Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

About this weeks feature article

In this weeks eSkeptic, we delve into the question of the right approach to dealing with people who believe in the paranormal or some particular idea we could call pseudoscience. Naturally no one considers their beliefs to be pseudoscience or faith-based nonsense, so saying something along those lines to a believers face is likely to close off conversation. In this remarkable article, our own Daniel Loxton tackles the matter head on. Daniel shows that a controversy that erupted at last years The Amazing Meeting conference was just the latest in a very long history of skeptical debates about the tone of our criticism and educational outreach. (Please note: this is a long article, running over 4500 words.) Michael Shermer, Editor in Chief

Daniel Loxton is the Editor of Junior Skeptic (the 10-page kids science section bound within Skeptic magazine), a skeptical investigator, and an acclaimed writer and illustrator of science and skepticism material for kids. He is the author of the Norma Fleck Awardnominated Evolution (Kids Can Press, 2010). His next childrens book is scheduled for September, 2011.

SUBSCRIBE to Skeptic magazine for more great articles like this one.

Share this eSkeptic with friends online. Click the + for more sharing options.

Skepticisms Oldest Debate

A Prehistory of DBAD: 18382010
by Daniel Loxton
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (1 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

The Amazing Meeting 9 conference organized skepticisms biggest, broadest, and most important meeting of the mindsis almost upon us. It seems a good moment to look back at the most widely discussed presentation at last years TAM: astronomer Phil Plaits Dont be a Dick speech (video) calling for less name-calling and more civility in skeptical outreach: The best idea ever thought of in the history of humanity is useless unless
Watch Phil Plait's 2010 "DBAD" speech (on Vimeo)

someone communicates it. It will die in the test tube. And in our case, what were communicating here to people is not necessarily something they want to hear. And so, our demeanorhow we deliver this message takes on crucial, crucial importance. As some readers may know, Plaits DBAD speech touched off an online firestorm that smolders to this day. I explore the ethics of skepticism quite often (its one of the main reasons I blog in addition to writing books and Skeptic magazine articles) but today Id like to look at something simpler and more concrete. Lets explore a straightforward historical question: Was Plaits call for civility something new for skepticism? It happens that the answer is, No, not even a little bit.
2

Skepticisms Oldest Internal Debate

Immediately after Plaits speech, I began to hear suggestions that it was really a veiled attempt to protect religion, and might even have been related to some then-recent controversies over in the atheist world (controversies I wont even pretend to be able to follow).
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (2 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

But similar calls for a kinder, more careful skepticism predate the atheist blogosphere by almost two hundred years (as well see) and probably much more. Theyre about science-based skepticismand during the 1980s and 1990s, they were a dominant thread in defining what we do. Why are calls to greater civility so persistent? Its an inevitable consequence of the tension between two of skepticisms fundamental roles: criticism (which is inherently confrontational, to at least some degree) and educational outreach (which must, by its nature, reach out). The result is that calls for More action! take the gloves off! have always alternated with calls for a more empathetic and objective-conscious approach. But lets leave why analysis for another day. For now, its enough to look back at a small selection of skepticisms centuries of discussions about the tone of what we do. Before we start, I might note in passing that Ive been beating the civility drum myself for years. (For recent examples, consider my 2009 discussion about civility with Maria Walters and MonsterTalks Blake Smith on the Skepchick podcast, or the Dont Call People Names section of my What Do I Do Next? activism panel PDF. Those were hardwon lessons from my work critiquing cryptozoology and paranormal claims, and had nothing to do with religion.) But you already knew I promote this stuff. Lets look at what others have said. Do note that this is no sense an exhaustive literature review. These are just the first few examples that came to mind. Even at that, Im passing right by most of the recent work related to this theme, including such offerings as Rebecca Watsons 2010 Dont Be a Dick: Etiquette for Atheists and Skeptics presentation (in which she urged, Do whatever it takes to recognize that the person youre talking to is a human) and the short-lived podcast Actually Speaking (which aimed to explore the Human Side of Skepticism). As well, note that this is explicitly intended as an introduction to one prominent school of thought within scientific skepticism; the other side of the pendulum will have to wait for another post. Finally, note that I am leaving aside similar discussions within many other spheres (such as atheism, politics, online gaming, and the wider blogosphere).

