Denialism: Skepticism isn’t a river in Egypt

I’ve had some discussions about science online. I even managed to find some intelligent people to debate with. However, these discussions have caused me to lose faith in human reason. I’ve come to realize that even intelligent people aren’t necessarily well-informed, aren’t necessarily open-minded about other people’s views, aren’t necessarily critical-minded about their own assumptions… nor necessarily desire to be so.

I find myself in an odd position. I’m not a fan of scientific materialism. I don’t claim science is perfect or that it has everything figured out, but the skepticism of many people I’ve met online verges on Nihilism or Pyrrhonism… but, despite this attitude of radical doubt, what makes it particularly irrational is that it’s selective. This selective mistrust falls apart under scrutiny. Part of the reason it falls apart is because of the narrowness of this skepticism. These people are skeptical of everything they disagree with, but oddly completely trusting in everything they agree with. That isn’t true skepticism. I don’t trust anything even when or especially when I agree with it. I think skepticism should even be turned towards our own biases, and skepticism should particularly be turned towards our use of skepticism. 

Some of these people are rightly called Denialists because any evidence I bring up they find a way to dismiss. They don’t need any evidence themselves because from their view all scientific evidence is suspect. They just have a vague intuition. They’ve heard one critical scientist or some other supposed expert and they assume that somehow disproves all of the science. Don’t they realize all science is skeptical. The skepticism of a few scientists doesn’t disprove the consensus of the majority. It’s important to consider the 3% of climatologists who don’t support Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), but it’s even more important to consider the 97% of active climatology researchers who do support it. A recent IPCC report was shown to have a couple of mistakes. The critics argue that these few minor mistakes (one being a typo) disprove a report that is thousands of pages long and which was contributed to by hundreds of scientists.

One recent discussion, I was able to get the skeptic to agree that maybe just maybe 97% of active climatology researchers support AGW. But he still thought the scientists were biased. I pointed out that these scientists work in different organizations in different countries with funding from many sources. But he still thought the scientists were biased. This is basically a conspiracy theory mindset. No matter what evidence is provided, there is always a reason it can’t be trusted. It’s not that they can’t sometimes bring up a few facts here and there (some connection involving financing or whatever), but the facts they use is very selective.

To counter my conspiracy theory allegation, one person denied this by saying it was more like something that got started and then all the climatologists jumped on. This person couldn’t explain how something just gets started and why climatologists would risk their entire careers to join in on this non-conspiracy conspiracy. For example, climatologists get no payment for submitting research to the IPCC. Climatologists don’t get wealthy off of their research and so what would they get out of deceiving the public? Many of these skeptics argue that the government is intentionally biasing research by which research they fund, but scientists get their funding from non-government organizations as well. One skeptic argued that climatology researchers who propose disaster scenarios will get more funding because the government will want to fund research that might help avoid disasters. That might be true to an extent, but scientists are doing research about all kinds of things. If something doesn’t prove true or potentially true, then it loses funding. Why would the government fund and why would 97% of researchers support a theory that had absolutely no evidence in support of it? It’s simply absurd to make such a claim.

I’m fine with being skeptical in terms of using good critical thinking skills, but Denialism goes way beyond that. The skeptic who I managed to get to grudgingly agree that the 97% might be true wouldn’t even admit to slight doubt about his own position. I admitted to him that there were skeptical scientists and that these skeptics played a valid role in the scientific method, but he wouldn’t return the favor by admitting that scientific consensus also plays a valid role. The only reason he held to his position is because he had his mind made up before the debate started. He didn’t care what scientists think or what scientific research concludes. He only mentioned scientists when they agreed with him. He was merely using the minority of scientific skeptics to outright deny the majority of scientific supporters, but he didn’t really care what any of these scientists said. It was just convenient that some scientists happened to agree with him on this issue.

