gehenna_lion at 3:02 AM on May 31, 2016 [18 favorites]
"Why don't we have a more nuanced debate about these issues? They're serious and complicated." "You're an anti-science clod!" - Skeptics. I'm not really a big fan of this movement or whatever you'd call it. I'm not even anti-nuclear or anti-GMO, I just questioned the 100% pro fervor that seemed really weird and off-putting to me.
posted by gehenna_lion at 3:02 AM on May 31, 2016 [18 favorites]
This is where skepticism is dearly needed, skepticism not blind disagreement. I see that as his "side" there. What would be the "other side"?
I actually said that if his point is just to say that these were some issues where a skeptical evaluation might be relevant - or that they are example of why a skeptical eye is always relevant - I'm all for that. So if that's the way it should be read then great. I guess it just gave me a little whiff of "I just read some books and I'm here to overturn the orthodoxy of three different fields" which may not have been a fair assessment. Or another way to put it would be - the proper use of medical screening tests and the effectiveness of psych meds are significant issues (which people in those fields know are current issues) that require real research. To be honest I think a lot of the movement skeptics are basically hobbyists - some are legit scientists (doing a popular science side gig or on some hobbyhorse or just teeing off on some bullshit for fun) and others are just... some beardo on the Internet. If this is in fact his whole point - that more people who want to be skeptics should go after the hard problems by doing real science then I very much agree with that. But hobbyists who aren't prepared to do that should probably stick to the easy targets.
posted by atoxyl at 3:14 AM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
I actually said that if his point is just to say that these were some issues where a skeptical evaluation might be relevant - or that they are example of why a skeptical eye is always relevant - I'm all for that. So if that's the way it should be read then great. I guess it just gave me a little whiff of "I just read some books and I'm here to overturn the orthodoxy of three different fields" which may not have been a fair assessment. Or another way to put it would be - the proper use of medical screening tests and the effectiveness of psych meds are significant issues (which people in those fields know are current issues) that require real research. To be honest I think a lot of the movement skeptics are basically hobbyists - some are legit scientists (doing a popular science side gig or on some hobbyhorse or just teeing off on some bullshit for fun) and others are just... some beardo on the Internet. If this is in fact his whole point - that more people who want to be skeptics should go after the hard problems by doing real science then I very much agree with that. But hobbyists who aren't prepared to do that should probably stick to the easy targets.
posted by atoxyl at 3:14 AM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Thanks for this article. I really think it makes some very important points.
To me, the gist of this article comes to what we call on Metafilter "punching up" vs "punching down". It seems that movement skeptics have focused their efforts on punching down, specifically attacking targets that they know will not find much support in their member base, but avoiding attacking subjects that are also unsupported by evidence, but where the member base is likely to be more divided, mostly because of national loyalties or political affiliation. It is similar to why anti-animal activists focus on anti-fur protests, rather than attacking people for eating chicken.
It is easy to hate on the Islamic right, simply because there are likely to be few Muslims of any kind in the audience - much easier than taking on the Christian right's beliefs and particularly where those beliefs intersect with US foreign policy. And yes, it is easier to reiterate your opposition to alternative woo, rather than do the hard work of pushing back against the mainstream American medical establishment when it spreads dubious claims, likely because there are probably members of that very establishment in your audience.
posted by peacheater at 4:04 AM on May 31, 2016 [23 favorites]
To me, the gist of this article comes to what we call on Metafilter "punching up" vs "punching down". It seems that movement skeptics have focused their efforts on punching down, specifically attacking targets that they know will not find much support in their member base, but avoiding attacking subjects that are also unsupported by evidence, but where the member base is likely to be more divided, mostly because of national loyalties or political affiliation. It is similar to why anti-animal activists focus on anti-fur protests, rather than attacking people for eating chicken.
It is easy to hate on the Islamic right, simply because there are likely to be few Muslims of any kind in the audience - much easier than taking on the Christian right's beliefs and particularly where those beliefs intersect with US foreign policy. And yes, it is easier to reiterate your opposition to alternative woo, rather than do the hard work of pushing back against the mainstream American medical establishment when it spreads dubious claims, likely because there are probably members of that very establishment in your audience.
posted by peacheater at 4:04 AM on May 31, 2016 [23 favorites]
The reason his talk is scattershot is because it's harder to find something obviously incorrect in the fields he's interested in. There is value in pointing out that something that is literally false is false when people are treating it as if it's true: vaccines and homeopathy being good examples of things where proponents are just utterly correct. There are certainly places where one can engage with bad science being done, and big pharma has many example of those. It's worth noting that the excellent medical writer Ben Goldacre has made a career out of arguing with Big Pharma and homeopaths, so many people do it.
But it's kind of silly to suggest that skeptics should be having a go at String Theorists. What harm are they causing? In fact many of the things on the list are things worth noting if you're John Horgan, and it feels like I could structure a talk with an audience of John Horgan telling him why he's focusing on the wrong targets too.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 4:43 AM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
But it's kind of silly to suggest that skeptics should be having a go at String Theorists. What harm are they causing? In fact many of the things on the list are things worth noting if you're John Horgan, and it feels like I could structure a talk with an audience of John Horgan telling him why he's focusing on the wrong targets too.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 4:43 AM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Skeptics who do not devote their full attention to Roko's Basilisk are doing it wrong.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:00 AM on May 31, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:00 AM on May 31, 2016 [11 favorites]
When I picture Roko's Basilisk these days I picture it as a frog on a unicycle.
posted by ejs at 5:06 AM on May 31, 2016 [42 favorites]
posted by ejs at 5:06 AM on May 31, 2016 [42 favorites]
The reason his talk is scattershot is because it's harder to find something obviously incorrect in the fields he's interested in. There is value in pointing out that something that is literally false is false when people are treating it as if it's true: vaccines and homeopathy being good examples of things where proponents are just utterly correct.
Anyone who identifies certain ideas as "obviously incorrect" and others as "just utterly correct" is engaging in the opposite of skepticism. There is at least as much value in questioning the obviously correct ideas as in questioning the obviously wrong ones. Sometimes the answer to the question is "Yes, that idea seems right." But it's a mistake to be so sure of the answer that you don't even ask the question.
posted by Redstart at 5:18 AM on May 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
Anyone who identifies certain ideas as "obviously incorrect" and others as "just utterly correct" is engaging in the opposite of skepticism. There is at least as much value in questioning the obviously correct ideas as in questioning the obviously wrong ones. Sometimes the answer to the question is "Yes, that idea seems right." But it's a mistake to be so sure of the answer that you don't even ask the question.
posted by Redstart at 5:18 AM on May 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
When I picture Roko's Basilisk these days I picture it as a frog on a unicycle
Doomed by inaction to spend eternity suffering the punishments of the super-intelligent AI I had failed in life to help bring into being, the last defiant cry of my simulated consciousness echoed off the endless virtual walls:" oh shit waddup!"
posted by BitterOldPunk at 5:26 AM on May 31, 2016 [25 favorites]
Doomed by inaction to spend eternity suffering the punishments of the super-intelligent AI I had failed in life to help bring into being, the last defiant cry of my simulated consciousness echoed off the endless virtual walls:" oh shit waddup!"
posted by BitterOldPunk at 5:26 AM on May 31, 2016 [25 favorites]
I have no mouth yet I must scream "It's dat boi!"
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:39 AM on May 31, 2016 [29 favorites]
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:39 AM on May 31, 2016 [29 favorites]
I noticed some of this when reading capital S skeptic forums and messageboards a few years ago. More and more they seemed like outlets for the nuclear power industry and the GMO industry to rally support and defeat critics, with a little Dawkins-esque New Atheism thrown into the mix. I ducked out of that scene pretty fast.
Indeed. I was extremely active in this community for a while, then starting fading from it over stuff like Michael Shermer's preaching to an audience about how obviously all skeptics should be hard-line free market libertarians then totally noped out when Dawkins pulled out his "Dear Muslima" claptrap and hordes of skeptibros started going after Rebecca Watson for saying some really incredibly mild shit. Seriously, Yowser is right: a lot of the people who engaged in organised harassment of female skeptics around the time of "Elevatorgate" found a happy home inside of GG.
posted by tobascodagama at 5:46 AM on May 31, 2016 [18 favorites]
Indeed. I was extremely active in this community for a while, then starting fading from it over stuff like Michael Shermer's preaching to an audience about how obviously all skeptics should be hard-line free market libertarians then totally noped out when Dawkins pulled out his "Dear Muslima" claptrap and hordes of skeptibros started going after Rebecca Watson for saying some really incredibly mild shit. Seriously, Yowser is right: a lot of the people who engaged in organised harassment of female skeptics around the time of "Elevatorgate" found a happy home inside of GG.
posted by tobascodagama at 5:46 AM on May 31, 2016 [18 favorites]
Yup. Sam Harris and his "westernized zen buddhism" are going down the same well trod path as his spiritual ancestors did when they wanted to justify their extended war crimes spree across Asia.
Someone's spending too much time watching The Young Turks.
You should probably cut that shit out. Cenk is just a younger, steroid-bound version of Bill O'Reilly.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:47 AM on May 31, 2016
Someone's spending too much time watching The Young Turks.
You should probably cut that shit out. Cenk is just a younger, steroid-bound version of Bill O'Reilly.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:47 AM on May 31, 2016
Not that I disagree about The Young Turks, but Sam Harris is a reprehensible human being and virulent Islamophobe, sooo...
posted by tobascodagama at 5:51 AM on May 31, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 5:51 AM on May 31, 2016 [11 favorites]
(Which is, of course, the third reason I disavowed movement skepticism: holy shit, the Islamophobia.)
posted by tobascodagama at 5:54 AM on May 31, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 5:54 AM on May 31, 2016 [14 favorites]
Michael Shermer's preaching to an audience about how obviously all skeptics should be hard-line free market libertarians
That's particularly ironic considering there seems to be no empirical or even logical basis to free-market / neo-liberal ideology (indeed refuting the need for empirical validation is something that some Viennese or Chicago types are very proud of). Applying skeptical principles to modern capitalism was the first thing I thought about when I read the article in the post a few days ago. It hurts a fuck of a lot more people than homeopathy, I can tell you that much.
posted by Grangousier at 5:54 AM on May 31, 2016 [27 favorites]
That's particularly ironic considering there seems to be no empirical or even logical basis to free-market / neo-liberal ideology (indeed refuting the need for empirical validation is something that some Viennese or Chicago types are very proud of). Applying skeptical principles to modern capitalism was the first thing I thought about when I read the article in the post a few days ago. It hurts a fuck of a lot more people than homeopathy, I can tell you that much.
posted by Grangousier at 5:54 AM on May 31, 2016 [27 favorites]
Exactly, Grandgousier. And that's actually my reason for bringing up all the why-I-left-skepticism stuff here, I should clarify. There's a very strong tendency among skeptics to overlook a lot of public daftness and outright hate on the part of certain skeptical celebrities in the name of some abstract sense of unity. Which almost makes sense in the name of opposing stuff like homeopathy, but it hamstrings skeptics like Horgan who think we should be applying skepticism far more broadly. Hell, James Randi's inner circle at one point got him to disavow global warming, and the skeptical community was in no sense unanimous about whether this was a bad thing, despite climate change having probably the most robust scientific consensus behind it since evolution.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:33 AM on May 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 6:33 AM on May 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'd agree with Steven Pinker here. There is a continuum of violence stretching from neighborhood thugs to drone pilots. It's patently ridiculous that John Horgan cannot imaging correcting for behaviors that do have some genetic component.
