Thoughts on "Dogmatic" Skepticism (Part 4)

Continuing on ...

• Medicine

This one is a very touchy subject, as it hits so close to where we live. It's also the subject of a lot of current and lively debate, what with some people who would normally be considered Skeptics coming out against vaccination, even in the midst of a mild pandemic. Generally, vaccinations are a good idea. There's just way too much science in favor of the practice. But, again, this is a category where anyone who expresses doubt about the current scientific wisdom is summarily lumped in with the "crazies" without any real consideration. The case that springs immediately to my mind is that of Bill Maher. Now, I don't always find myself in agreement with Mr. Maher, but I very frequently do. A few weeks ago, his guest was Tennessee Ex-Senator Dr. Bill Frist, and they had a brief discussion on the topic of health care - and vaccinations. Bill Maher actually came out of the exchange looking like he was the nut. (As opposed to the guy who diagnosed a woman in a persistent vegetative state via video, and challenged her on-site doctor's diagnosis!)

The very next week, Bill Maher clarified his position. He's not completely anti-vaccination, and he's not one of these "germ-theory" deniers, either. His main arguments come down to this:

• We're a sick society due to how and what we eat, and our environment.

(Chemical polllutants in the water, air, food.)

• The Medical "Establishment" has made mistakes and is profit-driven.

• New treatments (such as vaccinations) should be studied very thoroughly

- this new H1N1 vaccine, specifically.

• He takes a skeptical view of, and believes we should question what he

calls "Western" medicine.

Now part of his problem is, I believe, his terminology. By using the term "Western" medicine, one immediately wonders, "Western as opposed to what?" Is he touting acupuncture? Chinese herbal remedies? Homeopathy? Meditation? Channeling "Chi" or something of that sort? Well, I don't know for sure, but I don't think that's what he means. I think he's referring to a belief that we in the West have a tendency to treat symptoms rather than deal with underlying issues. To some extent I agree with this. (Look at how we're dealing with global climate change, the current economic woes, or the heath care crisis in America.) I can't speak for Mr. Maher, but I suspect what he's worried about is our tendency in the U.S. to allow the perceived health of our economy - especially as relates to Big Business and Wall Street Banking/Insurance interests - to trump most (if not all) other societal considerations. (And now I'm wandering off topic again ...)

Without debating the merits of what he said and/or what he actually meant, I'd like to note the reaction among the Skeptical Community at large. The immediate reaction was a sort of head-shaking disappointment, and a declaration that despite what many of us thought before, Bill Maher isn't a real skeptic. "What a shame. He seems so on-the-ball otherwise."

This reaction, more than anything else, got me to thinking about this topic. Bil Maher is an atheist. He's pro-science. He doesn't believe in any kind of after-life or psychics or ESP, or (famously) conspiracy theories. But because he questioned the efficacy of a particular new vaccination (because he believed it may have been rushed, and believes that more testing should be done), he's suddenly not one of US.

If that reaction doesn't fit the very definition of dogma, I don't know what does. This struck me as a very knee-jerk reaction. Now, I'm not saying I agree whole-heartedly with Bill Maher on this issue, and I'm certainly not anti-vaccination, but is what he said SO bad? I think he went a little far in actually advising people not to get this vaccination, but should we just blindly accept whatever comes down to us from the scientific/medical community? If that's the case, aren't we making science a sort of church?

• Conspiracy Theories

This is another case where there's a mental tendency to lump a wide range of topics under a category, and then dismiss them all. There are conspiracy theorists that are way out there: Flat Earthers, Holocaust Deniers, Moon Landing Hoaxers, Alien/Illuminati/Zionist Overlord beliefs, and the like. And some theories contain a range within themselves - the 9/11 Truth Movement, for example, contains people who believe that George W. Bush actually arranged to have the WTC wired with explosives without anyone being alerted to the fact, or that the planes that crashed into the towers were actually remote-piloted missiles. Others in this group believe that the Bush administration just didn't try very hard to stop a vague threat of a terrorist attack because they felt they could use it to their political advantage. That's a pretty big range! The former theories just seem crazy on their face - but should still be investigated. The latter seems more plausible - but still require some kind of proof before they should be believed. The same goes for various theories behind the Kennedy Assassination, or Alien Cover-Ups or any number of other conspiracy theories.

And here's the thing: there have actually been real conspiracies planned, and some even executed throughout history. Do a little research on these (off the top of my head, and in no particular order):

MKULTRA

Operation Northwoods

The Gunpowder Plot

The Ajax Plot (Overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran),

Operation Mongoose

The Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment

The Manhattan Project

Swiss Secret Files Scandal

COINTELPRO

The Watergate Scandal

Operation Valkyrie

The US Business Plot to Overthrow FDR,

The thing is - every one of the plots on that list is real. As in: well- established, admitted and complete with release of documentation. As in: there's no debate regarding these.

Now just because some conspiracies have been hatched, doesn't make them all true. Each of the other Conspiracy Theories needs to be judged on it own merits rather than lumped together and dismissed categorically. Not because most of them are plausible - personally, I think they're mostly borderline-insane - but because truth should be as well-established as possible.

Know what's funny? Blll Maher considers all the 9/11 people to be crazy, and dismisses them out-of-hand, but other skeptics see him as crazy, and dismiss his medical statements out-of-hand.

So the dogmatic thinking works both ways.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it was exactly that type of mindset that got me questioning the beliefs with which I was raised to begin with. It was in an effort to avoid simply accepting received wisdom that I began to study many opinions that differed from what I'd been taught, and then, most importantly, to think about things independently. Personally, I'm not going to subscribe to any dogma. I think there is value in pursuing truth in the most rigorously scientific way possible, and accepting the results wherever they lead us.

