Tuesday, 5 February 2008

Bad Sceptics

A problem with calling oneself a sceptic (or indeed a skeptic, if you're Americanistically-inclined) is that there is a widespread misconception of the meaning of this word. Or rather, to be more generous, there are various different meanings depending upon the context in which the word is used. In philosophy, for instance, a skeptic is one who doubts everything except the existence of their own mind as a doubting entity. While this is an oversimplification of the term (head over to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on scepticism for a more in-depth discussion), it certainly demonstrates that there is a clear difference between a philosophical sceptic and a sceptic as might be referred to in this and similar blogs, for instance. The only really central theme throughout is that a sceptic is a person who doubts.

Thus, when one identifies oneself as a sceptic in everyday discussion with those who may not be engaged in the same communities, there is often a confusion. The listener perhaps takes this to mean that you doubt everything, or automatically dismiss anything that seems remotely unconventional. Believe it or not, there are those who see sceptics as a force against progression - continually holding back innovation in many fields. While this is true to some extent (insistence on proper scientific method does tend to slow down the process after all - it's such a drag having to be accurate all the damn time), it overlooks the fact that sceptics are usually at the cutting edge of innovation. Indeed, it is scepticism in science which allows it to admit when it is wrong, and adapt to new ideas - a process of constant self-improvement. It is the dogmatic approach opposed by scepticism that causes ideas to stagnate; and while proper process necessarily means that research must move slowly, it ensures that it moves accurately.

What in part prompted me to write this entry is this post over at Science-Based Medicine. While this is hardly my area of expertise, it is disturbing to find an organisation, which sets itself in opposition to widely-researched scientific fact, describing itself in terms of scepticism. They are not "cholesterol skeptics" just because they doubt the majority view on cholesterol any more than a UFO nut is a sceptic. A sceptic does not doubt in spite of the evidence - the evidence is a sceptic's tool, and a good sceptic always examines the evidence in as non-biased a way as she can before adopting a position. It will not help the profile of true sceptics to have these anti-science loons using the moniker as their own.

On an entirely unrelated note, if anyone asks you what the harm is in entertaining the occasionally-seductive claims of pseudoscience, you can now direct them to What's The Harm?, an ongoing collection of data concerning harm done through pseudoscience and woo. (hat-tip to Skepchick for this).

No comments: