I dunno. I can understand OP's point, but in an era where bullshit runs rampant at every level of society, it's hard for me to agree that "We need to hear these guys out" is either a priority or a generally good idea.
People are generally decent at knowing something exists, but generally poor at knowing what it is.
This is true for book reviews or UFOs/psychics/whatever. A reader can tell you the book wasn’t good and they’ll give a reason. Usually they’re right that it’s not good, and wrong about why.
The problem here is they’re right that it’s something (it’s not nothing), and probably wrong about the why. But most academic types won’t even acknowledge that it’s not nothing.
I could respect them if they said, “It’s not nothing, but right now the cost to inquire further into that topic is too high and not our area of focus”
I think the best approaches are either to ignore it (usually the best approach since their ability to spin bullshit will consume your whole life if you let it), or tackle it with a professional tone. Not to humor it, but to pick it apart logically while keeping a professional tone and abstaining from getting down into the mud with verbal insults.
Tackle it like Mick West. He's my model for skepticism done well.
Yeah, it's extremely hard to get to a serious scientific discussion when field of "ufology" is so filled with grifters.
The main problem I'd see with CSICOP isn't dismissing alien visitor out-of-hand but rather tarring ideas that are merely unusual with the brush of crankdom - for example, I think Martin Gardener was attacking Alfred Korzybsky long ago. I'm not a Korzybskyite but I think his ideas are in no way tied to any super-natural or extra-scientific assertions.
Right now we have grifters who have taken over the official channels. In the case of vaccines, they are deploying weaponized propaganda at scientists. Right now we need our skepticism, and we need to find a way to inoculate the public against these people who are 'asking questions' and making recommendations while citing fake studies. If anything, we very quickly need a resurgence of skepticism.
I would ask whether the recent era is marked by more “we need to hear these guys out” style skepticism or more “online atheist” style skepticism. From my perspective, the “online atheist” version seems to have been a much more common one. From the aforementioned “online atheists” to Neil “a new year is just the earth going around the sun and nothing to celebrate” DeGrasse Tyson, to “I fucking love science” facebook feeds that very quickly became political dunking fodder rather than a genuine love of scientific things. From my perspective the current era has been marked by a significant lack of willingness for most people to hear anyone they don’t already agree with out.
A different commenter said something to the effect that the skeptic is not obligated to ignore years of research and contrary evidence. And I agree that they are not obligated to do so. But one can approach that in two ways, one can simply dismiss new claims out of hand because they contradict everything “everyone knows” and have been hashed before. Or one can ask for the evidence and simply hold the claimants to the same standards any “real” science is supposed to be held to. Ask for the evidence, ask for the studies and hold them to the same rigor that their counter evidence was already held to. You might not be obligated to do these things, but doing things you’re not obligated to do is one of those things that makes society run smoother.
The goal of engaging then isn’t to convince the person with the claim, but rather to convince outside observers that the extraordinary claim was given a fair chance to be proven and was not, even with that fair chance. XKCDs “lucky 10,000” idea also applies to “scientific woo”. The “lucky 10,000” will need to be convinced all over again every time, and if they have on the one hand a side with rocky but surface level convincing evidence, and on the other side mere derision and out right dismissal without examining the claims, then it shouldn’t be surprising that more and more people find the bad evidence convincing and the skeptics unconvincing.
I agree that the balance here is not entirely clear. But I think it's important to not let our perceptions of that balance be influenced by our personal social circles. If you encounter a lot of "online atheist" skeptics in your life, then I think it's important to just note that like, statistically, you're in a bubble. This kind of intense scientific skepticism isn't very common in a world where all sorts of clearly scientifically illiterate ideas poll at very high numbers.
I think there's a third way between "hear them out" and "online atheist", and that's basically a kind and gentle dialogue questioning pseudoscientific ideas while still focusing on trying to make clear the cognitive errors they are likely making.