It's usually a dangerous oversimplifications when social theorists just completely reject "deep roots" like John Horgan. Read A Darwinian Left. We might not understand enough to actively use deep roots theories, or even build correct ones, witness sociobiology. Yet, we must recognize the deep roots case as a sign that the job requires cleverness.
I think dueling makes an interesting example of successfully eliminating violence. It's role might be more subtle than simply that society turned against it, maybe some social classes shed some violence partially by first formalizing dueling up until the point that it could not survive without broad enough social support. In that vein, we should ask questions like if normalizing pornography and prostitution reduce rape rates.
Anyways, war in the sense that John Horgan attacks is always linked with uncompromising beliefs in nationalism or religion. If we want less war, then we should target the uncompromising aspect of the belief, not the underlying national or religious feelings. I wonder if say how one teaches the history of Native Americans provides a good way to soften nationalism and lessen America's warlike behavior.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:47 AM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's usually a dangerous oversimplifications when social theorists just completely reject "deep roots" like John Horgan. Read A Darwinian Left. We might not understand enough to actively use deep roots theories, or even build correct ones, witness sociobiology. Yet, we must recognize the deep roots case as a sign that the job requires cleverness.
I think dueling makes an interesting example of successfully eliminating violence. It's role might be more subtle than simply that society turned against it, maybe some social classes shed some violence partially by first formalizing dueling up until the point that it could not survive without broad enough social support. In that vein, we should ask questions like if normalizing pornography and prostitution reduce rape rates.
Anyways, war in the sense that John Horgan attacks is always linked with uncompromising beliefs in nationalism or religion. If we want less war, then we should target the uncompromising aspect of the belief, not the underlying national or religious feelings. I wonder if say how one teaches the history of Native Americans provides a good way to soften nationalism and lessen America's warlike behavior.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:47 AM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is where skepticism is dearly needed, skepticism not blind disagreement. I see that as his "side" there. What would be the "other side"?
If the universe was a coin it would be flat, round, with only two sides and a corrugated rim, In that case the most useful area of pursuit would be to find out who flips the coin, although you still might find it interesting to see what's stamped on each side. If the alternative to the science channel is the history channel I suppose cable companies would do the flipping, and progress (black ink) would be our most important product.
I don't see the essay as trying to woo-hoo-ize string theory or any other scientific inquiry. He acknowledges that science is the exploration of suppositions based on observations. Nothing is wrong with speculations about, say, string theory, but conclusions probably ought to be on the shelf near Tales of Sasquatch, at least until you come up with some actual animal hair, send some mice through a worm holes, or get a picture of green people fluttering about on gossamer wings. Dreaming is what we do before we create. Science Fiction writers are among our sweetest dreamers: but some dreams have stuffing made of nightmares. He says, in his own way, that Science Fiction can be science, but science can't be Science Fiction; it's wrong to ask people to stand in line while you fire up the transporter--I say "wrong" because of the long lines at the fake transporter pod. (If you think I exaggerate, I guess you've never seen a televangelist do his thing.)
On the other side of the aisle from the Bigfoot Hunter is the way we tend to uncritically soak up carefully prepared pseudo science based on bullshit: war is the naturaland inevitable state of humankind; drugs are the best way to deal with behavioral issues; we have the best health care system in the world; you gotta have a gun; war is peace. A little care would show whence these ideas are generated, and it would be worth the trouble required to verify them.
This essay was a scattershot foray at bullshit paradigms generated by the (fill in). (My favorite word right now is oligarchs, followed by kleptocrats*). He casts it as an ongoing dialog, not a set piece. Now. Please excuse me while I watch Morgan Freeman explain how I can be in two or three places at the same time.
*Also, I often employ my favorite adjective, and throw bits of hair about the room. Not here, though. This is all cold, hard reasoning.
posted by mule98J at 7:09 AM on May 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
If the universe was a coin it would be flat, round, with only two sides and a corrugated rim, In that case the most useful area of pursuit would be to find out who flips the coin, although you still might find it interesting to see what's stamped on each side. If the alternative to the science channel is the history channel I suppose cable companies would do the flipping, and progress (black ink) would be our most important product.
I don't see the essay as trying to woo-hoo-ize string theory or any other scientific inquiry. He acknowledges that science is the exploration of suppositions based on observations. Nothing is wrong with speculations about, say, string theory, but conclusions probably ought to be on the shelf near Tales of Sasquatch, at least until you come up with some actual animal hair, send some mice through a worm holes, or get a picture of green people fluttering about on gossamer wings. Dreaming is what we do before we create. Science Fiction writers are among our sweetest dreamers: but some dreams have stuffing made of nightmares. He says, in his own way, that Science Fiction can be science, but science can't be Science Fiction; it's wrong to ask people to stand in line while you fire up the transporter--I say "wrong" because of the long lines at the fake transporter pod. (If you think I exaggerate, I guess you've never seen a televangelist do his thing.)
On the other side of the aisle from the Bigfoot Hunter is the way we tend to uncritically soak up carefully prepared pseudo science based on bullshit: war is the naturaland inevitable state of humankind; drugs are the best way to deal with behavioral issues; we have the best health care system in the world; you gotta have a gun; war is peace. A little care would show whence these ideas are generated, and it would be worth the trouble required to verify them.
This essay was a scattershot foray at bullshit paradigms generated by the (fill in). (My favorite word right now is oligarchs, followed by kleptocrats*). He casts it as an ongoing dialog, not a set piece. Now. Please excuse me while I watch Morgan Freeman explain how I can be in two or three places at the same time.
*Also, I often employ my favorite adjective, and throw bits of hair about the room. Not here, though. This is all cold, hard reasoning.
posted by mule98J at 7:09 AM on May 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
If you want to get depressed sometime go to the library stacks and pull out a copy of a Scientific American magazine from around 1984 or so and meditate upon what a great publication it used to be.
posted by bukvich at 7:16 AM on May 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by bukvich at 7:16 AM on May 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's not the greatest essay, I'll agree. The scattershot nature is definitely prominent, and the nuanced point about shifting priorities is easily heard as "never ever mention these topics again," which would be silly (Bigfoot is fun) and unwise (homeopathy et al are still paid for by health plans, for goodness' sake).
Flip side, when the array of Usual Assholes uniformly come out against something, it always makes one wonder a little.
posted by Scattercat at 7:16 AM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
Flip side, when the array of Usual Assholes uniformly come out against something, it always makes one wonder a little.
posted by Scattercat at 7:16 AM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
PZ Myers pretty much agrees with Horgan: Skepticism will not fix its problems by denying their existence
posted by hydropsyche at 7:48 AM on May 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 7:48 AM on May 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
let's argue about multiverse theory, something that has literally no effect on anything
Bugger that for a soft target. Real skeptics are busy debunking the ball earth theory.
posted by flabdablet at 8:02 AM on May 31, 2016
Bugger that for a soft target. Real skeptics are busy debunking the ball earth theory.
posted by flabdablet at 8:02 AM on May 31, 2016
I quite liked this article, thanks for posting it.
I think it's easy to get confused about who the in-group and who the out-group are. Sometimes when the warriors come home to roost at the annual convention, it's just fine to rage on outsiders. And, there will always be the inner group for whom the warriors are the outsiders they rage against.
The Association of Behavior Analysis conference going on in chicago right now is like that, if it's anything like when I attended 6 years ago. I'm sure most groups who think they are on to a nugget of truth are the same. There's always someone saying they haven't found the truth yet, they have to keep digging.
posted by rebent at 8:15 AM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it's easy to get confused about who the in-group and who the out-group are. Sometimes when the warriors come home to roost at the annual convention, it's just fine to rage on outsiders. And, there will always be the inner group for whom the warriors are the outsiders they rage against.
The Association of Behavior Analysis conference going on in chicago right now is like that, if it's anything like when I attended 6 years ago. I'm sure most groups who think they are on to a nugget of truth are the same. There's always someone saying they haven't found the truth yet, they have to keep digging.
posted by rebent at 8:15 AM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Anyone who identifies certain ideas as "obviously incorrect" and others as "just utterly correct" is engaging in the opposite of skepticism.
Well, yes and no. You can engage, somewhat, in homeopathy, and discover that it is obviously incorrect in lots of ways, some of which are quite interesting (it's not just that there's no evidence that it's effective, it's that it's proposed mechanism of action would require the laws of physics to be fundamentally wrong in really weird ways).
To be clear, a lot of skeptics are awful, and they are awful because they apply their skepticism in a very narrow direction, and are more concerned in winning then correcting their assumptions. As a culture, they have picked up the poisonous world views that their demographic tends to hew to (white, male, western), but it seems odd to group Sam Harris, Dawkins and Pz Meyers together, say, despite the three having some fundamental disagreements.
One of the problems we hit with any attempt to apply reason to the world is that ideology will skew it. That's why political fact checking organisations are viewed with suspicion, because they may well be applying a skeptical eye to a politician's pronouncements, but they are doing so with a certain lens which will colour how they interpret evidence.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 8:28 AM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, yes and no. You can engage, somewhat, in homeopathy, and discover that it is obviously incorrect in lots of ways, some of which are quite interesting (it's not just that there's no evidence that it's effective, it's that it's proposed mechanism of action would require the laws of physics to be fundamentally wrong in really weird ways).
To be clear, a lot of skeptics are awful, and they are awful because they apply their skepticism in a very narrow direction, and are more concerned in winning then correcting their assumptions. As a culture, they have picked up the poisonous world views that their demographic tends to hew to (white, male, western), but it seems odd to group Sam Harris, Dawkins and Pz Meyers together, say, despite the three having some fundamental disagreements.
One of the problems we hit with any attempt to apply reason to the world is that ideology will skew it. That's why political fact checking organisations are viewed with suspicion, because they may well be applying a skeptical eye to a politician's pronouncements, but they are doing so with a certain lens which will colour how they interpret evidence.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 8:28 AM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
You can engage, somewhat, in homeopathy, and discover that it is obviously incorrect in lots of ways...