What he refused to understand is that skepticism goes both ways (or rather goes many directions). Yes, the 3% are skeptical of the 97% consensus, but the 97% are also skeptical of the 3%. Furthermore, even within the 97% there are those who are skeptical because they think the mainstream doesn’t go far enough in support of AGW. Scientific institutions such as the IPCC are very conservative. These institutions represent the consensus, represent the slow and conservative process of the scientific method, represents decades of  peer-reviewed research. There are scientists with all kinds of opinions outside of the consensus, but it would be utterly stupid to base public policies on the minority of scientists rather than on the consensus. In the past, there wasn’t a consensus about AGW, but then the data changed and so through painstaking discussion a consensus developed. That is quite significant.

Michael Specter makes a very good point at the beginning of that video. He says there are two topics he doesn’t discuss: Creationism and Global Warming. If someone believe humans and dinosaurs co-existed, then there is absolutely no basis for a rational discussion. If someone dismisses the mountain of data on climate change, then one more intelligent presentation of the data will be pointless. I probably should follow his example. I’m sure I’d be happier if I didn’t waste my time with these extreme representatives of denialism.

I’ve written about all of this before. There is a long history to my irritation towards rampant irrationality, anti-intellectualism, ideological rhetoric, apologetics, and general ignorance.

Climategate, Science Funding, Public Ignorance
Online Debates: Ideology, Education & Psychology
Denialism & Anti-intellectualism (AGW)
Uncommon Talents: Research & Critical Thinking
Liberal Facts vs Conservative Ideology
Head in the Sand Syndrome
Climate Change, Scandalous E-mails, and Wendell Berry
Denialism: Science and Public Debate
Righteousness: Ignorance and Inauthenticity
What is Intellectuality?
Intelligence & Curiosity
Lies and Truth: why care?
Reality and Rationality: a discussion
Debate b/t Religion and Science: Theists, Atheists, Agnostics, Integralists
Love of Truth: Discussing vs Arguing
Re: All Evidence to the Contrary
NT Scholarship and Discussions: limits, failings
The Love of Truth vs. the Sophistry of Apologetics

Considering I’ve already written so many posts along these lines, what does this post add? I don’t know. I’m just continually frustrated and just need to vent. But there is one thing that was new on my mind.

I was recently reading Charles Fort… now, he is a real skeptic. He is an important example because he was very critical of science, but why I respect him is because he was critical of everything. Fort wasn’t an anti-intellectual. My respect for him, though, goes beyond just his equal opportunity skepticism. Fort didn’t just doubt for his doubt was motivated by wonder. He wasn’t denying for the sake of playing Devil’s Advocate and he certainly wasn’t denying other view points in defense of a Sacred Cow. He was truly curious and he followed the facts. His skepticism was more about interpretations than the facts themselves.

Fort is my kind of thinker. I put him in the same category as John Keel, Jacques Vallee, Robert Anton Wilson, John C. Lilly, Terrence McKenna, William S. Burroughs, and Philip K. Dick. These people thought outside of the box which sometimes means questioning mainstream science but more than anything it means using critical thinking skills and being independent-minded.

I’m not sure what any of them would think about Global Warming. They’re all dead now. Fort died before the really amazing advances of modern science. I too probably would’ve been more skeptical of science if I lived when he did. It’s possible that Fort or any of these others might’ve had doubts about Global Warming. I too have doubts. Any intelligent person has doubts. But I imagine that, even if these thinkers were skeptical of climate change, I still wouldn’t be irritated whether or not I agreed with their assessment. The reason I say this is because all of these people seemed to have been true skeptics rather than denialists.

From my perspective, denialism seems like a defensive attitude motivated by fear and uncertainty. Scientists are saying the world is changing. Science is about true skepticism. So, what are the denialists trying to defend? I see a number of possibilities. Some might be defending the status quo. People like the lifestyle they’ve become accustomed to and they don’t want to consider the possibility that their lifestyle isn’t sustainable. Similarly, some are just afraid of the unknown. The paranoia of the conspiracy mindset is motivated by this kind of fear. There is this sense of an invisible or elusive enemy whether scientists, liberal elite, one world order, the anti-Christ, or whatever. Another possibility is that some people might be defending against complexity. In a global world, life is no longer simple. The easy answers of the past no longer seem to work. Society seems to be breaking down. The environment may be more precarious than we previously thought. It’s a scary world.