LLMs are actually pretty good at this [1], which is remarkable, because LLMs are pretty stupid, and rarely knowledgeable about the details or nuances of any particular debate, especially on niche scientific topics. Like Ken Ham would "win" a debate about creationism with chatGPT because he's familiar with all of the tricky creationist arguments about radioisotype dating that ChatGPT isn't. But if we look at why AI typically succeeds in debunking conspiracy theorists when "online atheists" fail, I think it is because AI has infinite patience and respect for the user, where-as any online human debater eventually loses their patience, whether with an individual or over time. Being able to share new information with people while also being patient and respectful is basically this secret but it's just incredibly difficult to a person to do it.
Figuring out how to teach a generation of skeptics that aren't burnt out, jaded, and angry, is probably the secret sauce here to fighting misinformation.
halfcat|7 months ago
This is true for book reviews or UFOs/psychics/whatever. A reader can tell you the book wasn’t good and they’ll give a reason. Usually they’re right that it’s not good, and wrong about why.
The problem here is they’re right that it’s something (it’s not nothing), and probably wrong about the why. But most academic types won’t even acknowledge that it’s not nothing.
I could respect them if they said, “It’s not nothing, but right now the cost to inquire further into that topic is too high and not our area of focus”
lupusreal|7 months ago
Tackle it like Mick West. He's my model for skepticism done well.
me-vs-cat|6 months ago
joe_the_user|7 months ago
The main problem I'd see with CSICOP isn't dismissing alien visitor out-of-hand but rather tarring ideas that are merely unusual with the brush of crankdom - for example, I think Martin Gardener was attacking Alfred Korzybsky long ago. I'm not a Korzybskyite but I think his ideas are in no way tied to any super-natural or extra-scientific assertions.
jaybrendansmith|7 months ago
tpmoney|7 months ago
A different commenter said something to the effect that the skeptic is not obligated to ignore years of research and contrary evidence. And I agree that they are not obligated to do so. But one can approach that in two ways, one can simply dismiss new claims out of hand because they contradict everything “everyone knows” and have been hashed before. Or one can ask for the evidence and simply hold the claimants to the same standards any “real” science is supposed to be held to. Ask for the evidence, ask for the studies and hold them to the same rigor that their counter evidence was already held to. You might not be obligated to do these things, but doing things you’re not obligated to do is one of those things that makes society run smoother.
The goal of engaging then isn’t to convince the person with the claim, but rather to convince outside observers that the extraordinary claim was given a fair chance to be proven and was not, even with that fair chance. XKCDs “lucky 10,000” idea also applies to “scientific woo”. The “lucky 10,000” will need to be convinced all over again every time, and if they have on the one hand a side with rocky but surface level convincing evidence, and on the other side mere derision and out right dismissal without examining the claims, then it shouldn’t be surprising that more and more people find the bad evidence convincing and the skeptics unconvincing.
tstactplsignore|7 months ago
I think there's a third way between "hear them out" and "online atheist", and that's basically a kind and gentle dialogue questioning pseudoscientific ideas while still focusing on trying to make clear the cognitive errors they are likely making.
LLMs are actually pretty good at this [1], which is remarkable, because LLMs are pretty stupid, and rarely knowledgeable about the details or nuances of any particular debate, especially on niche scientific topics. Like Ken Ham would "win" a debate about creationism with chatGPT because he's familiar with all of the tricky creationist arguments about radioisotype dating that ChatGPT isn't. But if we look at why AI typically succeeds in debunking conspiracy theorists when "online atheists" fail, I think it is because AI has infinite patience and respect for the user, where-as any online human debater eventually loses their patience, whether with an individual or over time. Being able to share new information with people while also being patient and respectful is basically this secret but it's just incredibly difficult to a person to do it.
Figuring out how to teach a generation of skeptics that aren't burnt out, jaded, and angry, is probably the secret sauce here to fighting misinformation.
[1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq1814