The acts of engaging and discovery take away the obviousness of it, though.
posted by Etrigan at 8:30 AM on May 31, 2016
The acts of engaging and discovery take away the obviousness of it, though.
posted by Etrigan at 8:30 AM on May 31, 2016
When something is a tool, we value its usefulness. Not a tool, then what? Aesthetics? Skepticism should be just a tool. And we should use it all the time. It seems that it has become a political point of view and maybe even a religion. Claiming to be a skeptic is pretty much the same as claiming to be a Catholic. Except everyone seems to possess infallibility.
posted by njohnson23 at 9:02 AM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 9:02 AM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
To everyone saying homeopathy etc is still a problem, I'd ask what proportion of those who are adherents of things like that have their mind specifically changed by the efforts of the "skeptic" movement? If the goal is to reduce belief in these things then are the current style and strategy of skeptics arguments about them really the most effective?
@ jeffburdges
Horgan actually wrote a whole book debunking the notions that war has a genetic basis. Without summarizing the whole thing I'd like to point out that studies of the bones of ancient humans reveal that war was a cultural invention, a virus that sadly spread to neighboring peoples (for obvious reasons) where ever it was reinvented, and something that is hard to put back in the box.
But definitely not inevitable, as many societies still had never heard of it at the time of contact with the West.
posted by blankdawn at 9:03 AM on May 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
@ jeffburdges
Horgan actually wrote a whole book debunking the notions that war has a genetic basis. Without summarizing the whole thing I'd like to point out that studies of the bones of ancient humans reveal that war was a cultural invention, a virus that sadly spread to neighboring peoples (for obvious reasons) where ever it was reinvented, and something that is hard to put back in the box.
But definitely not inevitable, as many societies still had never heard of it at the time of contact with the West.
posted by blankdawn at 9:03 AM on May 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
About psychiatric medicine he is not an absolutist, acknowledging the value to some especially in the short term. But he is alarmed, as I think we all should be, at the rapid medicalization and chemicalization of what have been for centuries existential dilemmas solved through non-chemical lifestyle changes and social support.
Not that the past ways were better than present ones by any means...
Yeah, no kidding, they weren’t better, and if we’re talking psychiatric medication we’re not talking "existential dilemmas" and "merely affixing scientific sounding titles to conditions such as sadness or angst", please, we’re talking of all kinds of conditions that for centuries – before the development of medical research and medication and therapies of all kinds, and before the cultural changes that allowed for some progress in how we speak of mental health today – resulted in people being shunned and excluded from society, if not considered dangerous lunatics or possessed by demons and subjected to exorcisms or locked up or worse.
Where was this fabulous approach of lifestyle changes and social support for psychological issues in the past? Which past? All kinds of abuses of people with mental illness were widespread just up to a few decades ago in the developed world, nevermind if you go back a few centuries.
How about some boring common-sense balance here - there is sure a lot of worthy criticism to be made against excessesively prescribing drugs (and against some of the attitudes and politics of hardline skeptics in general, for sure), but saying that psychiatric drugs are "causing an epidemic in mental illness" sounds more like a very generalised polemic than a reasonable specific concern to me. It’s very tiresome, to be honest, at least to anyone who’s actually had to deal with these issues not as an argument on the internet but in their own flesh and blood.
Even Horgan’s own linked article about the idea that medications are "causing the epidemic" does refer at the end to the reasonable objections to that rather extreme conclusion – mainly the glaring objection that conditions do get diagnosed more frequently today because there is more knowledge and less stigma about them, no kidding. So?
What is the actual argument he’s making there? That there should be more criticism of marketing tactics of the pharmaceutical industry and individual doctors should adopt better practices and be more careful in prescribing medication with heavy side effects, especially to children? Great! Excellent idea! But that doesn’t really require a polemic about drugs themselves "causing an epidemic" of mental illness, in the first historical era where mental illness is acknowledged and treated as more of a condition and less of a curse.
posted by bitteschoen at 9:03 AM on May 31, 2016 [13 favorites]
Not that the past ways were better than present ones by any means...
Yeah, no kidding, they weren’t better, and if we’re talking psychiatric medication we’re not talking "existential dilemmas" and "merely affixing scientific sounding titles to conditions such as sadness or angst", please, we’re talking of all kinds of conditions that for centuries – before the development of medical research and medication and therapies of all kinds, and before the cultural changes that allowed for some progress in how we speak of mental health today – resulted in people being shunned and excluded from society, if not considered dangerous lunatics or possessed by demons and subjected to exorcisms or locked up or worse.
Where was this fabulous approach of lifestyle changes and social support for psychological issues in the past? Which past? All kinds of abuses of people with mental illness were widespread just up to a few decades ago in the developed world, nevermind if you go back a few centuries.
How about some boring common-sense balance here - there is sure a lot of worthy criticism to be made against excessesively prescribing drugs (and against some of the attitudes and politics of hardline skeptics in general, for sure), but saying that psychiatric drugs are "causing an epidemic in mental illness" sounds more like a very generalised polemic than a reasonable specific concern to me. It’s very tiresome, to be honest, at least to anyone who’s actually had to deal with these issues not as an argument on the internet but in their own flesh and blood.
Even Horgan’s own linked article about the idea that medications are "causing the epidemic" does refer at the end to the reasonable objections to that rather extreme conclusion – mainly the glaring objection that conditions do get diagnosed more frequently today because there is more knowledge and less stigma about them, no kidding. So?
What is the actual argument he’s making there? That there should be more criticism of marketing tactics of the pharmaceutical industry and individual doctors should adopt better practices and be more careful in prescribing medication with heavy side effects, especially to children? Great! Excellent idea! But that doesn’t really require a polemic about drugs themselves "causing an epidemic" of mental illness, in the first historical era where mental illness is acknowledged and treated as more of a condition and less of a curse.
posted by bitteschoen at 9:03 AM on May 31, 2016 [13 favorites]
@bitteschoen
"and if we’re talking psychiatric medication we’re not talking "existential dilemmas" and "merely affixing scientific sounding titles to conditions such as sadness or angst", please, we’re talking of all kinds of conditions."
Well, statistically we are talking mostly about depression, anxiety and bipolar disorder.
"Where was this fabulous approach of lifestyle changes and social support for psychological issues in the past?"
In most places it was linked with religion / spirituality. Like most problems that religion touches results ranged from redemption to serious exacerbation.
This is still the default model in most of the world. While far from perfect I think there is some evidence that it tends to work better than our model, which is mostly a condemnation of modern psychiatry rather than an appeal for all people with mental health issues to turn religious.
ps - Fairly relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_bird_verdict
posted by blankdawn at 9:58 AM on May 31, 2016
"and if we’re talking psychiatric medication we’re not talking "existential dilemmas" and "merely affixing scientific sounding titles to conditions such as sadness or angst", please, we’re talking of all kinds of conditions."
Well, statistically we are talking mostly about depression, anxiety and bipolar disorder.
"Where was this fabulous approach of lifestyle changes and social support for psychological issues in the past?"
In most places it was linked with religion / spirituality. Like most problems that religion touches results ranged from redemption to serious exacerbation.
This is still the default model in most of the world. While far from perfect I think there is some evidence that it tends to work better than our model, which is mostly a condemnation of modern psychiatry rather than an appeal for all people with mental health issues to turn religious.
ps - Fairly relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_bird_verdict
posted by blankdawn at 9:58 AM on May 31, 2016
studies of the bones of ancient humans reveal that war was a cultural invention,
It really is amazing what they can learn from old bones!
posted by thelonius at 10:12 AM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
It really is amazing what they can learn from old bones!
posted by thelonius at 10:12 AM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Scientists are fine as long as they stick to talking about the specifics of their discipline. It's when they attempt to pass themselves of as informed commentators in other domains that they often run into trouble.
posted by No Robots at 10:16 AM on May 31, 2016
posted by No Robots at 10:16 AM on May 31, 2016
Weird lack of scepticism about falsification. If I were to pick a malady of science...
posted by ethansr at 10:17 AM on May 31, 2016
posted by ethansr at 10:17 AM on May 31, 2016
I think part of the problem is that a lot of people have turned critical thinking into a type of fandom— with all the negatives that come with fandom culture.
I mean, homeopathy: part of is literally how to hit the jar against a leather book. We get it. No scientific merit.
However, there was recently an NIH-funded study that was not about the efficacy of homeopathy, but about population-level incidence of it— the number of people who use it, what they use it for, where they are getting their “information”, naturopaths who prescribe it, even doctors who know it is bunkum but are willing to recommend it to certain types of patients (the ones who demand a round of antibiotics whenever they catch a virus). Basically, here are the people who need targeted interventions, here is a picture of what they use it for (mostly sniffles/headaches/allergies, rarely major disorders), here is why they are drawn to it (previous unpleasant interactions with medical establishment, general love of woo, lack of health insurance).
Doesn’t that all seem like useful information to have? Wouldn’t you want to know how people get taken in by homeopathy if you were interested in persuading them that it is junk science?
Except that for the skeptic community, this study was MONSTROUS, how DARE YOU, how dare you LEGITIMIZE SNAKE OIL by studying it, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED, you should be banned from SCIENCE, etc. I mean, most of them hadn’t actually read it— they just saw the term “homeopathy” and went into rage mode.
It makes sense that people with that mindset cross over so easily into GG— the idea that trying to discuss/understand something problematic is HERESYYYYYYY SHUN THE UNBELIEVER just keeps being replicated.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 10:21 AM on May 31, 2016 [29 favorites]
I mean, homeopathy: part of is literally how to hit the jar against a leather book. We get it. No scientific merit.
However, there was recently an NIH-funded study that was not about the efficacy of homeopathy, but about population-level incidence of it— the number of people who use it, what they use it for, where they are getting their “information”, naturopaths who prescribe it, even doctors who know it is bunkum but are willing to recommend it to certain types of patients (the ones who demand a round of antibiotics whenever they catch a virus). Basically, here are the people who need targeted interventions, here is a picture of what they use it for (mostly sniffles/headaches/allergies, rarely major disorders), here is why they are drawn to it (previous unpleasant interactions with medical establishment, general love of woo, lack of health insurance).
Doesn’t that all seem like useful information to have? Wouldn’t you want to know how people get taken in by homeopathy if you were interested in persuading them that it is junk science?
Except that for the skeptic community, this study was MONSTROUS, how DARE YOU, how dare you LEGITIMIZE SNAKE OIL by studying it, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED, you should be banned from SCIENCE, etc. I mean, most of them hadn’t actually read it— they just saw the term “homeopathy” and went into rage mode.
