#pseudoskeptic

[allengreenfield]

A New Wave Of Debunkers Could Be Doing More Harm Than Good

By Steve Higgins

MARCH 26, 2024 1:00 AM ‐... Read more at https://www.higgypop.com/news/blinkered-debunkers/

[skeptic42]

The Unethical Skeptic, part 2

Continued...

Coming across a more recent post, the Unethical Skeptic describes himself.  Now, I won’t challenge the veracity of his claims regarding himself, but I do wish I could be so immodest on my annual reviews.

“I do not claim to be a scientist.”

Which is fine, so, now we’re establishing something.  I don’t claim to be a scientist either.

I would not claim the moniker of skeptic either, were it not for the necessity of how ethical skepticism is presented inside this blog.

I however would identify myself as a skeptic - I follow the evidence regardless of where it leads.  I prefer facts to help me define truth.  I also prefer not to venture to far into speculation, except when writing fantasy (a hobby).  I am ethical, and try to do my best, but, however, I would not attach the two together in the way he has, i.e. if you don’t follow his brand of skepticism, then you’re not ethical.

I am reminded how people like to strike out on there own to establish something, make a name for themselves and be known worldwide, like Einstein and Sagan, or Jobs and Gates.  But there’s a difference between to boldly go somewhere no one has gone (or boldly split infinitives no one has split before), and striking off in some direction while denigrating all other that don’t follow.

As a strategy advisor to trade groups, nations and companies I have a deep and varied experience base, ranging from being president of a research lab making groundbreaking discovery, to a director in intelligence, to designing some of the most complex operations on the planet, all the way to helping determine brand strategy for several familiar corporations. All things which demand intense research development and novel conjecture at risk, and under accountability.

That’s like pretty impressive.  He advises corporation, trade groups, and nations.  Nations!!!  And he takes the time to help us all understand how wrong we are when it comes to skepticism.  This guy is surely a polymath.  But that’s not all...

No, the average professional does not typically gain exposure to such a variety of expertise sets, but once a company finds a good strategic resource with a long successful track record – they will ask them to step in and address a variety of challenges. My client tenures are long, and my business repeat rate is one of the highest in the industry. These are things called ‘accountability measures’ – something with which typical PhD’s, with possible exception of the need to publish, are wholly unfamiliar.

Next we move on to the society...

Today social media struggles under not only the burden of fake news and fake skeptics, but also under a throng of apparatchiks posing as scientists. Those catalyseurs whose artifice is to foment conflict between actual science and the public. Those who wish to categorize 97% of society as doltish and ignorant, for observing that their families are suffering, considering forbidden ideas or witnessing forbidden things, and not bowing down to their insistent social doctrines – those who abuse ‘science’ as their civilian and innocent shield inside their illegitimate war on the American public.

Apparatchik - noun: a member of a Communist Party apparat; {derogatory} an official in a large political organization.

Now, as I understand it, Carl Sagan popularized science (along with a few others) in America.  (This was, and still is, actually very common in the UK.)  Sagan was regarded by some in science as “dumbing” it down, this impacted his career in ways.  He made science a bit more accessible to the public, and he made it interesting.  Ever sit in a class the bored you to death?  Ever sit in a class that was exciting?  Which did you prefer?

As far as I know, Carl Sagan never denigrated the public for being anti-science, but he did lament the low level of understanding held by the public.  Stephen Hawking did a show challenging volunteers to think like a genius.  This is not denigrating the public.  There most likely are elitists within the scientific community that think the public are bumbling idiots, but I doubt there voices are that loud.

But back to The Unethical Skeptic’s diatribe.

A preemptive attack on the only entity with the authority to hold their cronies accountable. Create conflict between the public and science – declare the public anti-science and irrational – proceed with the corporate profit plan which places them and their families at high risk.

Now there are sections that are indented italics, I’m not sure why the emphasis, other than they may be presented as words of others.  But let’s examine this.

“A preemptive attack,” is often normal within our polemic society, but in this case, he’s claiming scientists are attacking the public, possibly because they are the only one that can hold the scientists accountable.  The public can’t even hold politicians in check, let alone a much larger group of people who are generally don’t engage with the public at all, let alone have a huge PR machine designed to turn away the public and make them hate scientists.  Doesn’t make sense.