From a psychological perspective, denialism is understandable… but that is all the more reason we shouldn’t ignore the denialists and dismiss them as merely ignorant. Denialists aren’t necessarily stupid, but many of them do seem to at least lack critical thinking skills. I think our education system has failed… as have many things in our society (politics, corporations, communities, etc). I think we need to try to understand this from a larger perspective that can include all of the diverse pieces. I don’t know what the answer is, but I wish curiosity (especially intellectual curiosity) were promoted more in our society. It depresses me that people seem more motivated by ideology than by a love of knowledge.

That is the issue I’m personally dealing with. I’ve met many intelligent people online, but I’ve come to realize that a deep sense of open-minded curiosity is a rare thing. Maybe I shouldn’t be so critical of the failings of others… no doubt I have failings of my own. If even intelligent people can fall into the trap of denialism, then maybe a more compassionate and understanding response is required.

If people are this afraid of the world (of the government, of the elites, of modern life in general), then throwing facts at them isn’t likely to lessen their fears. They sense something is wrong with the world and they’re trying to understand the cause. I agree that there is a lot wrong. How can I blame them for looking for an easy answer? By creating an enemy that can be fought, the world can feel safer. Someone like Glenn Beck may be more of a symptom than a cause of this collective sense of fear. Of course, he wants to blame Obama, the socialists, and the liberal elite. Of course, people want some single thing to be the problem (statism, socialism, fascism, etc) or some combination of problems held together by that singular sense of fear.

Even some environmental alarmists get pulled into this overwhelming sense of fear. It can be found in all sectors of society. I guess that is why I think science is so important. The purpose of the scientific method is to filter out the biases, the assumptions, the emotions. The scientific method isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best things we’ve got going for us. If we can’t trust science, then we can’t trust anything and we are just fucked. If we can’t trust human reason, if fear is greater than hope, if denialism is greater than the wonder we’re born with, then we might as well just give up right now. We have to be willing to face our fears, both personal and collective… and that is the hardest thing to do. The world is a scary place. There are no easy answers. But what is clear is that knowledge is better than ignorance… even imperfect, partial knowledge is better than ignorance.

13 thoughts on “Denialism: Skepticism isn’t a river in Egypt

  1. People denying basic facts and reason without evidence… scare me too. I tend to believe that reason/intelligence/mind is generally only a means to an end, and not something they enjoy exercising unless they must… Whats my point? People don’t enjoy thinking, its not an end in itself, its a means to an end… Most are comfortable knowing that they are part of a society large enough that their needs are probably going to be met and they do not have to reinvent the wheel, so they remain uninspired to really question/think…

    The mind is a tool, and so long as its not important to learn how to use the tool properly, people wont. Ben, you just need a following. People don’t want to think. Of course, to get a following you need a theme, the louder and more exciting the better. 🙂 Are you published? Maybe you should be.

    • Maybe you’re right. Most people probably don’t enjoy thinking for the sake of thinking. I guess I don’t think of it in terms of enjoyment necessarily. I personally do enjoy thinking, but even if without the factor of enjoyment thinking seems to have value in and of itself.

      I view thinking as being central because higher thinking skills are more or less unique to the human species. The ability to think critically is one of the most impressive abilities humans possess. Anyone of moderate intelligence isn’t entirely lacking the potential for critical thinking.

      I sense that you’re stating in a different way what I was writing about. Thinking is a means to an end. Maybe I don’t enjoy thinking in a direct sense, but instead enjoy thinking because of the end it achieves. I was concluding my post with that message implied. I probably should’ve stated it more strongly.

      I would add to that. It’s not just the end… because the end is predicated on the beginning. If one begins with wonder and curiosity, one’s thinking will lead to further wonder and curiosity. And if one begins with fear and cynicism…

      A following you say!?! Well, I don’t know about that. I wouldn’t know what to do with a following. If I had a following, they might end up following me over a cliff. lol

      It’s interesting that you bring up the idea of a theme. I was just thinking about this issue. My blog can seem a bit unfocused. I never intended it to be focused. It started off as merely a place to put down my thoughts… and my thoughts tend to meander.