It makes sense that people with that mindset cross over so easily into GG— the idea that trying to discuss/understand something problematic is HERESYYYYYYY SHUN THE UNBELIEVER just keeps being replicated.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 10:21 AM on May 31, 2016 [29 favorites]
Samuel Farrow: "I love you all."
Yes, well, we'd like to see some hard evidence for that.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:26 AM on May 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes, well, we'd like to see some hard evidence for that.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:26 AM on May 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes, exactly. When faced with criticism suggesting they should broaden their targets, the skeptical community likes to circle wagons with the "but homeopathy is dangerous, psychics are evil" excuse. But what do they actually do about those things? Mostly just circle-jerk about how smart they are for not believing in homeopathy and psychics. Anybody who wants to talk about a topic that isn't settled to the point of collecting moss is breaking the circlejerk.
And, listen: I don't do much productive activism myself, nor does everyone necessarily have the talent or inclination for it, nor do they have to in order to be decent, well-rounded human beings. But neither is it fair to use "activism on important topics!" to dodge criticism when most of the targets of the criticism aren't actually doing any activism. If that makes sense.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:39 AM on May 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
And, listen: I don't do much productive activism myself, nor does everyone necessarily have the talent or inclination for it, nor do they have to in order to be decent, well-rounded human beings. But neither is it fair to use "activism on important topics!" to dodge criticism when most of the targets of the criticism aren't actually doing any activism. If that makes sense.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:39 AM on May 31, 2016 [6 favorites]
The injustice of the U.S. prison system is another "hard target".
posted by gregv at 10:46 AM on May 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by gregv at 10:46 AM on May 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
The injustice of the U.S. prison system is another "hard target".
Yeah, especially when leading lights like Pinker are cool with things as they are.
posted by No Robots at 10:58 AM on May 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yeah, especially when leading lights like Pinker are cool with things as they are.
posted by No Robots at 10:58 AM on May 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
Like tobascodagama, I was really into the movement for a while. I left because it felt that all anyone ever did was gather around and congratulate themselves on being so clever. Ever once and a while there'd be neat stuff, like forcing the chiropractors of Britain to remove any indication that they could actually treat diseases, most of it felt like preaching to the choir.
After I left, elevatorgate happened, Dawkins went from being grumpy about all religion to being a sexist bigot with penchant for blaming everything on Islam, Shermer was outed as a creep and possible rapist and the skeptics who had come in from the right with a love for Ayn Rand seem to have taken over the movement. Even back when I was still buying the magazines and going to meetings, I remember there was a really slow acceptance of global warming, as if, in this one case, the scientists had somehow come to a false conclusion that 98% of them agreed on.
At the same time, when done right, the movement does valuable things. The temporary stopping of Peter Popoff, the embarrassing of Uri Geller and actual actions like going after alt-med practitioners when they advertise actual medical cures are good and useful things. John Oliver's take down of televangelists was exactly the sort of thing.
I do wish that I had been at NECSS just for this speech. I don't agree with some parts of it (we do need aggressive work on boosting vaccine rates and the scientist he cites about pharmacological research is controversial), but it's a wake up call that needed to be broadcast.
posted by Hactar at 11:00 AM on May 31, 2016 [17 favorites]
After I left, elevatorgate happened, Dawkins went from being grumpy about all religion to being a sexist bigot with penchant for blaming everything on Islam, Shermer was outed as a creep and possible rapist and the skeptics who had come in from the right with a love for Ayn Rand seem to have taken over the movement. Even back when I was still buying the magazines and going to meetings, I remember there was a really slow acceptance of global warming, as if, in this one case, the scientists had somehow come to a false conclusion that 98% of them agreed on.
At the same time, when done right, the movement does valuable things. The temporary stopping of Peter Popoff, the embarrassing of Uri Geller and actual actions like going after alt-med practitioners when they advertise actual medical cures are good and useful things. John Oliver's take down of televangelists was exactly the sort of thing.
I do wish that I had been at NECSS just for this speech. I don't agree with some parts of it (we do need aggressive work on boosting vaccine rates and the scientist he cites about pharmacological research is controversial), but it's a wake up call that needed to be broadcast.
posted by Hactar at 11:00 AM on May 31, 2016 [17 favorites]
This is such an interesting article and discussion for me. I've recently started dating someone who hews closely to this stuff, which even on the face of it gives me the willies. Mind, I have a PhD in the sciences and work in IT now; I have a fine appreciation for logic and rationality, thank you very much, but I also recognize the human instinct to clannishness and the tendency of "movements" to generate strange eddy currents that are 180 degrees opposed to the original premises, so this movement seems like a disaster waiting to happen...
We had a bit of a rough spot recently when I was practically rolling off the couch laughing at the notion that some rationality-movement comrades regarded as "rational" their plans to cryogenically freeze their heads or bodies, in the expectation that their consciousness might someday be reconstituted. People can do whatever they want, no harm no foul, but If you can't cop to the fact that that is entirely a faith-based notion, you are deluding yourself.
I also have deep skepticism because of the gendered cultural misuse of "rationality", in which highly emotional men distance themselves from responsibility for their own emotions and the emotions of others by claiming that only they are "rational" and the other person is "irrational". Ridiculousness like that from the preceding paragraph only bolsters that notion, of people cloaking themselves in the notion of "rationality" to avoid criticism, because they can't handle the notion that they are anything but.
posted by Sublimity at 12:36 PM on May 31, 2016 [20 favorites]
We had a bit of a rough spot recently when I was practically rolling off the couch laughing at the notion that some rationality-movement comrades regarded as "rational" their plans to cryogenically freeze their heads or bodies, in the expectation that their consciousness might someday be reconstituted. People can do whatever they want, no harm no foul, but If you can't cop to the fact that that is entirely a faith-based notion, you are deluding yourself.
I also have deep skepticism because of the gendered cultural misuse of "rationality", in which highly emotional men distance themselves from responsibility for their own emotions and the emotions of others by claiming that only they are "rational" and the other person is "irrational". Ridiculousness like that from the preceding paragraph only bolsters that notion, of people cloaking themselves in the notion of "rationality" to avoid criticism, because they can't handle the notion that they are anything but.
posted by Sublimity at 12:36 PM on May 31, 2016 [20 favorites]
some rationality-movement comrades regarded as "rational" their plans to cryogenically freeze their heads or bodies
Future generations will surely figure out how to reverse tissue damage caused by the freezing process! Surely!
(Warren Ellis' take on this idea, from a societal rather than technological perspective, in Transmetropolitan is just about perfect.)
Yeah, stuff like that and all the Kurzweilians/Singularitarians among skeptics are the light-hearted version of the ones who put up anti-skepticism blinders against their close-held anti-feminist and/or Islamophobic beliefs.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:44 PM on May 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
Future generations will surely figure out how to reverse tissue damage caused by the freezing process! Surely!
(Warren Ellis' take on this idea, from a societal rather than technological perspective, in Transmetropolitan is just about perfect.)
Yeah, stuff like that and all the Kurzweilians/Singularitarians among skeptics are the light-hearted version of the ones who put up anti-skepticism blinders against their close-held anti-feminist and/or Islamophobic beliefs.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:44 PM on May 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
John Horgan sounds like a wise man! Thank you for making this post, blankdawn.
The only disagreement I might have with Horgan is his opinion on things like string theory and multiverses. They might not be verifiable, but that doesn't mean they're bad science or a waste of time. Much like philosophy, I think we can learn a lot by studying the biggest questions, because just searching for those kind of answers makes us smarter.
But I agree with the rest of his targets for skepticism, including the fascinating idea that war is a recent invention. Never heard that one before!
posted by Kevin Street at 12:52 PM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
The only disagreement I might have with Horgan is his opinion on things like string theory and multiverses. They might not be verifiable, but that doesn't mean they're bad science or a waste of time. Much like philosophy, I think we can learn a lot by studying the biggest questions, because just searching for those kind of answers makes us smarter.
But I agree with the rest of his targets for skepticism, including the fascinating idea that war is a recent invention. Never heard that one before!
posted by Kevin Street at 12:52 PM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
Most of the people I associate with fall on the "skeptic" end of the spectrum. And I do, too, all told, but man, some of the group dynamics and the true believers scare the hell out of me.
For one thing, we need to abandon this notion that 'skeptic' is some sort of marker for intelligence. It really really is not. There are a lot of people out there talking the talk who really don't have a grasp on what science actually is. They treat it as though it's some prescriptive set of rules. There's Science! and there's 'woo,' and being a woo-shunner becomes a fundamental part of their self image more than anything else. It's a lazy kind of skepticism, where people just pick the side that seems the most superficially sciencey to them. Everything is very black and white. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of them seem to have a mental model of the world in which it's like a series of laboratory experiments. Want to see if something is true? Just test it! Science will provide the definitive answer!
It's the kind of reasoning that leads something like "The process of genetic modification has not been shown to be in itself harmful," to become "GMOs are safe!" Because, of course, if you are a rational science skeptic kind of individual, that is the more sciencey of the exactly two positions on that issue.
But the thing that is increasingly scaring me is how aggressive and even violent some of the rhetoric has become. People don't just want to rebut myths about vaccinations. They want to kidnap people's children and have them vaccinated against their will. They want the state to take their kids away.
People aren't just skeptical of the fad for gluten free diets. They read the headlines for the articles that claimed that gluten intolerance isn't real, and some of them talk about sneaking gluten into people's food to show them what for. (Never mind that many of them didn't even read the part about how they weren't talking about celiac, so they now believe that's fake too.)
Of the people I know who have turned to what many eloquently describe as 'woo,' they have their reasons, chief among them that traditional medicine has failed them. And they can tend to sink deeper into that mindset as they encounter the violent, divisive rhetoric and sometimes actions of angry, lazy skeptics.
posted by ernielundquist at 12:58 PM on May 31, 2016 [18 favorites]
For one thing, we need to abandon this notion that 'skeptic' is some sort of marker for intelligence. It really really is not. There are a lot of people out there talking the talk who really don't have a grasp on what science actually is. They treat it as though it's some prescriptive set of rules. There's Science! and there's 'woo,' and being a woo-shunner becomes a fundamental part of their self image more than anything else. It's a lazy kind of skepticism, where people just pick the side that seems the most superficially sciencey to them. Everything is very black and white. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of them seem to have a mental model of the world in which it's like a series of laboratory experiments. Want to see if something is true? Just test it! Science will provide the definitive answer!
It's the kind of reasoning that leads something like "The process of genetic modification has not been shown to be in itself harmful," to become "GMOs are safe!" Because, of course, if you are a rational science skeptic kind of individual, that is the more sciencey of the exactly two positions on that issue.
But the thing that is increasingly scaring me is how aggressive and even violent some of the rhetoric has become. People don't just want to rebut myths about vaccinations. They want to kidnap people's children and have them vaccinated against their will. They want the state to take their kids away.
People aren't just skeptical of the fad for gluten free diets. They read the headlines for the articles that claimed that gluten intolerance isn't real, and some of them talk about sneaking gluten into people's food to show them what for. (Never mind that many of them didn't even read the part about how they weren't talking about celiac, so they now believe that's fake too.)
Of the people I know who have turned to what many eloquently describe as 'woo,' they have their reasons, chief among them that traditional medicine has failed them. And they can tend to sink deeper into that mindset as they encounter the violent, divisive rhetoric and sometimes actions of angry, lazy skeptics.
posted by ernielundquist at 12:58 PM on May 31, 2016 [18 favorites]
"Campaigning against homeopathy is preaching to the converted? I dunno. They sell that stuff at the regular old pharmacy. As long as it's on the shelves next to actual medicine, people are going to give that stuff to sick kids, to sick old people, to each other. A hefty chunk of people buying and use no that stuff aren't true believers in homeopathy, they're people just looking for a remedy who don't know what they're buying."
One underlying problem with this argument, and some of Coyne's rebuttals, is a fallacy of scale. Even though it's more widespread than it should be relative to its effectiveness, people who resort to homeopathy to treat serious diseases are a small minority. A failure rate of 100% for a population of 10 is less important as a target than a failure rate of 10% in a population of 1,000. Thus, dedicating resources to repeating how wrong homeopathy is, especially given a low persuasion rate, versus resources to critically evaluating mammograms, will yield a much lower overall utility.
posted by klangklangston at 3:12 PM on May 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
One underlying problem with this argument, and some of Coyne's rebuttals, is a fallacy of scale. Even though it's more widespread than it should be relative to its effectiveness, people who resort to homeopathy to treat serious diseases are a small minority. A failure rate of 100% for a population of 10 is less important as a target than a failure rate of 10% in a population of 1,000. Thus, dedicating resources to repeating how wrong homeopathy is, especially given a low persuasion rate, versus resources to critically evaluating mammograms, will yield a much lower overall utility.
posted by klangklangston at 3:12 PM on May 31, 2016 [8 favorites]
I almost never agree with Stephen Pinker (and don't with every part of his response), but Horgan's whole war thing requires a lot of hand-waving and redefining. I mean, the earliest evidence we have for agriculture (for a certain commonly-accepted definition of the term) is under 12,000 years old. Cemetery 117 (most likely evidence of a war) is ~14,000 years old.
Arguing that something like large-scale violence is a "cultural invention" is as simplistic and absurd as arguing that it's "genetically determined."
posted by aspersioncast at 3:50 PM on May 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
Arguing that something like large-scale violence is a "cultural invention" is as simplistic and absurd as arguing that it's "genetically determined."
posted by aspersioncast at 3:50 PM on May 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yowser: "Now that [capital S skepticism] it is more or less responsible for birthing the alt-right with its Nazis with loli Twitter avatars...h"
Can someone rewrite this line with links on it? This seems terrifyingly interesting, in a morbid sort of way
posted by talos at 4:19 PM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can someone rewrite this line with links on it? This seems terrifyingly interesting, in a morbid sort of way
posted by talos at 4:19 PM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Much of what Horgan is saying, in a more limited way, and applied to medicine and health, has been also supported by Ben Goldacre (as Cannon Fodder has pointed out), in his Guardian column, his website and his books. He does not dismiss "soft" targets in the terms that Horgan does, but he points out that most (though not all) of Horgan's soft targets in medicine have much more limited consequences in health outcomes than the established ones.
For example:
posted by talos at 4:47 PM on May 31, 2016 [13 favorites]
For example:
Let’s be clear about scale here. I think it’s fairly unusual that drugs get on to the market which do nothing, or which are worse than useless. It happens but not commonly. What’s much more common is that we are misled about the relative benefits of treatments. That’s a serious problem with a serious impact on patient care. If we are misled into thinking the new expensive drug is better than the old cheap drug when in reality the older, cheaper drug is better, then patients are given inferior treatments. And whenever patients are deprived of the best treatments, because someone is trying to sell them one that’s better than nothing but not the best, then those patients are harmed. Alternative therapies—the vitamin pill peddlers and in particular the homeopaths—are not a huge threat to public health or dangerous. I think they are more interesting than they are murderous. It tells us a lot about the role of medicine in society that people are willing to buy sugar pills with no medicine in them from a homeopath. That’s interesting, but not evil.While he has written an excellent book about the ills and dangers of "medical" quackery and pseudo-science, he was always pointing out that the real misuse of science and the damage to its credibility and to public perceptions of it, come from big pharma and established practices, which are very bit as pseudo-scientific as "water memory" research, only much more sophisticated.
posted by talos at 4:47 PM on May 31, 2016 [13 favorites]
I think my attitude to skepticism as a self-conscious movement was probably affected by Dennis Rawlings' polemic sTarbaby. It didn't convince me as such, I wasn't won over by its arguments. I't's not a good piece of writing, really. The kindest thing that can be said about Rawlings is that he's an unreliable narrator, an arrogant blowhard among arrogant blowhards. But I think it catches something about a group of people who, on the one hand, are absolutely certain in their own rightness, while on the other need to win the argument, and are not beneath using strategy to achieve that aim.
"I always have an out", says Randi, whose job is, after all, Outcome Management: making the audience go away believing they've seen what he wants them to believe. I wonder if the results of his debunkings have been tabulated, and how many of them come down against him (as a certain number of them should, because that's how probability works - everything isn't bunched together in the middle all the time, you get extremes that tend toward the mean over time. There ought to be days when the dowsers win). Rawlings accuses CSICOP of massaging the sample for the Gauquelin experiment on astrology (which did seem to come down against them) until it gave the result they wanted. Among other complaints.
That's sort of what I see when I read stuff from prominent Skeptics: primarily the belief that They Are Right; the assumption that the data will back them up; if it doesn't, or does but not effusively enough, then it can be tweaked. Their rightness is the most important thing.
I honestly prefer quacks and woo merchants.
posted by Grangousier at 4:58 PM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
"I always have an out", says Randi, whose job is, after all, Outcome Management: making the audience go away believing they've seen what he wants them to believe. I wonder if the results of his debunkings have been tabulated, and how many of them come down against him (as a certain number of them should, because that's how probability works - everything isn't bunched together in the middle all the time, you get extremes that tend toward the mean over time. There ought to be days when the dowsers win). Rawlings accuses CSICOP of massaging the sample for the Gauquelin experiment on astrology (which did seem to come down against them) until it gave the result they wanted. Among other complaints.
That's sort of what I see when I read stuff from prominent Skeptics: primarily the belief that They Are Right; the assumption that the data will back them up; if it doesn't, or does but not effusively enough, then it can be tweaked. Their rightness is the most important thing.
I honestly prefer quacks and woo merchants.
posted by Grangousier at 4:58 PM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Arguing that something like large-scale violence is a "cultural invention" is as simplistic and absurd as arguing that it's "genetically determined.""
Well, and the point he's trying to make about "deep causes" is irrelevant to the culture/genetics argument, since if (as I understand the case) large scale, organized "war," which (and please, somebody, correct me if I'm misremembering this) is distinguished from earlier organized armed conflict by political conquest as opposed to immediate territorial control, developed contemporarily with agriculture, that's as effectively "deep" as any behavioral genetic trait in terms of mutability. Humanity can't go back to a pre-agricultural society without devastation as great as any war — you can't support as many people as we have without agriculture, and people are pretty willing to fight over it.
At that point, the only distinction would be in prioritizing research into solutions based on one intervention theory or another, and maybe that's what his book goes into, but it seems like a pretty abstract question and one that I don't feel qualified to opine on meaningfully.
posted by klangklangston at 6:10 PM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, and the point he's trying to make about "deep causes" is irrelevant to the culture/genetics argument, since if (as I understand the case) large scale, organized "war," which (and please, somebody, correct me if I'm misremembering this) is distinguished from earlier organized armed conflict by political conquest as opposed to immediate territorial control, developed contemporarily with agriculture, that's as effectively "deep" as any behavioral genetic trait in terms of mutability. Humanity can't go back to a pre-agricultural society without devastation as great as any war — you can't support as many people as we have without agriculture, and people are pretty willing to fight over it.
At that point, the only distinction would be in prioritizing research into solutions based on one intervention theory or another, and maybe that's what his book goes into, but it seems like a pretty abstract question and one that I don't feel qualified to opine on meaningfully.
posted by klangklangston at 6:10 PM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
Perhaps we should start by picking one war, and stop that one?
posted by thelonius at 6:22 PM on May 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 6:22 PM on May 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
@thelonius
that hasn't worked to well recently, and I say this as someone who tried a lot : (
I agree with Horgan that we should be questioning the whole package of war and militarism together or else our trillions of dollars worth of hammers will always be "finding" / creating new nails and cruise missiles travel faster than anti-war marches unfortunately.
posted by blankdawn at 8:06 PM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
that hasn't worked to well recently, and I say this as someone who tried a lot : (
I agree with Horgan that we should be questioning the whole package of war and militarism together or else our trillions of dollars worth of hammers will always be "finding" / creating new nails and cruise missiles travel faster than anti-war marches unfortunately.
posted by blankdawn at 8:06 PM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
...Shermer was outed as a creep and possible rapist and the skeptics who had come in from the right with a love for Ayn Rand seem to have taken over the movement.
To his credit, Shermer did draw a basic introduction to the logical flaws in Ayn Rand's reasoning in his book 'Why People Believe Weird Things'.
posted by ovvl at 9:08 PM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
To his credit, Shermer did draw a basic introduction to the logical flaws in Ayn Rand's reasoning in his book 'Why People Believe Weird Things'.
posted by ovvl at 9:08 PM on May 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Of course I struggle with innate bias here, but I can't take Horgan's absolutist negative beliefs in the deleterious and progressively negative effects of psych meds seriously when it contradicts massive, long-term outcome studies like this.
If he wants to argue against the mismarketing of strong meds with associated side effects for minor, time-limited ailments or those that would respond to simple behavioral or therapy interventions (or just the tincture of time itself), well, that's different.
posted by meehawl at 9:12 PM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
If he wants to argue against the mismarketing of strong meds with associated side effects for minor, time-limited ailments or those that would respond to simple behavioral or therapy interventions (or just the tincture of time itself), well, that's different.
posted by meehawl at 9:12 PM on May 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why is always psychiatric medications that are the targets? What about all the other vast types of prescription medications that are advertised and promoted by the pharmaceutical companies just as much as psychiatric medication? Is it possible it's because only psychiatric medication still has a social stigma attached?