Skeptical Appeals to Civility Before DBAD

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (3 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

2010
jerk.

The most amusingly exact Dont Be a Dick parallel must be Dont Be a Jerk!an article that Ottawa Skeptics president Jonathan Abrams wrote just months before Plaits speech. When countering a claim,

Abrams urged, try as hard as you can to avoid making the disagreement personal. Be humble, admit that you can be wrong too, but most importantly: dont be a

2008

Abrams in turn was inspired by Skepticblogs own Brian Dunning, who in 2008 explored How to Be a Skeptic and Still Have Friends. Spreading critical thinking by engaging in conversation with

your acquaintances should be a way to build bridges, not to expose rifts. If you take one thing away from this podcast, it should be that point. Concentrate on where you agree. Ive found that this has converted people who used to come to me as an adversary to challenge me with new claims into friends who seek out my opinion on stories that sound fishy to them. A significant milestone was a 2004 Skeptical Inquirer article titled Bridging the Chasm Between Two Cultures. Written by a former New Age author named Karla McLaren who had become involved in the skeptical community, this moving piece shared an audience perspective that skeptics needed to hear. Why do I have to type the word quack when I want a skeptical review of the choices I make in
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (4 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

2004

McLaren's article appeared in Skeptical Inquirer Vol. 28, No 3 (2004)

medical care? And why do I have to spend so much time translating on

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

the skeptical sites I visitor just skipping over words like scam, sham, quack, fraud, dupe, and fool? Why do I (the sort of person who actually needs skeptical information) have to see myself described in offensive terms and bow my head in shame before I can truly access the information available in your culture? Good question. I was riveted by this article. McLaren highlighted a critical, systematic flaw in skeptical outreach and skeptical media: its designed by skeptics, and its success is measured by the approval of other skeptics. Our sometimes life-saving information seems almost intentionally packaged to appeal to the tiny minority of people who dont need itand to repulse the majority, who do. (As Phil Plaits DBAD speech put it, Look, we have to admit that our reputation amongst the majority of the population is not exactly stellar.) Closely echoing Carl Sagan, McLaren emphasized that the search for the truth, the concern for the welfare of others, the need to be treated with respect, and the need to be welcomed in a cultureare all things my people share with yours. She pleaded for bridges: smart, welcoming attempts to genuinely communicate with those who needed it most. But none of this stuff was new to the 2000s. Not at all.
4

1999

Consider the movement as it was described in folklorist Stephanie Halls 1999 paper, Folklore and the Rise of Moderation Among Organized Skeptics. Her analysis of the movement at that time sounds very

different from the situation today, but its consistent with my own memories. During the 1990s, limited-scope scientific skepticism was dominant among local, regional, and national skeptics groups; and, through the influence of astronomer Carl Sagan (almost certainly the most widely admired public voice for scientific skepticism) a trend was leading skeptics further away from fiery, adversarial, authoritarian rhetoric.

Sagans DBAD Arguments

Carl Sagan was involved with the
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (5 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

1996

first successful North American skeptical group (CSICOP, now called CSI) from its formation in

1976. But his involvement with skeptical activism went back even furtherand, amusingly, his first act was to object to the tone of a skeptical project. It was a case that mattered so much to him that he was still talking about it 20 years later. As Sagan recalled in the 1996 book The Demon-Haunted World (in my opinion, the finest skeptical book ever written), In the middle 1970s an astronomer I admire put together a modest manifesto called Objections to Astrology and asked me to endorse it. I struggled with his wording, and in the end found myself unable to sign, not because I thought astrology has any validity whatever, but because I felt (and still feel) that the tone of the statement was authoritarian.
5
Order the book

