10 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

Abuses of Skepticism
Doubting is a powerful tool, but it can definitely be taken too far.

Chris Mooney; Decmeber 5, 2003

http://www.csicop.or...ndabout/abuses/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An old debunker's adage goes (in various iterations), "You can never be too skeptical." Lately, largely because of my run-ins with "skeptics" of evolution, I've become increasingly convinced that this slogan is fundamentally flawed. Consider, for example, what happens when a predisposition towards skepticism leads one to doubt a consensus view in the scientific community, or to pooh-pooh a possibility that many leading scientists consider highly likely. The skeptical impulse may be valuable, but taken to extremes, it can lose its usefulness and even lead to perverse outcomes.

Examples of this phenomenon abound. As a case in point, take a recent Scientific American column by Skeptics Society director Michael Shermer on the possibility of human life extension. Shermer basically slams all the various routes that scientists and visionaries have proposed for extending human life or even achieving immortality, grouping them under the following headings: "Virtual immortality," "genetic immortality," "cryonics immortality," "replacement immortality," and "lifestyle longevity." But in his inclination towards skepticism, I think Shermer has lumped together fringe ideas about living forever with the relatively mainstream idea that significant human life extension may someday be possible.

Shermer is right to dismiss the concept of immortality in its various speculative guises. Even if we could entirely prevent our bodies from aging, perhaps by replacing parts one by one (Shermer's "replacement immortality" example), we would all eventually succumb to freak accidents, like car wrecks. Nevertheless, laughing at immortality is very different from poking fun at the modest idea of lifespan extension through pharmaceutical inventions (Shermer's "lifestyle longevity").

There are lots of cranks out there pushing unproven anti-aging remedies today. And as Shermer rightly notes, leading gerontologists have issued statements condemning such quackery. But many of those same scientists think we will be able to slow or even reverse human aging in the relatively near future. As I know from reporting on the science of life extension for almost a year now, a broad range of respectable opinion exists on this question. The most bullish gerontologists think we'll be able to reverse mouse aging within ten years and succeed in humans not long afterwards. Then comes a larger group of scientists who think outright age reversal won't work, or shouldn't be tried first, but that human age retardation, which has already been achieved in some mammals through caloric restriction, might happen through the creation of caloric restriction mimetic pills or other drugs. (No one seriously believes that we'll ever be able to stop eating so much.) Finally, the most pessimistic gerontologists, including the famed cell biologist Leonard Hayflick, doubt that either age reversal or age retardation will be possible--period.

I myself don't have a view as to who's right; I'm not qualified to make such a scientific determination. But as an experienced observer, I can safely say the following: Given this range of views among scientists, it's foolhardy to dismiss human life extension at this point. And I'm not the only one who thinks we need to weigh this possibility carefully. Ethicists have already begun calling for more debate about how life extension would reshape individual lives and our societal institutions. The President's Council on Bioethics just dedicated an entire report chapter to the question.

So when it comes to life extension, it's definitely possible to be took skeptical. Something analogous can be said about another scientific area, this time one that's far more politicized. As you may have already guessed, I'm talking about climate change.

If it's unwise to take a knee jerk skeptical position about something many smart scientists think will happen (life extension), it's even crazier to deny something that the overwhelming majority of scientists think is already happening. Granted, I fully understand that a small minority of scientists, like Richard Lindzen, still deny that humans are causing climate change through the burning of fossil fuels. These scientists should certainly carry on being skeptical, at least so long as they believe in their own conclusions. But the rest of us ought to recognize that climate science has become increasingly robust over the past decade, and that the scientific community has increasingly spoken with one voice on this issue, even if some uncertainty remains about the extent of the problem.

Let's go over a few facts in order to show that this is so. In early 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body comprised of over 2,500 scientists that's the world's leading authority on global warming, released its third major assessment of the issue. The IPCC concluded that humans are responsible for global warming and that this poses serious future risks. Now, for obvious reasons, this report posed a problem for the Bush administration, which quickly sought a review of the IPCC's findings by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Given the IPCC's lengthy and thorough process, this seemed a rather redundant effort to many. Sure enough, the NAS panel quickly confirmed the IPCC findings, adding still more force to the weight of scientific consensus.