I'm biased on this issue because I worked in mental health and saw people's lives saved every day by psychiatric medication. (I also take some, along with quite a few other RX medications.) But, where are the people fighting against unnecessary anti-cholesterol medications?
I'd bet there are a lot more people diagnosed with heart disease today than there were 100 years ago. Because we've learned a lot more and can detect it better now. Survival rates have also improved, so more people LIVE with heart disease. Same with mental illness. In the past the severely mentally ill weren't around so much cause they tended to be either killed or suicide early, or locked away for life where no one could see them. I mean, if I just personally think of the number of people I dealt with who wouldn't have survived a suicide attempt without modern medical intervention, the number is double digits.
posted by threeturtles at 11:43 PM on May 31, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'm biased on this issue because I worked in mental health and saw people's lives saved every day by psychiatric medication. (I also take some, along with quite a few other RX medications.) But, where are the people fighting against unnecessary anti-cholesterol medications?
I'd bet there are a lot more people diagnosed with heart disease today than there were 100 years ago. Because we've learned a lot more and can detect it better now. Survival rates have also improved, so more people LIVE with heart disease. Same with mental illness. In the past the severely mentally ill weren't around so much cause they tended to be either killed or suicide early, or locked away for life where no one could see them. I mean, if I just personally think of the number of people I dealt with who wouldn't have survived a suicide attempt without modern medical intervention, the number is double digits.
posted by threeturtles at 11:43 PM on May 31, 2016 [10 favorites]
But, where are the people fighting against unnecessary anti-cholesterol medications?
Actually, there's a ton of criticism of anti-cholesterol medications. In fact, they, along with psychiatric meds, are the main subjects of the scientific criticisms I've read. The reason you hear about stents and mental health medications is because these are both conditions in which the condition of risk is often the primary reason for administering medication - risk of heart attack, risk of suicide. And the risk isn't made up - I should know when it comes to mental health - but it bears considering that way we assess and respond to this risk is a cultural construct that's been influenced by a decades long shift in how we approach medicine as a society, shaped in no small part by mass health models and the companies producing those drugs.
With cholesterol meds, it's expected that doctors should run tests and determine that someone's cholesterol levels either fall within an acceptable range or don't, and in the case of the latter they prescribe chronic medications based on the possibility that the patient may have a higher risk of heart attack than the presumed "healthy" population, even if they seem perfectly healthy in every other respect. This "normal" range changes over time according to mass clinical trials, so you can go to your doctor and get the exact same results you've gotten for 20 years, but now you are suddenly ill and in need of treatment (there's a not-exactly-funny joke about it: "the good news is that you're as healthy as you've always been, the bad news is that it turns out you've been sick all along").
None of this is to suggest that no one has ever been spared from a heart attack because they took cholesterol medication, and indeed it's likely that, if it were ever possible to know, many people have not had heart attacks who otherwise would have, thanks to the medications they took. But it's impossible to know. Not having a heart attack isn't necessarily proof that the medication is working any more than getting a heart attack - which can still happen when you're on stents - is proof that they don't work at all. And in the meantime, patients are now dealing with the side effects and cost of this medication (either because they pay for their medication or because our healthcare industry does - and Horgan points out the enormous expenditures for health in the US), all to offset the potential for having a heart attack. And this risk is being addressed by taking a medication that showed a 5% improvement over a sugar pill.
It's more complicated to talk about mental health medications, but the point isn't to suggest that they can't or don't help people. Rather, it's that the facts we are creating today about medicine are not unbiased and neutral. This is what skepticism should be about. It's not incidental that drug companies run mass clinical trials on "treatment naive" populations overseas to determine how we assess illness and treatment, and at the very least it's worth examining the incentive they have in creating these facts that encourage chronic medication use. And they are facts, but that doesn't mean they're the complete picture. We've shifted our assessment of medication to the point that many doctors have said they think everyone should be given cholesterol medication, just to be safe. That seems like something worthy of skepticism.
posted by teponaztli at 12:12 AM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
Actually, there's a ton of criticism of anti-cholesterol medications. In fact, they, along with psychiatric meds, are the main subjects of the scientific criticisms I've read. The reason you hear about stents and mental health medications is because these are both conditions in which the condition of risk is often the primary reason for administering medication - risk of heart attack, risk of suicide. And the risk isn't made up - I should know when it comes to mental health - but it bears considering that way we assess and respond to this risk is a cultural construct that's been influenced by a decades long shift in how we approach medicine as a society, shaped in no small part by mass health models and the companies producing those drugs.
With cholesterol meds, it's expected that doctors should run tests and determine that someone's cholesterol levels either fall within an acceptable range or don't, and in the case of the latter they prescribe chronic medications based on the possibility that the patient may have a higher risk of heart attack than the presumed "healthy" population, even if they seem perfectly healthy in every other respect. This "normal" range changes over time according to mass clinical trials, so you can go to your doctor and get the exact same results you've gotten for 20 years, but now you are suddenly ill and in need of treatment (there's a not-exactly-funny joke about it: "the good news is that you're as healthy as you've always been, the bad news is that it turns out you've been sick all along").
None of this is to suggest that no one has ever been spared from a heart attack because they took cholesterol medication, and indeed it's likely that, if it were ever possible to know, many people have not had heart attacks who otherwise would have, thanks to the medications they took. But it's impossible to know. Not having a heart attack isn't necessarily proof that the medication is working any more than getting a heart attack - which can still happen when you're on stents - is proof that they don't work at all. And in the meantime, patients are now dealing with the side effects and cost of this medication (either because they pay for their medication or because our healthcare industry does - and Horgan points out the enormous expenditures for health in the US), all to offset the potential for having a heart attack. And this risk is being addressed by taking a medication that showed a 5% improvement over a sugar pill.
It's more complicated to talk about mental health medications, but the point isn't to suggest that they can't or don't help people. Rather, it's that the facts we are creating today about medicine are not unbiased and neutral. This is what skepticism should be about. It's not incidental that drug companies run mass clinical trials on "treatment naive" populations overseas to determine how we assess illness and treatment, and at the very least it's worth examining the incentive they have in creating these facts that encourage chronic medication use. And they are facts, but that doesn't mean they're the complete picture. We've shifted our assessment of medication to the point that many doctors have said they think everyone should be given cholesterol medication, just to be safe. That seems like something worthy of skepticism.
posted by teponaztli at 12:12 AM on June 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
The reason you hear about stents and mental health medications is because these are both conditions in which the condition of risk is often the primary reason for administering medication - risk of heart attack, risk of suicide.
As someone also in the field, this seems off - suicide is rarely the reason for medication in my experience (even in cases of depression, where an alleviation of avolition without an improvement of mood can actually increase the risk of suicidality). Decrease of symptoms, whatever those might be, have been the primary driving force of medication in my case, and when people realize how little of the symptoms the medication might alleviate, that can be a crisis in of itself - not to mention the families who want medication to be a transformative sinecure not the messy, experimental, often challenging option they are.
I was raised by a scientist but tend more toward knee-jerk skepticism than the woman who raised me; I see her lack of knee-jerk as an indication that she is far more scientific than I (I'm a mystic; part of how we operate is through blind faith) which has always put me at odds with skeptical movements because my perception of them is that they are more community belief system than scientifically based, parsimonious skepticism. Even the use of Occam's Razor as a means to dismiss other hypotheses instead of a means for ordering the points to how different "rationalism" is from actual science.
I'm not sure how to bridge that gap, though - between the science of parsimonious conclusions and mild exploration I was raised with and the passionate certainty that has been calling itself science that has been built in the wake of science's usefulness. The Backfire Effect is a real thing, and it exists within the Skeptical Community; Appeal to Authority is also a thing, and it also exists within the Skeptical Community. The people most likely to have power are the people most likely to not have empathy for people different from them, as well, so it's not like one can count on major figures in skepticism to wake up to their effect on others, and in many cases the effects may actually be what they want.
It's an ironic mess, but that doesn't make it less frustrating or upsetting when women I admire are on the receiving end of years of abuse.
posted by Deoridhe at 12:49 AM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
As someone also in the field, this seems off - suicide is rarely the reason for medication in my experience (even in cases of depression, where an alleviation of avolition without an improvement of mood can actually increase the risk of suicidality). Decrease of symptoms, whatever those might be, have been the primary driving force of medication in my case, and when people realize how little of the symptoms the medication might alleviate, that can be a crisis in of itself - not to mention the families who want medication to be a transformative sinecure not the messy, experimental, often challenging option they are.
I was raised by a scientist but tend more toward knee-jerk skepticism than the woman who raised me; I see her lack of knee-jerk as an indication that she is far more scientific than I (I'm a mystic; part of how we operate is through blind faith) which has always put me at odds with skeptical movements because my perception of them is that they are more community belief system than scientifically based, parsimonious skepticism. Even the use of Occam's Razor as a means to dismiss other hypotheses instead of a means for ordering the points to how different "rationalism" is from actual science.
I'm not sure how to bridge that gap, though - between the science of parsimonious conclusions and mild exploration I was raised with and the passionate certainty that has been calling itself science that has been built in the wake of science's usefulness. The Backfire Effect is a real thing, and it exists within the Skeptical Community; Appeal to Authority is also a thing, and it also exists within the Skeptical Community. The people most likely to have power are the people most likely to not have empathy for people different from them, as well, so it's not like one can count on major figures in skepticism to wake up to their effect on others, and in many cases the effects may actually be what they want.
It's an ironic mess, but that doesn't make it less frustrating or upsetting when women I admire are on the receiving end of years of abuse.
posted by Deoridhe at 12:49 AM on June 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Quoting TFA: "If the medications really work, rates of mental illness should decline. Right?
Instead, rates of mental disability have increased sharply, especially among children. Whitaker builds a strong case that medications are causing the epidemic." I'm not sure where he learned science or medicine, but, umm, he may need a refresher.
To clarify, if the medications really work, no the rates of mental illness won't decline. The children and adults treated will continue to stay alive and continue to have their diagnosis. Just like the rates of diabetes won't decline as as result of Metformin.
So this doesn't sound anything like a measured critique of over-certainty in medical practice, but like poorly-informed rabble-rousing.
posted by threeturtles at 12:50 AM on June 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Instead, rates of mental disability have increased sharply, especially among children. Whitaker builds a strong case that medications are causing the epidemic." I'm not sure where he learned science or medicine, but, umm, he may need a refresher.
To clarify, if the medications really work, no the rates of mental illness won't decline. The children and adults treated will continue to stay alive and continue to have their diagnosis. Just like the rates of diabetes won't decline as as result of Metformin.
So this doesn't sound anything like a measured critique of over-certainty in medical practice, but like poorly-informed rabble-rousing.
posted by threeturtles at 12:50 AM on June 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
As someone also in the field, this seems off - suicide is rarely the reason for medication in my experience (even in cases of depression, where an alleviation of avolition without an improvement of mood can actually increase the risk of suicidality).
Yeah, I phrased that badly because it's late and I'm tired. I shouldn't say risk in the sense of prescribing something to directly address the risk of a specific occurrence (suicide doesn't equal heart attack). Like I said, it's more complicated to talk about mental health and psychiatric meds, and I was trying to avoid talking about psych meds because - again, it's late and I'm tired, and it's hard enough to articulate this stuff when I'm awake. And as much as I've read and heard lectures on the philsophy behind all of this, it's not my field, so I'm aware that I'm making big claims.
I guess the better way to put it is that they're related because of the mass health models that drive their categorization and use. The only way I can articulate how risk enters into it is to talk about my own experience with psychiatric medication - I've been given meds and shown a noticeable improvement. That does validate the truth of claims that these drugs can help people like me. I'm not trying to claim that drug companies are lying.
The problem is that they're chronic drugs, or they have been in my case. What I'm trying to get at, and what I think Horgan is trying to get at, is that a lot of the literature on these drugs treats them as something to be a more or less permanent solution to a more or less permanent condition. YMMV on this, especially if you have experience in the field. From my perspective, when I've shown improvement on medication, that improvement is attributable to that medication. I can stop taking it at my own peril. This forces a mental calculus to determine if the risk of losing the positive influence of the medication is worth the negative side effects that I'm experiencing now. I feel fine, in other words - except for the side effects - but it's not advisable for me to stop taking the medication I'm on because I owe my good health to it. I think it's this chronic need for medication that gives people like Horgan pause.
But that probably varies from doctor to doctor, and I can easily imagine someone saying that's not how psych drugs should be administered (anyway I stopped taking them because I got an ulcer).
What's frustrating is that I think I ruined my own point in my last comment. My real issue with psychiatric medications is that they're created and marketed in such a way as to have an effect on how we assess our own sense of wellbeing. TV ads say things like "you may be experiencing symptoms of depression." They may be right, and you may be depressed, so it's not to suggest that they're automatically wrong. But there's also the effect of Pfizer suggesting how I should interpret myself, and I'm looking at marketing material designed to sell a specific treatment and saying "well, that does sound like me." Risk is a factor in the sense that if you deny the possibility of there being truth in advertising, you risk failing to seek treatment that would bring you relief.
I'm having a very hard time articulating this (have I mentioned it's late and I'm tired?). It's something that's easily disputed because, I mean, in my own experience I've seen that being diagnosed with a mental health condition and treated with the right medication can actually lead to a better quality of life. It's not at all to suggest that medicine cannot or doesn't help. But again, so can taking cholesterol medication genuinely reduce your risk of heart attack, and in both cases we're now on chronic medication for the very long term. Not taking drugs for life means running the risk that you could be living better and aren't. And this is a science fact, but it wasn't created in a vacuum, and the bias tends to favor the companies that make these drugs.
posted by teponaztli at 1:30 AM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I phrased that badly because it's late and I'm tired. I shouldn't say risk in the sense of prescribing something to directly address the risk of a specific occurrence (suicide doesn't equal heart attack). Like I said, it's more complicated to talk about mental health and psychiatric meds, and I was trying to avoid talking about psych meds because - again, it's late and I'm tired, and it's hard enough to articulate this stuff when I'm awake. And as much as I've read and heard lectures on the philsophy behind all of this, it's not my field, so I'm aware that I'm making big claims.
I guess the better way to put it is that they're related because of the mass health models that drive their categorization and use. The only way I can articulate how risk enters into it is to talk about my own experience with psychiatric medication - I've been given meds and shown a noticeable improvement. That does validate the truth of claims that these drugs can help people like me. I'm not trying to claim that drug companies are lying.
The problem is that they're chronic drugs, or they have been in my case. What I'm trying to get at, and what I think Horgan is trying to get at, is that a lot of the literature on these drugs treats them as something to be a more or less permanent solution to a more or less permanent condition. YMMV on this, especially if you have experience in the field. From my perspective, when I've shown improvement on medication, that improvement is attributable to that medication. I can stop taking it at my own peril. This forces a mental calculus to determine if the risk of losing the positive influence of the medication is worth the negative side effects that I'm experiencing now. I feel fine, in other words - except for the side effects - but it's not advisable for me to stop taking the medication I'm on because I owe my good health to it. I think it's this chronic need for medication that gives people like Horgan pause.
But that probably varies from doctor to doctor, and I can easily imagine someone saying that's not how psych drugs should be administered (anyway I stopped taking them because I got an ulcer).
What's frustrating is that I think I ruined my own point in my last comment. My real issue with psychiatric medications is that they're created and marketed in such a way as to have an effect on how we assess our own sense of wellbeing. TV ads say things like "you may be experiencing symptoms of depression." They may be right, and you may be depressed, so it's not to suggest that they're automatically wrong. But there's also the effect of Pfizer suggesting how I should interpret myself, and I'm looking at marketing material designed to sell a specific treatment and saying "well, that does sound like me." Risk is a factor in the sense that if you deny the possibility of there being truth in advertising, you risk failing to seek treatment that would bring you relief.
I'm having a very hard time articulating this (have I mentioned it's late and I'm tired?). It's something that's easily disputed because, I mean, in my own experience I've seen that being diagnosed with a mental health condition and treated with the right medication can actually lead to a better quality of life. It's not at all to suggest that medicine cannot or doesn't help. But again, so can taking cholesterol medication genuinely reduce your risk of heart attack, and in both cases we're now on chronic medication for the very long term. Not taking drugs for life means running the risk that you could be living better and aren't. And this is a science fact, but it wasn't created in a vacuum, and the bias tends to favor the companies that make these drugs.
posted by teponaztli at 1:30 AM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mainstream skeptics can be assholes, but Horgan sounds like he's "skeptical" about war and Big Pharma the way some people are "skeptical" about evolution and climate change.
posted by Brachinus at 5:39 AM on June 1, 2016
posted by Brachinus at 5:39 AM on June 1, 2016
You might also think that religious fanaticism—and especially Muslim fanaticism--is the greatest threat to peace. That’s the claim of religion-bashers like Dawkins, Krauss, Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne and the late, great warmonger Christopher Hitchens.Damn ... This is basically climate-change denial,
The United States, I submit, is the greatest threat to peace. Since 9/11, U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan have killed 370,000 people. That includes more than 210,000 civilians, many of them children. These are conservative estimates.
Far from solving the problem of Muslim militancy, U.S. actions have made it worse. ISIS is a reaction to the anti-Muslim violence of the U.S. and its allies.
The U.S. spends almost as much on what we disingenuously call defense as all other nations combined, and we are the leading innovator in and peddler of weapons. Barack Obama, who pledged to rid the world of nuclear weapons, has approved a $1 trillion plan to modernize our arsenal.
The antiwar movement is terribly weak. Not a single genuine antiwar candidate ran in this Presidential race, and that includes Bernie Sanders. Many Americans have embraced their nation’s militarism. They flocked to see American Sniper, a film that celebrates a killer of women and children.
In the last century, prominent scientists spoke out against U.S. militarism and called for the end of war. Scientists like Einstein, Linus Pauling, and the great skeptic Carl Sagan. Where are their successors? Noam Chomsky is still bashing U.S. imperialism, but he’s almost 90. He needs help!
Far from criticizing militarism, some scholars, like economist Tyler Cowen, claim war is beneficial, because it spurs innovation. That’s like arguing for the economic benefits of slavery.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:29 AM on June 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
The targets are manifold, and the rules of engagement are not clearly defined.
Let me put it this way: The goddam transporter does not exist. I know that. But that doesn't mean that somebody can't figure out how to make one. Look into it, by all means. (Well, by whatever means your research grants allow.)
But then we still need to determine whether the guy you sent is the same guy who arrived. That's what our fiction writers remind us to take into account (Think Like A Dinosaur).
Next, tribes and states, feuds and warfare: what's the difference? (I don't think a few potato patches cover the ground here.) I once read an essay that posited the opposite of what I'd been given as reasons for the advent of farming: Back in the days of semi-nomadic hunters/gatherers, life was good. Nobody needed to plant potatoes or dig ditches. Although these nomads had skirmishes with neighboring tribes, war was never necessary. It was mainly used as entertainment, and it usually didn't account for many casualties. In those days, running down an auroch and biting him on the neck was more dangerous than dealing with ones neighbors. Then macrochanges, such as shifting climates, made life hard for dwellers of certain areas. Moving across seas or over high mountains seemed unwise for some of them. It was then that they decided to settle down (for example, along the Nile) and become farmers, to ensure a steady food supply.
Long story short, this type of settlement elevated chiefs to kings, and kings discovered a neat way to accumulate wealth (taxes). So war was invented to replace inter-tribal feuds as a way to increase the increase, so to speak--farmers themselves tend to avoid going to war unless they are part of the corvée.
Since the war gene seems to be as elusive as the god gene, any port in this particular storm seems worthy of investigation. Ax marks on bones and arrowheads embedded in ancient spines inspire a rich narrative. On with the story!
I sincerely enjoy comments in this thread that come from actual scientists in various fields. I hope it's clear that many of us rely on credibility rather than first hand data to help us navigate these waters. Our logic can't be effective without the wherewithal to mold it into whatever faulty premises support our unique versions of reality.
Don't get me started about health care. The allopaths and surgeons have done a great job on me so far, but I still take doses of echinacea when I feel a cold coming on, and I'm convinced it contributes to my speedy recovery. Mrs mule visits a chiropractor regularly and I will attest to its value in improving her attitude, if not her mobility.
posted by mule98J at 9:12 AM on June 1, 2016
Let me put it this way: The goddam transporter does not exist. I know that. But that doesn't mean that somebody can't figure out how to make one. Look into it, by all means. (Well, by whatever means your research grants allow.)
But then we still need to determine whether the guy you sent is the same guy who arrived. That's what our fiction writers remind us to take into account (Think Like A Dinosaur).
Next, tribes and states, feuds and warfare: what's the difference? (I don't think a few potato patches cover the ground here.) I once read an essay that posited the opposite of what I'd been given as reasons for the advent of farming: Back in the days of semi-nomadic hunters/gatherers, life was good. Nobody needed to plant potatoes or dig ditches. Although these nomads had skirmishes with neighboring tribes, war was never necessary. It was mainly used as entertainment, and it usually didn't account for many casualties. In those days, running down an auroch and biting him on the neck was more dangerous than dealing with ones neighbors. Then macrochanges, such as shifting climates, made life hard for dwellers of certain areas. Moving across seas or over high mountains seemed unwise for some of them. It was then that they decided to settle down (for example, along the Nile) and become farmers, to ensure a steady food supply.