I invite you to read Objections to Astrology for yourself before we go on. (Its short. Well wait.) Youll notice that its mild by the standards of the blogosphere, and not too dissimilar to current skeptical projects (such as the 10:23 campaign against homeopathy). So what was Sagans problem with the statement, which was, after all, signed by multiple Nobel Prize-winners? The statement denounced what it called the pretentious claims of astrological charlatans, but it failed to make a serious, science-based case in support of this opinion. What I would have signed, Sagan reflected, is a statement describing and refuting the principal tenets of astrological belief. Instead, he felt, this stuffy dismissal by a gaggle of scientists simply decreed that astrology is stupid. It criticized astrology, Sagan noted, for having origins shrouded
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (6 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

in superstitionbut so do many legitimate sciences. So what? The question is whether it works. Sagan went on: Then there was speculation on the psychological motivations of those who believe in astrology. These motivationsfor example, the feeling of powerlessness in a complex, troublesome and unpredictable world might explain why astrology is not generally given the skeptical scrutiny it deserves, but is quite peripheral to whether it works. The statement stressed that we can think of no mechanism by which astrology could work. This is certainly a relevant point but by itself its unconvincing. (Lots of true things were known to be true long before we knew why they were true.) Sagans arguments about tone were widely taken to heart, and helped to define the skepticism of the 1990s. In particular, it would be difficult to overstate the influence of The Demon-Haunted World, which explicitly acknowledged the tone problem: Have I ever heard a skeptic wax superior and contemptuous? Certainly. Ive even sometimes heard, to my retrospective dismay, that unpleasant tone in my own voice. In the way that skepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact, that, deluded or not, supporters of superstitions and pseudoscience are human-beings with real beliefs, who, like the skeptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.
6

Note that Sagans criticism was in every meaningful way identical to the arguments of Phil Plaits DBAD speech. Sagan wrote,
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (7 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

And yet, the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Themthe sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if youre sensible, youll listen to us; and if not, youre beyond redemption. This is unconstructive. It does not get the message across. It condemns the skeptics to permanent minority status; whereas, a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted.
7

Good Old Common Sense

1992

Its sometimes said that skepticism has no handbook; but skeptical investigation, at least, has more than one. These include Missing Pieces How to Investigate Ghosts, UFOs, Psychics, & Other Mysteries, by

Robert Baker and Joe Nickell; and, Ben Radfords recent Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries. As a practical guide, Nickell and Bakers 1992 book is of course packed with practical advice. Empathy and courtesy are emphasized throughout as best practices. This passage (under the section heading Some Ethical Issues) is particularly blunt. You can avoid ethical dilemmas most of the time by using your good old common sense and good judgement. If you would do more harm to people by ridiculing their religious beliefs than by allowing them to keep them and yet help them solve their immediate problem, you leave their beliefs alone and help them solve their pressing problem. This is the only ethical thing to do. Zealotry, whether on the part of a skeptic or on the part of a psychic is equally deplorable.
8

Nor was restraint simply a matter of compassion, according to Missing Pieces, but of responsibility.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (8 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

Unfortunately, many times in the years past zealous skeptics have often displayed more emotion than logic, made sweeping charges that the evidence failed to support, failed to document their assertions, and generally did not do what was necessary to make their challenges credible. Such ill-considered criticism can do much more harm than good.
9

Their advice? Follow the steps outlined by psychologist Ray Hyman in his article Proper Criticism (which well come to shortly)especially the principle of charity.

Not to Scorn Human Actions, But to Understand Them

1992

Founded in 1992, Skeptic magazine was inspired by the example of Carl Saganand its

been an explicitly tone-conscious project since day one. Michael Shermer is wellknown for his exploration of why smart people believe weird things (a theme he takes up once again his 2011 book The Believing Brain); its no surprise that he and Pat Linse decided to promote this Spinoza maxim as the message at the heart of the Skeptics Society:
Skeptic Vol. 4, No. 4: tribute issue

I have made a ceaseless effort not to

remembering Carl Sagan's life in skepticism

ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them. Reflecting on this motto, Skeptic co-publisher Pat Linse recalls, When I worked a cash register, one of the best indications that I was
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (9 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

about to be handed a bad check was an aggressive attitude on the part of the customer. Its the same with a discussion. One of the best indicators of a weak argument is aggression on the part of the person making it.
10

Moreover, as Michael Shermer emphasizes, If you start off a conversation with people by telling them that their most cherished and committed beliefs are utter nonsense and bullshit you have just ended the conversation before it even beganand shut the door to any further communication about the virtues of skepticism.
11