      My mind, however, does have a theme or a constellation of themes. This is implicitly expressed in my writing, but my blog isn’t focused on a particular theme in a limited, focused kind of way. The implicit theme of my mind and blog is something along the lines of curiosity. I’m led by my curiosity and curiosity even comes up on occasion as a topic unto itself.

      So, if there is a theme in my writing, it’s more to be found in my style and my attitude. As an INFP, scatterbrained thinking isn’t uncommon. But I learned my thinking and writing skills from my dad who has a more linear, methodical mind. The ‘theme’ of my blog is the struggle between these two aspects of my identity.

      No, I’m not published. I’ve considered the possibility that the means of my thinking via my writing could lead to the end of being published, but such aspirations are limited. I’m a bit lazy. For example, this post needs some editing. In order for it to be of a quality worthy of publishing, it would need to be rewritten several times.

      I’m more of an inspiration kinda guy. I write what interests me, what gets caught in my craw. To go beyond mere inspiration, I’d have to put real effort into my writing… and then it might not be so much fun. Now, we wouldn’t want to take away my fun, would we? 🙂

      I appreciate the compliment, though.

      Are you a writer yourself? Or rather do you identify as a writer? Do you desire to be published, to have a following? I identify as a writer, but my aspirations are limited by my apathy.

      By the way, if you want to read a high quality blog written by a published writer, I’d recommend checking out the blog Directory of Lost Causes by Quentin S. Crisp. Crisp doesn’t always focus on the same topics that I do, but he does have a similar mindset. It’s the only blog I visit on a regular basis.

    • For some reason, I didn’t initially make the connection of LRT to Loverainthunder. I’m not used to recognizing you by your first name. I was responding to you as if you were a stranger. My bad. lol

  2. Agree, skepticism must be turned towards skepticism itself.

    Don’t go all ‘long time no see’ on me man. But truly, it’s been long since our last chat. See, you’re still on your thorough analysis of subjects. Nice.

    I have to ask something: when people from outside wordpress comment, are they listed as spam? I can’t understand, some spam is deleted and some other is left for me to consider. Can you help?

    • Hello

      I actually haven’t been all that inspired to post on my blog recently. I posted this just because I was feeling frustrated about the topic and the level of discussion that surrounds it.

      It’s been a while since I’ve looked at the spam function in detail. When someone outside of wordpress posts a comment, they’re listed in spam until you change their status. But I don’t remember if there are different settings for that function. Most of the wordpress functions can be changed to some extent.

      I haven’t noticed any spam being deleted in my account. How do you know comments are getting deleted? If comments are getting deleted in my account without my permission, I probably wouldn’t know because deleted comments just disappear.

      Are you having problems? Are there people trying to comment on your blog but unable?

  3. Hi Ben,

    I was just talking to another dear friend Ben from Gaia, so it made me remember that I haven’t talked to you in too long.

    This is very frustrating, and I am sure much more so for you than myself, as you are so much more curious and open-ended in your approach to everything, so denialists are more of a challenge.

    • Hello Nicole,

      I haven’t been to Gaia in a long time. I did check out your blog some months ago, but didn’t feel inspired to comment on anything. I haven’t been particularly social this past year.

      So, how are the Northern Lands? What is it like in Canada this time of year? We’ve had fairly warm weather this past month and the snow is all melted.

      Anything exciting going on? I just finished a Philip K. Dick novel which for me is always enjoyable even if not exactly exciting per se. The novel I finished is Counter-Clock World. It has a theological theme given a SF interpretation. It has a slightly action plot, but the focus is more on the ideas and on human nature. There is a bit of violence… nothing warped like Scanner though. I also just recently finished re-reading Culture of Make Believe by Derrick Jensen which is quite depressing, but very insightful.