Given this, anyone wishing to challenge the heavily reviewed conclusions of the IPCC and NAS has to overcome a rather staggering burden of proof. That's not to say it can't be done. But for the moment, it hasn't, which means that adopting a skeptical stance towards climate change in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus can hardly be considered the most defensible position. Instead, I would hazard, it amounts to an abuse of skepticism.

When you think about it, such abuses have always been with us. Tobacco companies tried to make us "skeptical" of the link between smoking and disease. Other corporate interests have challenged whether toxic substances like lead and asbestos are really as dangerous as scientists claim. Anti-evolutionists themselves adopt a stance of skepticism when it comes to Darwin's theory, arguing that natural selection could not have produced complex organs like the eye.

The reason we're so vulnerable to abuses of skepticism is that it's extremely hard to ever say that scientific conclusions are absolutely certain--much less to label scientific dissent a bad thing. After all, it's certainly possible that 2,500 IPCC scientists might have made the same mistake. And if so, we would want someone to point that out. Still, the prevailing view on climate change has gone through repeated challenges in the court of scientific opinion and emerged in its current form. If we really wish to discard this consensus position, then in some sense we're opting to discard the scientific process itself.

And that, finally, points to a way of determining when skepticism has gone too far and outlived its usefulness. In order to be responsible and useful, skepticism must respect the basic scientific process, rather than seeking to undermine it. It's one thing to doubt. But it's something else altogether to undermine the best mechanism we have at our disposal for knowing anything.

[MichaelAnissimov]

This is a *really* good article.

[Mind]

Hardly anyone is skeptical about the fact that the climate has warmed recently, but there is division on what is causing it and how much can be attributed to humans. Anyone who says ALL the warming that has occurred in the last 3 decades is being caused by humans ALONE deserves all the skepticism that the world can muster.

The main problem I have with the climate change issue (as we have discussed in the global warming thread) is that socialist tyrants have hijacked the issue and are using it to assert dominion over the world. I know that sounds harsh, but it is closer to the truth than most people would like to admit.

People are reasonable and would willfully take steps to limit their affect on the environment. Unfortunately, when the massive wealth re-distribution scheme named "The Kyoto Protocol" hit the scene, it turned many people against environmental cooperation. Rightfully so.

In my opinion, the Neo-Luddites and Greens do not want solutions to pollution, they mostly just want to stop progress. They want to stop people like us, here at Imminst.

[Bruce Klein]

Chris is an effective writer.

Happily, he's helping with the
ImmInst Book Project.

[Mind]

One thing that fuels some skeptics is that fact that the scientists often use the government and media to assert their opinion. These "holders of truth" may not be correct but the general public is swayed to their side by an avalanche of government "backing". Anyone that has ever tried to bring alternative ideas into the mainstream knows what I am talking about. If some theory or project has the backing of the government (especially funding) those who are the on the receiving end of that money will never let go of their theory without a fight, whether right or wrong.

[Mind]

Here is an essay relevant to skepticism and the abuse of "consensus" scientists (usually government funded) against alternative ideas.

Aliens Cause Global Warming

A lecture by Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture
January 17, 2003



My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack.

It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be avery good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world.

But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.

Another good quote

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

More about consensus

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Read the full article here

[Lazarus Long]

Actually I like this quote from the article:

Aliens Cause Global Warming

A lecture by Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture
January 17, 2003
*****
As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?

And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.

When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?

Thanks Mind it is a great article.

While studying history I came to realize that consensus has always been a part of the problem and it is derived from basically the relationships of "funding." Institutions like the Church and State have always been the source of investment for the real bread and butter of science.

More recently Industry has joined ranks in that exclusive club but in every case including that of Industry they bring to scientific endeavor an agenda not predicated upon truth but results, though they are a little more willing to accept truth but only if it meets their established purposes and preconceived notions for investing in the first place.

Saying science is not done by consensus is not only true, it begs the question: What is being done in the name of science?

Oh yes these questions too: Who and how will people pay for real science?

This little point made in the article relates to what I call the Orwellian Threat and I think it represents a more dangerous and likely scenario than Global Winter.

Teller said, "While it is generally recognized that details are still uncertain and deserve much more study, Dr. Sagan nevertheless has taken the position that the whole scenario is so robust that there can be little doubt about its main conclusions." Yet for most people, the fact that nuclear winter was a scenario riddled with uncertainties did not seem to be relevant.

