published in the December 2005 issue of Openly Skeptical
the magazine of Skeptics Canada

Why do so many skeptics sound like vitriolic old curmudgeons? Against whom are they railing when they write for magazines such as Skeptic?

We in the skeptic community tell ourselves that we, among other things, oppose dogmatic beliefs. My edition of the Collins English Dictionary includes the following definitions of dogmatic: of statements, "ill-founded or arbitrary but forcibly asserted"; of people, "prone to make arrogant opinionated pronouncements"; or simply "based on assumption rather than empirical observation". So how is it that many people, like a friend of mine who makes a living doing " readings", think that we skeptics are the dogmatic ones, unwilling or unable to embrace a larger reality? Because, by and large, skeptics sound about the same to non-skeptics as perfervid ravers at the pulpit sound to us.

When people believe something, they believe it for what they think are good reasons. Nobody proudly asserts that their beliefs are dogmatic, because nobody thinks that their particular beliefs are ill-founded.

Of course, there is a difference between believing something which is false and believing something which is demonstrably true. The trouble is that there is no objective, universally accepted way of determining which is which.

The scientific method gets points for being objective, and may occupy an epistemologically privileged position, but it's not universally accepted. Let's take the creation debate to illustrate. The evolutionist says "Evolution is true because the evidence corroborates it, massively and in parallel." This makes sense so long as you accept the scientific method as a reasonable way of separating memetic wheat from chaff, but is illogical to those who accept the Bible as a source of information from an omniscient source. The creationist says, "Creationism is true because the evidence corroborates it, massively and in parallel." The evidence in this case includes a book which is believed to be infallible, and selected natural evidence. Given the infallible book, it is illogical to believe in evolution.

This is what we're up against. Not rampaging ignorance, but (in their own contexts) rational arguments. This is why my friend can rail so vehemently against skeptics such as James Randi, whose message is interpreted as "your evidence isn't as good as my evidence, so you're a dolt if you believe it." I reacted just as strongly when I was introduced to someone who began our conversation with "How can you, as an intelligent person, not be a Christian?" If you accept as reasonable the evidence in the Bible, it is illogical not to believe.

I don't need to read the details in skeptics' magazines (although I do). All I need is to scan the table of contents. An article entitled "Skepticism on Television" will be about how skeptical viewpoints are underrepresented. "Report on a Haunted House" will debunk a century of profitable stories. "New Cure-All" will demonstrate that the treatment or substance will not be efficacious, or might actually kill people.

What are we trying to accomplish? The ones who really need to hear the message are the least likely to hear it. If we are really interested in introducing people to skeptical thought, we have to start with a mutually agreeable framework for determining what constitutes good evidence.

What is that framework? Does one even exist? I doubt that there is one. If I am right about that that, the underlying problem will keep skeptics and True Believers battling it out no matter what the evidence.

Steve Hansen Smythe, December 2005