Thoughts on "Dogmatic" Skepticism (Part 2)

Before I continue on, I'd like to note that these are all just my opinions as an individual. I'm just a person thinking about things and spewing my raw thoughts out on the internet for anyone to see. I haven't done any real research on this topic - this isn't meant to be a sociological study, just my own anecdotal observations. If someone wants to take any of the premises of this article and do an actual scientific study on this topic, I'd be interested to read their findings. Personally, I haven't the time nor the means. So, please, dear reader, like with any utterance of opinion, take my statements with a grain of salt. (Or a block, if necessary.)


OK, so if there ARE any "tenets" of the modern Skeptical Movement, what might they be? There are no official tenets, but it seems to me that there are two main unwritten rules:


The Big Two:

• There is No God. Or at least, there probably isn't. (Atheism or Agnosticism)

• Scientific Inquiry is the Best (perhaps only) Way to Understand the Universe.


The first is pretty self-explanatory. Skeptics tend not to buy into gods or creation mythology. Skeptics come from a place of disbelief. Where most religionists come from a place of belief. To boil the argument down to its simplest terms:

Skeptic: "I do not believe there is a god."
Believer: "You cannot prove that there isn't, so you should believe."
Skeptic: "You are the one making the unverified claim, so you have to provide proof."

(Then they get angry at one another, holy/unholy war is declared, and no one's mind is changed, though a lot of people are worse off for the whole interaction.)

The second one is simply a belief that the best way to understand things is to examine the process of observation and experimentation. Further, statements or hypotheses must be rigorously tested before they can be accepted. For example, it's no good to just claim, say, "People become ill because of goblin curses ... or tiny little life-forms that live in our bodies." Those statements need to be proven. (Turns out the tiny little life forms have been proven to exist. Curse-happy Goblins, on the other hand ...)

Everything else sort of follows from these Main two tenets ...

Commonly-Held Beliefs:

• There is No Immortal Soul, or Afterlife of Any Kind.

• There is No Such Thing as the "Paranormal."

• We are Not Being Visited By Extra-Terrestrials.

• Cryptozoology is Not Science

• "Alternative" Medicine is Useless and Often Dangerous

• Proponents of "Conspiracy Theories" are Wrong (maybe even crazy)


I'm sure there are more, but I'm not going to wrack my brain or do a Google search, or take any measures that might fall under the category of research. Partly because I'm lazy, and partly because this is just me thinking. (See the disclaimer above.)


Now let's look at some of these Commonly-Held Beliefs from the Skeptical viewpoint ...

The immortal soul issue. Let's face it, there's no proof, outside unverified anecdotes to support the Immortal Soul concept. Of course, that doesn't prove there isn't one. However, the burden of proof (as with theism, above) should be on the believer. Those guys on Ghost Hunters are performing pure science fiction entertainment masquerading as pseudo-science (which is BS masquerading as science). People, there is a reason that show is on the Science Fiction channel, err ... SyFy. Whatever.

The "paranormal" thing is a fuzzy issue, because how does one define it? Any phenomenon that can somehow be proven scientifically is, by definition, no longer paranormal. So, I guess, as Skeptics, what we're saying is that everything in the universe is what it is, and that there cannot be anything "outside" what is. We're anti-meta, in other words. If, for example, there are ghosts, there must be some way to prove it. Of course, the Ghost Hunter guys (not to pick on them, but they're an easy, illustrative target) must think this, too, or they wouldn't be (mis)using all this scientific gear. And then there are the John Edward types who are simply cold-readers. (And he's not even a very good one ... he cheats.)

Extra-terrestrials are a tough issue. In a universe the size of the one we inhabit, what are the chances that life only arose on only one world? The chances are (pun intended) astronomical that there is life somewhere else out there. But , then, if life DOES spark somewhere else, what are the chances that it will develop the technology to travel between the stars? (Ok ... I'm firmly in Drake Equation territory now.) Ultimately, we just don't know, and there hasn't been enough solid scientific evidence to prove there is life anywhere else. Most UFO sightings or abduction stories have terrestrial explanations. And if not, well ... just because we aren't sure what the reason for something is doesn't mean we can jump to the conclusion that it must be caused by aliens ... or gods, or goblins, or whatever.

Cryptozoology is a similar field. Where is the solid evidence of these creatures? Where's all the sasquatch crap? Where are the washed-up bodies of lake monsters? Absence of proof doesn't mean none of these things could be real. But, again, there's no solid evidence, and so the natural skeptical view is to disbelieve until more evidence is gathered.

Medical nonsense tops the list in terms of potentially most dangerous beliefs. Everything from homeopathic remedies to avoiding vaccination can be perfectly harmless. But they can also have deadly consequences in the wrong circumstances.

Conspiracy theories are an interesting subject, because they're so diverse in nature. Many of them seem reasonable at first glance. But many of them seem downright crazy. And many of them involve the other topics on this list ... Ghosts, Psychics, Aliens, Bigfoot, Big Pharma and the Secret Liberal (or Conservative) Shadow Government are all working together to read your mind, and post all of your thoughts on the internets! Or force you to get shots that will make you want to buy products from Apple (or Microsoft)!! Or fatten you up to feed you to alien babies!!!11!! !!1!!!


What I find most fascinating about all of these is that most proponents of these beliefs seem to want to believe them so badly. As a result, their objectivity seems compromised. Not that anyone can ever be truly objective ... we all have our biases. That's exactly why the scientific method is so important. It at least attempts to marginalize these biases. (But, that's a topic for a whole other discussion!)

In the next part, I'll re-examine some of these same areas, and tell you where I think a Dogmatically Skeptical take on everything may be almost as bad ... maybe even as unscientific ... as the believers' outlook.