I say it is hugely relevant. Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political ends.

That is why it is so important for the future of science that the line between what science can say with certainty, and what it cannot, be drawn clearly-and defended.

When examining the history of science it is important to remember that we are dealing with frail humans that do not like to be questioned, do not tolerate controversy well and do not like to feel they have invested their efforts, careers, and personal reputations in possible falsehoods. They have trained, studied and practiced; they do not tolerate their precepts to be challenged lightly. Nor frankly should they for many of the very reasons Crighton suggests.

These "noble men of science" have often not entertained fair inquiry into ideas that are not conventional as they themselves are the very standard by which convention is established and their personal stature and position becomes associated with their ideas and opinions.

Scientific achievement has been for many of the wrong reasons, and will likely continue for some time to be a struggle upstream against the tide of social bias. However when ever the head waters are inventually fertilized by another generation of thought cascades of new ideas are washed down stream altering the course of the entire social conscience.

[Lazarus Long]

BTW Mind I would leave the substance of the debate on global warming to the thread where it belongs but one aspect of this statement I think deserves to be addressed here.

Hardly anyone is skeptical about the fact that the climate has warmed recently, but there is division on what is causing it and how much can be attributed to humans. Anyone who says ALL the warming that has occurred in the last 3 decades is being caused by humans ALONE deserves all the skepticism that the world can muster.

The main problem I have with the climate change issue (as we have discussed in the global warming thread) is that socialist tyrants have hijacked the issue and are using it to assert dominion over the world. I know that sounds harsh, but it is closer to the truth than most people would like to admit.

You and I are probably closer to agreement on the first part than most outsiders looking at our dialogs might appreciate. We certainly both concur on the absolute necessity of corroborative study to not merely support hypotheses but to establish better questions and for certain better parameters to improve modeling.

It is the second part where we have not so much a difference of perspective as opinion. You see in this entire thread I have a somewhat 'skeptical attitude' with respect to human nature. I do not think scientific endeavor can be completely isolated from 'human motives' so long as it is dominated by humans. (something I would personally prefer to having AI *or aliens* or even a mythical Friendly AI Singularity dictate to us) )

However let us look at what is at work in the statement you have made because we can see other flagrant examples of "doing the right things for the wrong reasons" dominating the global political landscape.

By suggesting that the Greens & the issues of Global Warming have been usurped by Luddites and socialist tyrants you are probably not wrong; you are however showing your own colors. You are allowing the polarity to get you to take sides rather than maintaining the very scientific objectivity that you lament is missing from the analysis.

The problem of such 'frightening ideas' for the most part is that they are precisely what motivates most people to action. Most humans are complacent by nature and require an impetus to overcome their own inertia. Is it any wonder that science (that has its own obvious need for funding) plays to the audience in very much the manner of all those successful political and cultural institutions that have established precedent for such practice?

Instead by allowing the science to take second place to the politics, or even to socio-economics, it doesn't matter which side of the issue you are on you are doing a disservice to the objectivity of the objective: the quest to understand what is in fact going on.

I am a victim of expulsion from the ranks of environmentalists for precisely the reasons of social parochialism you suggest have hijacked the science; so I concur with your observation about the politics, however that does not reflect on the validity of Global Warming one iota, not for or against the issue.

The hardest thing to do at times in this world is to rise above the maddening din of the crowd and learn to think for yourself. So instead I will ask a few different questions, some that all too many people are comfortable with for justifying most means to their goals.

So what if the socialist tyrants have reached the right conclusion for all the wrong reasons what will we do if the conclusions coincidently are even a significant fraction of their most dire predictions? Do we have an exit strategy from the political polemic?

You see sooner or later we are going to be playing catch up to events and this in the end defines adaptability in the Darwinist manner. Yessiree, survival of the fittest as we face the rising storm and most people acting like rats on a sinking ship scurrying around trying to shift blame rather than face the elements. They do this because of the psychological expedient of 'rationalizing' an unjust action; like stealing someone else's resources, which they seek to improve their individual chances of survival.

The problem with politics hijacking science is that this practice has always been this way for the entire history of humanity. Call it SOP, Standard Operating Procedure. So how will we define an alternative Age of Reason that at best has been as elusive a vision as Valhalla?