Create conflict between the public and science – declare the public anti-science and irrational.  Now, I’ve read recently there really isn’t a war on science in, of all places, Scientific American.  I think the author has a gross understanding of the situation, and there are numerous others who do see a war on science.  It’s not that all science is under attack, like running into school laboratories and fighting to save children from dissecting animals.  No one is denigrating meteorology, just the weatherman’s ability to predict the weather.  (And even confirm the weatherman’s ability when s/he is right.)

But there are elements of science that are under attack.  Evolution, climate science, and medical science (vaccinations, treatments, and various other things).  These are three distinct groups that aren’t coordinating attacks to tear down the scientific community, destroy knowledge, and foment ignorance.  That was the main thrust of the SA article.  What the author failed to realize is while the groups are working independently to focus all there efforts in their chosen areas, the attacks - and they are attacks - are accepted by various groups of society without distinction, and bleed into other areas.  If scientists are wrong about these things, they can and must be wrong about a lot of other things, so we find support for a flat earth.  Why?  There isn’t any political groups passing laws declaring the earth flat, but there are plenty of people that think all  scientists are lying to keep the public ignorant.  Ironic if you think about it.

Moving on...

...proceed with the corporate profit plan which places them and their families at high risk.

This is actually sounding like a battle plan or manifesto.  Rather conspiratorial in thinking really.  But these are words The Unethical Skeptic is seemingly putting into other people’s mouth, so I’m wondering if he’s a conspiracy theorists of the skeptical kind (he is after all the real skeptic, all other being pseudoskeptics), or if this tripe is actually designed to foment distrust of scientists.  He touts the scientific method, but obviously only True Scientists (Ethical Scientists?) can practice it correctly.

But it also gets rich.  No pun intended.  (Maybe.)

Corporate profit plan

This is pure capitalism.  But that’s a different discussion.

This is coming from an Ethical Skeptic who is a “strategy advisor to trade groups, nations, and companies”  that has “long client tenures,” and “one of the highest business repeat rates in the industry.”

He does business with and works for corporations that have profit plans.  Connect the dots.

Now, there are problems within the scientific community to be sure.  There are problems within the business communities (Enron) to be sure.  At times they meet (tobacco).  People are people and money is money and people like money and some people can rise above their principles, especially when money is involved.  This is a human problem.

He goes on explain what a scientist is (someone with a PhD and only does original research or teaches science - a Masters in not good enough - or does peer-review, but doesn’t use previous research) and what a scientist is not:

Anyone who lacks curiosity

regards an issue of Ockham’s Razor plurality as ‘settled science’

A person who uses forms of semi-truth or one of the six mechanisms of professional lying (see: The Tower of Wrong: The Art of the Professional Lie)

Here’s a few enlightening one:

A fellow at CSICOP or JREF or…

Someone who has read The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe

Anyone whose ass sits in a pub, never goes into the field, and chronically pontificates about critical thinking

A PhD, especially if in a semi or non-related field

The list goes on.  This one is really good:

Anyone who bullies others by means of implied qualifications (including if they met the qualification of scientist above) – as this betrays an extreme bias of disqualification. 

Anyone who bullies other, like denigrating anyone who is a fellow at CSICOP (mind you, this article was written on June 15, 2018.  CSICOP changed to CSI, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in November 2006, 12 years ago.  How can I trust a guy who hates a community and particularly a group that he doesn’t even know the name of?

He bullies the skeptic community while touting his own pedigree, and uses semi-truths.  This does support his claim that he’s not a scientist (though he does say at one point, “... I might fall under the definition of scientist... I would seldom if ever claim such a role. “  Rich.

This is a person who denigrate skepticism the way charter schools denigrate public education.

I also see that he’s an antivaxxer.  One study he uses (Mawson) was retracted.  One peer-reviewer was a chiropractor.  (One of the very people The Unethical Skeptic says is not a scientist, since he’s in a non-related field).  The study was retracted twice!!