These sentiments are built into his lectures, but it isnt just talk. Shermer has held fast to the calm, truth-seeking approach even in the face of enormous pressure, and even when his temptation might have been to judge first, and understand later. On March 14, 1994, Shermer appeared on The Phil Donahue Show (a ratings powerhouse that pioneered the daytime talk genre later dominated by Oprah) to refute the claims of Holocaust deniers Bradley Smith and David Cole. (Video.) Shermer recalled what transpired during a commercial break between debate segments: Thinking that I had done fairly well in analyzing the methodologies of the deniers, I was comfortably awaiting the next segment when the producer came running over to me. Shermer, what are you doing? What are you doing? You need to be more aggressive. My boss is furious. Come on! I was shocked. Apparently either Donahue thought the Holocaust deniers could be refuted in a matter of minutes, or he was hoping I would just call them antisemites as he did and be done with it.
12

Shermer certainly defended legitimate history, and he critiqued the revisionists arguments; but, he did not veer off into personal attacks. Instead, he actually agreed on
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (10 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

camera with some of the claims made by the Holocaust deniersbecause those particular claims happened to be true. Any guesses to whether he enjoyed being in that position? The answer is that it doesnt matter: Shermers a skeptic and historian. The truth is supposed to come first. Researching for their 2000 book Denying History, co-authors Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman rejected professional criticisms that it was improper for them to have cordial meetings with Holocaust deniers. When dealing with the claims of the Holocaust deniers, we believe it is not enough to be ivory-tower academics, attempting to achieve objectivity with distance, when the individuals who make these claims are friendly, eager to talk, and merely a phone call or plane ride away. Primary sources are the most important tool of the historian, and what could be more primary in writing a book about Holocaust denial than meeting the deniers themselves, seeing their offices, asking them questions, reading their literature, and, in general, trying to get inside their minds?
13

This is a little-appreciated aspect to the issue of tone: the research advantage of collegiality. When skeptics treat opponents with courtesy, we are better positioned to acquire the understanding we need to be well-informed and effective critics.
14

During

Shermers Donahue adventure, the host soon found himself in over his head because he lacked specific expertise about Holocaust revisionism. This can easily happen to skeptics who decline to have conversations across deep, deep ideological divides.

The Darker Side of Ridicule

Critics often frame civility debates as a dichotomy: exercise restraint, or be honest. But skeptics long ago learned that the choice is just as often between honest restraint and making stuff up. That is, incivility sometimes goes hand in hand with exaggeration,
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (11 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

factual inaccuracy, and legal liability. (Consider such common skeptical phrases as Hes a fraud. Its always insulting, but its only occasionally true.)

1991

Skeptic Jim Lippard tackled this in his 1991 article How Not To Argue With Creationists, published in the National Center for Science Educations journal Creation/Evolution. According to Lippard,

opponents of creationism in Australia have engaged in tactics that have led to public apologies to creationists by radio and print media, criticism by other creationism opponents, and even legal action. He provided several detailed case studies, which I urge skeptics to read. For example, Lippard was critical of what he called the false statements of Ian Plimer, who was among the most scathing opponents of creationism. (Plimer is best known to skeptics today for his intensely disputed attacks against climate science.) Lippard cited cases in which Plimer made serious allegations about financial wrongdoing on the part of creationist organizationsallegations for which the Australian Broadcasting Company and the journal Media Information Australia
15

later apologized.

Lippard also quoted from a letter in which Plimer wrote of an entourage of young people (principally boys) accompanying [creationist Duane] Gish and who continually touched him. This is commensurate with testimony from elsewhere which throws enlightenment on Gishs personal life and which makes Jimmy Swaggart look like a moral guardian of the faith. Lippard concluded that this allegation was unsupported ad hominem innuendo. (Gish himself called it an outrageous slanderous falsehood, saying I defy Plimer to produce one iota of evidence to support the above accusation.) Note that Lippards arguments for a more careful style of debate and dispute were pragmatic: Ian Plimer and others have defended his style on the grounds that creationism is a political rather than scientific movement. It is my impression that they think it must be stopped at any cost, by almost any means available. While the heavy-handed style might convince some people that creationism is ridiculous and not worth serious consideration by scientists, misrepresentations are bound to come to
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (12 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

light (as they have). When they do, all of the short-term gains and more are lost. We must not lose sight of the fact that no matter how silly creationism looks from an informed perspective, those who adhere to it are human beings. Ridicule and abuse simply confirm their suspicions about evil conspiratorial evolutionists who are out to suppress the creationist viewpoint.
16