Long story short, this type of settlement elevated chiefs to kings, and kings discovered a neat way to accumulate wealth (taxes). So war was invented to replace inter-tribal feuds as a way to increase the increase, so to speak--farmers themselves tend to avoid going to war unless they are part of the corvée.
Since the war gene seems to be as elusive as the god gene, any port in this particular storm seems worthy of investigation. Ax marks on bones and arrowheads embedded in ancient spines inspire a rich narrative. On with the story!
I sincerely enjoy comments in this thread that come from actual scientists in various fields. I hope it's clear that many of us rely on credibility rather than first hand data to help us navigate these waters. Our logic can't be effective without the wherewithal to mold it into whatever faulty premises support our unique versions of reality.
Don't get me started about health care. The allopaths and surgeons have done a great job on me so far, but I still take doses of echinacea when I feel a cold coming on, and I'm convinced it contributes to my speedy recovery. Mrs mule visits a chiropractor regularly and I will attest to its value in improving her attitude, if not her mobility.
posted by mule98J at 9:12 AM on June 1, 2016
Damn ... This is basically climate-change denial,
I don't see how that passage you quoted is in any sense equivalent to denying climate change.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:13 AM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
I don't see how that passage you quoted is in any sense equivalent to denying climate change.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:13 AM on June 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
I've been following Horgan on twitter for a few days, to kick the tires. (Tentative verdict: will prob unfollow & just leave him on my 'sci' list, but mostly because I have too damn much traffic on my feed.) Probably half his tweets are about his views on the nature of war. So that's one of his really big issues.
I find it ironic that Pinker of all people wants to argue that war is inevitable. This is after all the guy who wanted to argue that we've been getting progressively less violent over time. Though I suppose those could go together....
The whole war thing is interesting to me because I had until a few days ago thought that the prevailing opinion among people with a professional dog in the fight was that war was a cultural concept. I have a degree in anthro, & have done a lot of casual reading in zoology & anthro over the years, & I don't recall reading anything that leads me to believe that "war" is an inherent state -- unless I adopt a really, really broad definition of "war", such that it includes things like inter-band raiding. What I've always read and been taught is that in traditional societies where there's enough room and resources, conflicts between groups are rarely fatal -- just as is the case for intra-species conflicts among most animals. (Lethal conflicts aren't very adaptive, after all -- too much chance of ending up on the dead end of the stick.)
The 'war is inevitable' viewpoint has a lot of upsides, from a pragmatic perspective: Like Pinker, I could use it to argue that we used to be horrible but we're getting better. Like neocons I could use it to argue that we always have been and will continue to be horrible.
The 'war is not inevitable' viewpoint is harder, and not very useful for rationalizing your positions. From that perspective, if we're horrible, it's always because in some sense we've chosen to be. Which means we have the ability to choose our way out of it. Well, given enough time, effort, consensus....
So I think Horgan's got a point about it, but I also think he takes his advocacy on that point far enough that it alienates people. And he may be working too hard on it. E.g., he seems to be convinced that Obama actually knows and cares about this argument, which I doubt.
posted by lodurr at 11:59 AM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I find it ironic that Pinker of all people wants to argue that war is inevitable. This is after all the guy who wanted to argue that we've been getting progressively less violent over time. Though I suppose those could go together....
The whole war thing is interesting to me because I had until a few days ago thought that the prevailing opinion among people with a professional dog in the fight was that war was a cultural concept. I have a degree in anthro, & have done a lot of casual reading in zoology & anthro over the years, & I don't recall reading anything that leads me to believe that "war" is an inherent state -- unless I adopt a really, really broad definition of "war", such that it includes things like inter-band raiding. What I've always read and been taught is that in traditional societies where there's enough room and resources, conflicts between groups are rarely fatal -- just as is the case for intra-species conflicts among most animals. (Lethal conflicts aren't very adaptive, after all -- too much chance of ending up on the dead end of the stick.)
The 'war is inevitable' viewpoint has a lot of upsides, from a pragmatic perspective: Like Pinker, I could use it to argue that we used to be horrible but we're getting better. Like neocons I could use it to argue that we always have been and will continue to be horrible.
The 'war is not inevitable' viewpoint is harder, and not very useful for rationalizing your positions. From that perspective, if we're horrible, it's always because in some sense we've chosen to be. Which means we have the ability to choose our way out of it. Well, given enough time, effort, consensus....
So I think Horgan's got a point about it, but I also think he takes his advocacy on that point far enough that it alienates people. And he may be working too hard on it. E.g., he seems to be convinced that Obama actually knows and cares about this argument, which I doubt.
posted by lodurr at 11:59 AM on June 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't see how that passage you quoted is in any sense equivalent to denying climate change.
See the comment above his for context.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:00 PM on June 1, 2016
See the comment above his for context.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:00 PM on June 1, 2016
I don't see how that passage you quoted is in any sense equivalent to denying climate change.
I don't, either. I wrote disingenuously to demonstrate how wrong this comment was, at least as far as Horgan's opinions on war are concerned.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:41 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't, either. I wrote disingenuously to demonstrate how wrong this comment was, at least as far as Horgan's opinions on war are concerned.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:41 PM on June 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
"I find it ironic that Pinker of all people wants to argue that war is inevitable. This is after all the guy who wanted to argue that we've been getting progressively less violent over time. Though I suppose those could go together.... "
That's one of the buns in the fight: Pinker doesn't believe it's inevitable, he believes that there's a deep behavioral genetic trait that has not been selected out of the population, but that culture mitigates this and that an end of war is possible through concerted, coordinated effort.
Horgan believes the EXACT OPPOSITE, you know, that war isn't inevitable, but that it's a deep cultural trait that has persisted for millennia but can be effectively mitigated through culture and that ending war is possible through concerted, coordinated effort.
Horgan simply treats Pinker as if Pinker is arguing that war is inevitable; Pinker appears to (when not refuting that misrepresentation of his position) believe that organized violence is endemic to primates. They essentially agree on desired outcome and the effects of culture; perhaps because I haven't delved deeply into the contretemps, I'm being unfair to Horgan, but he seems to be conflating a minor point where he has a credible argument (an actual behavioral genetic link to "war" as distinct from organized violence doesn't seem to have been demonstrated, despite Pinker et al.'s contention) with a straw man of Pinker's position overall.
posted by klangklangston at 1:59 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's one of the buns in the fight: Pinker doesn't believe it's inevitable, he believes that there's a deep behavioral genetic trait that has not been selected out of the population, but that culture mitigates this and that an end of war is possible through concerted, coordinated effort.
Horgan believes the EXACT OPPOSITE, you know, that war isn't inevitable, but that it's a deep cultural trait that has persisted for millennia but can be effectively mitigated through culture and that ending war is possible through concerted, coordinated effort.
Horgan simply treats Pinker as if Pinker is arguing that war is inevitable; Pinker appears to (when not refuting that misrepresentation of his position) believe that organized violence is endemic to primates. They essentially agree on desired outcome and the effects of culture; perhaps because I haven't delved deeply into the contretemps, I'm being unfair to Horgan, but he seems to be conflating a minor point where he has a credible argument (an actual behavioral genetic link to "war" as distinct from organized violence doesn't seem to have been demonstrated, despite Pinker et al.'s contention) with a straw man of Pinker's position overall.
posted by klangklangston at 1:59 PM on June 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Guys. Guys! I have the best explanation for war, and a whole bunch of other things.
When human populations started to grow as the last Ice Age ended, there weren't enough human souls for all the new human bodies. So instead we started getting ant souls.
That's why we started doing all the ant things - cities, agriculture, specialization of labour, hierarchy, slavery, and war.
You can stop arguing now, thanks.
posted by clawsoon at 3:13 PM on June 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
When human populations started to grow as the last Ice Age ended, there weren't enough human souls for all the new human bodies. So instead we started getting ant souls.
That's why we started doing all the ant things - cities, agriculture, specialization of labour, hierarchy, slavery, and war.
You can stop arguing now, thanks.
posted by clawsoon at 3:13 PM on June 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
klangklangston, does Pinker really use the term 'war'? It's a big word, not one to be used lightly. Inter-band raiding is pretty analogous to stuff that most social predators do; war is a whole new level of abstraction.
If he's not really using the term 'war' in his basic description of the issue, then what the hell are they arguing about? (But of course that'd be your point...)
posted by lodurr at 6:00 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
If he's not really using the term 'war' in his basic description of the issue, then what the hell are they arguing about? (But of course that'd be your point...)
posted by lodurr at 6:00 AM on June 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
So instead we started getting ant souls.
Future historians, take note: This is where the Church of the Ant-Thetan started....
posted by lodurr at 6:01 AM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Future historians, take note: This is where the Church of the Ant-Thetan started....
posted by lodurr at 6:01 AM on June 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
RusticEtruscan, are you saying that Horgan's attitude toward U.S. militarism is one of disinterested skepticism? That he didn't start with an opinion about it and then use "skepticism" as a means of criticizing it?
That was my point. Not that Horgan is blindly ignorant (or even substantively wrong in his points) but that he's hijacking the concept of skepticism not to promote skepticism, but to promote his pre-existing views.
You know, like the creationists and energy-industry stooges do.
posted by Brachinus at 8:06 AM on June 3, 2016
That was my point. Not that Horgan is blindly ignorant (or even substantively wrong in his points) but that he's hijacking the concept of skepticism not to promote skepticism, but to promote his pre-existing views.
You know, like the creationists and energy-industry stooges do.
posted by Brachinus at 8:06 AM on June 3, 2016
Saying that homeopathy critics are wasting their time because they wont change the believers' minds is missing the point.
They are doing it to make sure people know homeopathy is useless and stupid, to try and stop new people from being sucked in.
It's like anti racism, you wont change the minds of the hardcore racists, but you can make them look lame so new people stop joining in.
posted by Iax at 11:01 PM on June 3, 2016
They are doing it to make sure people know homeopathy is useless and stupid, to try and stop new people from being sucked in.
It's like anti racism, you wont change the minds of the hardcore racists, but you can make them look lame so new people stop joining in.
posted by Iax at 11:01 PM on June 3, 2016
recent talk to a large skeptic conference was cut short
So did this actually happen? Cause that would be a big deal.
posted by bq at 10:19 PM on June 4, 2016
So did this actually happen? Cause that would be a big deal.
posted by bq at 10:19 PM on June 4, 2016
« Older The kids call it | Who'd have thought the invigorating face-slapper... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Artw at 11:09 PM on May 30, 2016 [21 favorites]