The Unethical Skeptic is a biased, hypocritical, arrogant asshole that is guilty of the exact same actions he accuses the skeptic community of making.  He fails to do real research, using bias confirmation, performs ad hominem attacks, and touts his authority (he’s fond of working for nations), cites discredited and retracted studies, and cherry-picks his data.

If this is “ethical,” then count me out.

So what started as possible critique of Carl Sagan, morphed into derision for the skeptic community, and has finally shown itself to be a vendetta.

[s33]

Reverse Fallacies for Considerations of Consciousness

Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency - in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.

While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special.

[...] the "naturalistic fallacy"  is close to but not identical with the fallacious appeal to nature, the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is inherently bad or wrong.

The Normative Fallacy occurs, rather, when someone attempts to argue that something is not the case or is the case based on a set of ideological, ethical, moral, political, or other normative commitments.

Cargo Cult: The speech is reproduced in the book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and on many websites. Feynman based the phrase on a concept in anthropology, the cargo cult, which describes how some pre-scientific cultures interpreted technologically advanced visitors as religious or supernatural figures who brought boons of cargo. Later, in an effort to call for a second visit the natives would develop and engage in complex religious rituals, mirroring the previously observed behavior of the visitors manipulating their machines but without understanding the true nature of those tasks. Just as cargo cultists create mock airports that fail to produce airplanes, cargo cult scientists conduct flawed research that superficially resembles the scientific method, but which fails to produce scientifically useful results. Here is an excerpt from the book.     In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land. Feynman cautioned that to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists, researchers must avoid fooling themselves, be willing to question and doubt their own theories and their own results, and investigate possible flaws in a theory or an experiment. He recommended that researchers adopt an unusually high level of honesty which is rarely encountered in everyday life, and gives examples from advertising, politics, and behavioral psychology to illustrate the everyday dishonesty which should be unacceptable in science.

I'm posting this because it should be pointed out that fallacies can run in both directions. The entire array of Western philosophical argumentation is rooted in the deepest assumption of all - that what we feel and think is unreliable, therefore suspicious, but what happens outside of ourselves, or what we agree that we perceive happening outside of ourselves is above suspicion, by definition. Since there can never be a case where we are right and physics is wrong, all who seek to make a hypothesis about the fundamental nature of subjectivity are put in the awkward position of being judged in their own power to participate in conscious experience by the normative expectations of a system of knowledge which specifically and exhaustively removes all possible traces of subjectivity.

Because the expectation of science itself, as it is currently practiced, obstructs its own view of consciousness with ideology that is assumed to be inescapable and natural, the logical fallacies which are designed protect science are operating in reverse. Any model which suggests phenomenal awareness is a phenomenon being more primitive than objective structures and laws is rejected out of hand as having no evidence. There is no way to put forth the observation that consciousness cannot be under suspicion when it seems entirely likely that no evidence of consciousness outside of its own reports of itself can ever exist. We must instead examine why, if our own delusion and fallacious reasoning is ultimately a product of neurochemistry and evolutionary biology, should we be able to trust our brain's folk epistemology called science? We might say, well, we know science works because of the evidence - the technology. True, but where but in our own shared experience can evidence be understood? If nature was making the same kind of mistakes that we do, how would we know? Especially given the nature of recent science, where dark matter and energy can suddenly appear and swallow the known universe, and quantum theory has, in some sense, suspended the rule of non-contradiction. When it comes to consciousness, the Strong AI project has become a Cargo Cult. By imitating the architecture of the brain or of the logical syntax of its behavior, we hope that the consciousness cargo will show up. Instead of an appeal to nature, we now have a bold and unchallenged appeal to science - The claim that what is testable is inherently real, and that what has not yet been made testable and may not be testable is inherently irrelevant. I propose a new logical fallacy - the Abnormative fallacy, which occurs when someone attempts to argue that something is not the case or is the case based on a set of commitments to doctrines which are cynical, robotic, formalistic and held above suspicion by popular inertia. Finally I propose the fallacy of General Pleading, to expose this normative bias stemming from the privilege and power of the dominant perspective which denies the possibility that consciousness is a special case, or THE special case, by definition.