In a world occupied by a multitude, the many opinions and values of the mass of humanity need to be constantly and consistently addressed as the actions, discoveries and intentions of science and its prodigal child technology can, do and inevitably will impact the individual lives of everyone. Th manner of that impact will certainly not always be welcome but good intention alone is not sufficient reason to force a change, being right may not be enough.

It is slower and more involved a process but the memetics of assimilation are predicated on education and social debate, a process fraught with pitfalls and problems of self interest, corruption, fear, and loathing but like Democracy it is the best one we possess to date. Promises of singular perfection aside I prefer the one we have except that I find it terribly distracting when for the most part I do not find people actually saying what they mean, meaning what they say, or even arguing about what they are arguing about for the reasons they give.

So does it really matter if the socialist scientists guessed the right answer?

You bet it does if they are going to use that to validate a lot of extended ancillary arguments to promote their agenda that is why you have a visceral reaction to their claims (actually to more their methods).

If you care to retrieve the high-ground on this issue then the answer to the question I ask may be a more important one to seek. This is the danger of navigating by the wrong star you reach America instead of India and then have to rename everything in order for your wrong conclusion just to seem right in the record.

If you read both Crichton's entire pieces a number of things become apparent; first he is coming to some of the same conclusions as Mooney for some very different reasons and while he might desire some of the same goals (longevity in our particular case) he has some very different opinions about the means of achieving them.

Second by contrasting Mooney and Crichton you establish the 'Z' axis for the two dimensional 'XY' political map that we normally discuss in the somewhat simplistic political rhetoric of left/right economics and secular/theist sociology. For these reasons this topic of discussion is very illuminating (at least for those not blind to see it) for the 'Z' axis is the dichotomy of scientific versus socio-psychological skepticism (culture and politics) should we call this axis science/psyche (motivational inertia)?

I am reluctant to see them as perfect opposites (it is not in my nature ) ) though it is apparent that all too many do see them this way, in fact that is in part how the Luddites got a hold of the agenda for conservation and environmentalism, which did in fact owe its start to the scientific community of such notable individuals as John Muir and Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt. Perhaps the 'Z' axis of this socio-psychological metric is better defined as objective/subjective skepticism.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 07 January 2004 - 03:17 PM.

[Mind]

Lazarus:By suggesting that the Greens & the issues of Global Warming have been usurped by Luddites and socialist tyrants you are probably not wrong; you are however showing your own colors. You are allowing the polarity to get you to take sides rather than maintaining the very scientific objectivity that you lament is missing from the analysis.

Or I could just be stating a fact.

[Lazarus Long]

Or I could just be stating a fact.

You could be but as of yet you haven't proved it as such and it can be held as nothing more than opinion. One that is loaded as matter of fact with obvious bias by its characterizations, i.e. *Socialist Tyrants,* hijacked, Ludittes. This sounds on many levels no more plasuible than some left sided folks who insist on a grandiose "vast Right Wing Conspiracy. "

Of course their opinion could also be true and they are required to prove it as well.

[Mind]

Lazarus:You could be but as of yet you haven't proved it as such can be held as nothing more than opinion. One that is loaded as matter of fact with obvious bias by its characterizations, i.e. Socialist Tyrants, hijacked, Ludittes.

Sorry, perhaps I should adjust my definition of socialism. Socialism=Tyranny in my book. An equitable distribution of resources can be achieved through free trade or by force. Socialism is the method that has to use force. I guess I could have said "Those who use force to create an equitable distribution of resources", but socialist tryants was a lot easier....call me lazy.

Hijack: "To seize control of by use of force, especially in order to reach an alternate destination."

Luddite: "One who opposes technical or technological change."

These definitions seem quite accurate for what was and is still going on in climate negotiations. Should I not use these identifiers because they have a negative conotation in your mind? Or because you think they are inaccurate?

How about this:

Because those who use force in an attempt to achieve an equitable distribution of resources have seized control of climate negotiations in order to reach an alternative solution than free trade...I am skeptical of the Z axis they claim to have found with regards to climate change. These people who oppose technical or technological change should face the same scrutiny as any other who claims to study climate.


If anyone wants to know what I mean by "Z axis" you will have to read Laz's earlier post.