The CUSP
Why Trubees Believe. (Or - On Being a Careful Skeptic (tm))
April 6th, 2010 | 
I'm imagining that I'm a trubee.
I know that homeopathy works. I've seen it, I've heard other people talk about it, and I've been told, by people that I trust and respect (mainly because of their passionate defence of my point-of-view), that it works.
If it works, then - if it gets tested properly - there must be good solid scientific evidence for it.
Note, by the way, that, so far, none of this has been a conscious logic process. This has all happened behind-the-scenes as it were.
I've seen some positive studies, and I've been told by others that there are many more. (There must be, right?)
Now I've got mean, nasty skeptics telling me that I'm wrong and that all the evidence that I've seen (and the evidence that I've imagined) is 'not good enough' (arrogant, snooty, bastards).
OK - all fairly obvious so far. My point?
These people (and you can substitute anything you like for "homeopathy" - this is very much how I used to think when I was a creationist) truly and honestly believe that they are right and that we (the skeptics) are wrong.
So what's the difference between us and them?
Well - the skeptic will say "Show me the evidence and I'll change my mind", and this is a big difference - no trubees would ever make that claim, although there are a few that will come over to our side after seeing enough evidence...
But - how often do you go and check a trubee's references, and how often do you rely on experts and other (more qualified) skeptics to do it for you?
I know I don't have the time or knowledge to check every (or any) scientific (or non-scientific) paper that a trubee throws at me.
This is something that I wonder about every now and then:
Am I being close-minded? Have I already made up my mind (and now just dismiss [insert woo here] because it goes against my world view)?
How much am I relying on and trusting the experts and all the other skeptics that I talk to?
And that, I think, is the fundamental (pun intended) difference between trubees and skeptics.
It's the doubt that keeps us skeptical...
It's the question:
"What if I'm wrong?"
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Douglas Adams
vIQleS's blog | 
Login or register to post comments | 
Tags: General Skepticism, Homeopathy, Logical fallacies
This kind of self-reflection and self-skepticism is obviously vital in keeping ourselves honest.
But there's at least a few things we can fall back on as guidelines to make sure we're not dismissing something unjustly. Sort of like a not-baloney detection kit. ^_^
Off the top of my head:
1. Can we describe experiments that would help to persuade us if the results came out in favor of a given claim?
2. Can we cite some kind of external (not just our opinion) measure to establish that the prior plausibility of a claim is low?
3. If the claim can be easily, cheaply, and effectively refuted by some experiment, then has this experiment been performed? What were the results?
4. Are we genuinely considering all the available evidence, or just the sub-set that matches our desires?
5. Does the prospect of potentially being proven wrong make us feel anxious or angry? Or does the potential of finding a flaw in our worldview make us feel excited?
That's just a few things I can think of that can help to shed light. I think I find point 5 particularly interesting. Think about it - if homeopathy was true and water does have memory, then does that mean that other substances might have memory too! Cool!
Of course, homeopathy is bunk. But the idea of being proven wrong about my opinion of homeopathy is exciting. Same for psychics, astrology, aliens, pixies, supernatural claims, and so forth.
Typically, this isn't the case with our opponents. They don't seem excited to find out more about the true state of reality. Generally, the concept that they may be wrong is met with anger or anxiety. It's a very telling red flag.
Anyway, that's just a quick list off the top of my head. Anyone else have some suggestions as to good practices to keep us healthily skeptical regarding ourselves?