Lippard was not, incidentally, the first science advocate to express concern about Plimers approach. In 1989, David Suzuki used Plimer as an example for his criticism that some evolutionists have become zealots in their pursuit of truth, as rancorous as their targets.
17

Looking back, Lippard offered a simple conclusion: opponents of creationism should not use the same tactics that creationists often use; they should be careful, honest, and accurate. (Its not directly related, but Plimer later took his battle against creationism to court and reportedly wound up with an order to pay half a million dollars in court costs.)

Proper Criticism

1987

This brings us to what may be the most concise and valuable argument for skeptical restraint

ever advanced: a 1987 article entitled Proper Criticism, written by psychologist Ray Hyman (another CSICOP founder). According to CSI Executive Director Barry Karr, Hymans Proper Criticism is probably the most reprinted and widely disseminated item to ever appear in the Skeptical Inquirer or Skeptical Briefs, being
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (13 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

widely adopted and reprinted by skeptical organizations across the United Statesand worldwide.
18

Proper Criticism came at the end of the skeptical movements infancy, after a decade spent learning the hard lesson that, as Hyman put it, the critics task, if it is to be carried out properly, is both challenging and loaded with unanticipated hazards. What hazards? Lawsuits were on Hymans list (not unreasonably: James Randi and CSICOP soon wound up facing a $15-million dollar defamation suitan ever-present threat that can bring skeptics to ruin today). Wastefulness was another: During CSICOPs first decade of existence, members of the Executive Council often found themselves devoting most of their available time to
Psychologist Ray Hyman, 2003. Photo by Rouven Schfer; provided by Barry

Karr damage controlprecipitated by the careless remarks of fellow skeptics

instead of toward the common cause of explaining the skeptical agenda.

19

But Hyman was most concerned about integrity. We can make enormous improvements in our collective and individual efforts by simply trying to adhere to those standards that we profess to admire and that we believe that many peddlers of the paranormal violate. If we envision ourselves as the champions of rationality, science, and objectivity, then we ought to display these very same qualities in our criticism. Just by trying to speak and write in the spirit of precision, science, logic, and rationalitywe would raise the quality of our critiques by at least one order of magnitude. Hyman had concrete suggestions about how to accomplish this, discussed under these subheadings: 1. Be prepared. 2. Clarify your objectives.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (14 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

3. Do your homework. 4. Do not go beyond your level of competence. 5. Let the facts speak for themselves. 6. Be precise. 7. Use the principle of charity. 8. Avoid loaded words and sensationalism. (Youll notice that this quarter-century-old list covers the exact same ground as the two most challenging speeches at 2010s TAM8 conference: Plaits DBAD speech, and Massimo Pigliuccis warning to skeptics about the hubris of opining outside our expertise.) Of these principles, Hyman anticipated that the principle of charity might be the most controversial. I know that many of my fellow critics will find this principle to be unpalatable. To some, the paranormalists are the enemy, and it seems inconsistent to lean over backward to give them the benefit of the doubt. But being charitable to paranormal claims is simply the other side of being honest and fair. This is functionally equivalent to Steven Novellas fair engagement or Wikipedias Assume good faith: do make a genuine effort to understand your opponents best case, and engage with that; dont assume wicked motives that arent in evidence. As Hyman went on, We often can challenge the accuracy or validity of a given paranormal claim. But rarely are we in a position to know if the claimant is deliberately lying or is self-deceived. Furthermore, we often have a choice in how to interpret or represent an opponents arguments. The principle tell us to convey the opponents position in a fair, objective, and non-emotional manner.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (15 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

This, says Barry Karr, provides a necessary reminder that we are in the business of examining claims and criticizing ideas, not the person. Yes, we can be firm in our objections, but above all we must be fair and honest in our approach. CSIs Executive Council continues to wrestle with thorny ethical issues, in which Hyman and his thinking remain guiding lights. As Kendrick Frazier (Editor of the Skeptical Inquirer for the past 34 years) explains, Proper Criticism is and has been a leading ethical and strategic guide for skeptics. It is important especially for the new generation of skeptics to read and heed it. It gives a sense of the disputes older skeptics have gone through, how to avoid them, and, most important, how to be effective.
20

An Early Schism

1977

Sociologist Marcello Truzzi was a founding member of CSICOP (indeed, CSICOP was built on top

of a fledgling group Truzzi started in 1975), and the first Editor of its journal, The Zetetic (now called Skeptical Inquirer). He resigned that role after only two issues over differences of principleincluding the linked issues of tone and open-mindedness. Commenting on Truzzis resignation, the journal Science summed up the disagreement: There is thus a spectrum of opinion on the committee between those who tend to favor a harder-line, debunking
Truzzi was the original Editor of The Zetetic, which was retitled Skeptical Inquirer for its third issue.

treatment of the paranormal and those who tend toward a skeptical but open-minded assessment of paranormal claims. The debunkers
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (16 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

wish to deploy the full power of the scientific method against paranormal beliefs; the skeptics consider that such prejudgment of paranormal claims is as unscientific as some of the claims may be themselves.
21

Ray Hyman is quoted in this same Science article, expressing a sentiment that foreshadows his Proper Criticism article of 10 years later: People with a background in magictend to see this as a crusade for peoples minds, in which we should fight fire with fire, and not get too subtle or scholarly or we will lose by default. I believe we would be more effective by being more scholarly and building up our credibility. Truzzi went on to write decades of critiques of organized skepticism, and landed some palpable hits. (His 1987 article On Pseudo-Skepticism is essentially identical in content to my recent Climbing Heinleins Hill). Still, I remain unpersuaded by his general disdain for CSICOP-style skepticism. A devils advocate, after all, tells only half of any story. Either way, Truzzi was a pivotal figure in creating the English-speaking skeptics movement: he helped create the first North American skeptical groups; he was the original Editor of the first North American skeptics publication; and, he is credited with coining the phase An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof (most famous in the modified form later used by Sagan, though the sentiment predates both).
22

And there at the very beginning: a battle over tone.

Unwept, Unhonoured, and Unsung

1838

And yet, skepticisms tone arguments predate even the founding of the first skeptical organizations. They predate television, airplanes, and electric light bulbs.

Long before the invention of Bigfoot, or flying saucers, or chiropractic, or spiritualism, or psychical research, skeptics were making impassioned appeals to
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (17 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

other skeptics about tone. Ill close today with a lengthy quote from the 1838 book Humbugs of New York. It really says it all. Unhappily, however, those who have buckled on the armour against the follies of the times, have been often unwise and indiscreet in the character and spirit of their measures. Disgusted by the stupidity of the victims of delusion, and provoked by their obstinate adhesion to error, they have assailed them personally, instead of attacking the false philosophy and pseudo-philanthropy by which they have been imposed upon; and thus they have made a show of intolerance which has been fatal to their success. Persecution only serves to propagate new theories, whether of philosophy or religion, as the history of the world demonstrates; and this it has never failed to do, whether those theories were true or false. They acquire fresh vigour under the blows of intolerance, and like vivacious insects seem to multiply by dissection. Hence, every attempt to put down impostors, or enthusiasts, by censoriousness and invective, directed against them personally, because of their follies or their crimes, has ever been unsuccessful. They are themselves so sensible that opposition of this kind promotes their cause, that they desire, invite, and even provoke it. Indeed some of the popular follies of the times are indebted solely to the real or alleged persecutions they have suffered, not only for the number of their votaries, but even for their present existence; and but for this they would long since have descended to the tomb of the capulets, unwept, unhonoured, and unsung.
23

References
1. Plait borrowed the dont be a dick phrase from an existing internet maxim,
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (18 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

Wheatons Law, and included it near the end of his speech as a rhetorical flourish. His argument could have been made without it (as, indeed, Carl Sagan did in 1996). Was it predictable that Phils calling us dicks! would come to dominate the discussion, in many cases pushing Plaits arguments aside? Probably. Its unfortunate that this was the result, but it actually goes to Plaits point. When people feel insulted, the insult becomes the discussion. 2. See (among others) my posts Horse-Laughs, the Rapture, and Ticking Bombs; Skeptics as Model Train Lovers (Part II); The Reasonableness of Weird Things; or, Bring on the Science of Honey and Vinegar. 3. Im not just a member of the New Age community, McLaren emphasized. Ive also been a purveyor of the very things the skeptical community is so concerned about. Ive been involved in metaphysics and the New Age for over thirty years, Ive written four books and recorded five audio learning sets in the genre, and I was considered one of the leaders in the field. Her earlier books include such titles as Your Aura & Your Chakras: The Owners Manual. (Her recent book The Language of Emotions emphasizes social science while continuing in a self-help vein.) Much has been made about her journey to skepticism, but its her insight into the New Age culture that is useful to this tone discussion. 4. As Michael Shermer notes in his post The Demographics of Belief, Although the specific percentages of belief in the supernatural and the paranormal across countries and decades varies slightly, the numbers remain fairly consistent that the majority of people hold some form of paranormal or supernatural belief. 5. Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World. (Random House: New York, 1996.) p. 302 6. ibid. p. 297298 7. ibid. p. 300 8. Baker, Robert and Joe Nickell. Missing Pieces: How to Investigate Ghosts, UFOs, Psychics, & Other Mysteries. (Prometheus Books: Buffalo, New York, 1992.) p. 298 9. ibid. p. 286. This passage is borrowed with little modification from the Ray Hyman article they were discussing.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (19 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

10. Personal communication from Pat Linse. June 16, 2011 11. Personal communication from Michael Shermer. June 20, 2011 12. Shermer, Michael. Why People Believe Weird Things. (W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, 1997.) p. 179 13. Shermer, Michael, and Alex Grobman. Denying History. (University of California Press: California, 2002.) p. 2 14. Skepticisms classic case is the pleasant acquaintance between Harry Houdini (a relentless debunker of spirit mediums) and Ira Davenport (the surviving half of The Davenport Brothers, who were superstar pioneers of spirit mediumship). Davenport revealed to Houdini much of historical value concerning the brothers which has never appeared in printwhich is to say, exactly how they did it. While all previous accounts of the brothers had been vague, speculative, lacking in knowledge, Houdini was the only investigator to get Iras open hearted confession. Houdini, Harry. A Magician Among the Spirits. (Fredonia Books: Amsterdam, 2002.) p. 1737 15. Apology to Creation Science Foundation Ltd. Media Information Australia. No. 55. February 1990. p. 64. Media Information Australia wish to advise that the views and allegations contained in the above article are those of Professor Plimer and are not adopted or shared by the Australian Film, Television & Radio School, its officers, servants and agents or the editors and others involved with the publication of Media lnformation Australia. Any harm that has been suffered by the Creation Science Foundation Ltd and its Directors and other officers and members and Duane T Gish is apologized for and regretted. 16. Lippard, Jim. How Not to Argue With Creationists. Creation / Evolution. Vol. 11, No. 2 (Winter 19911992.) p. 921.Full issue PDF. Retrieved June 11, 2011. 17. Suzuki, David. Creationism Flourishes in North America. The Lethbridge Herald, Dec 16, 1989. p. 6 18. Personal communication from Barry Karr. June 20, 2011 19. Hyman, Ray. Proper Criticism. Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 25, No. 4. July / August 2001. p. 5355.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (20 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

20. Personal communication from Kendrick Frazier. June 20, 2011 21. Wade, Nicholas. Schism Among Psychic-Watchers. Science 197. 1977. p. 1344 22. Earlier articulations of this sentiment also exist; notably, David Humes maxim, A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (Open Court Publishing Company: Peru, illinois, 1993.) p. 144 23. Reese, David Meredith. Humbugs of New York: being a remonstrance against popular delusion. (New York: 1838.) p. 1416.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-06-22/ (21 of 21) [2011-06-22 10:01:30]