      I’m not sure if I started reading Jensen again because of the whole Climategate fiasco or if it just grabbed my attention. I’ve been perusing it for many months now because it’s quite long… and I was reading other stuff at the same time. Reading Jensen magnifies my frustration. He explains the mindset that makes our culture possible and part of that involves a collective willful ignorance. Most people don’t want to know about the violence and suffering in the world, and it’s hard to convince people that they should want to know. I sometimes wish I didn’t know.

      As I so often like to say: Oh well…

  4. It’s that I’m told I’ve been protected from so-and-so number of spam but they haven’t been presented to me. Others do get presented, I didn’t get it. No one has has had problems commenting, I just was being fussy.

    • Ah, yes. I’ve noticed that… but never paid much attention to it. I get spam in my box somewhat regularly and I delete it. I always assumed that it was referring to the spam I actually get notified about. It’s possible that some spam gets automatically removed which might make sense if an account has been proven to be run by a spambot.

      If you want life to seem more exciting, you could pretend it’s a conspiracy. Maybe you have many admirers but because you speak the truth the powers that be are trying to silence you. The more I think about, I feel certain that it must be a conspiracy. Using Glenn Beck’s logic, if you remove the “p” from “spam”, you get “sam” which obviously is short for “Uncle Sam”. So, Uncle Sam, AKA United States government, has targeted you as an operative of the resistance.

      YOUR COVER IS BLOWN! Don’t go home tonight. I’m sorry to be the one to have to tell you this but you’re going to have to spend the rest of your life on the run. Have you watched the movie Bourne Supremacy? Well, it will be something like that. Good luck! Viva la resistance!

  5. Hi Ben (Marmalade),
    I used to talk to you on GAIA (which is closing down soon),
    I think there is something called healthy skepticism but each person will always see things from how they relate to the world.
    Skepticism and understanding will always come to understanding what makes truth, how one arrives at the truth.
    I read Karl Popper’s theory of Falsification (a theoretical fact that can be found false and changed, something which is not an ultimate truth) and it does relate to science but I don’t think it can be applied to psychology.
    Dom

    • Howdy Dominic,

      Yeah, I remember some discussions we had on Gaia. Sorry to hear about it closing down. I always worry about that kind of thing. It’s why I’m glad I’m on WordPress which isn’t likely to close down any time soon.

      Gaia is the second favorite site of mine to get closed down because the owners no longer wanted to run it. Internet communities are problematic in that decisions are made by the person who pays the bill. Could you imagine if cities were run that way? lol

      Thanks for giving me a heads up. I’ll spend my next day off transferring my posts from there to here.

      I’m not familiar with Karl Popper, but I know I’ve seen his ideas discussed in books I’ve read. I often think about skepticism on the level philosophy. This post, however, was more of a personal response… and an attempt to understand the personal motivations of others. But there is much more that could be said about it.

      So, Dom, what are you going to do with your blog posts from Gaia? Are you going to save them? Start a new blog? I, of course, recommend WordPress. There are some other nice blogging platforms out there as well. I noticed someone created a Gaia-related forum on Ning which is a platform that also allows for blogs.

      I must admit I’m happier having my own private blog rather than being part of a specific community. After belonging to several online communities, I became somewhat disenchanted with the concept. Most internet relationships are ephemeral, but not all.

      • Hi Ben,
        I forgot about my comment here, haha. (I needed to tick that notify me of follow-ups)
        I did save it onto a file on the computer (though i haven’t looked at them in a long time).
        How is New Thought by the way? (interesting? boring?…)

        • That is fine. I forgot your comment as well. I did remember someone having told me about Gaia closing down, but I couldn’t remember who had told me.

          I did transfer all my blogs from Gaia to WordPress. It took a lot of effort and time. It was frustrating, but I was just glad to have had the opportunity to save them. If you hadn’t told me, I might not have found out until it was too late.

          How is New Thought? I’m not sure. I don’t normally think in the overt terms of New Thought, although it forms part of the background of my thinking and my experience of life. Spirituality in general is always on my mind, but I haven’t been writing about it much. My recent blogging has mostly been focused on the confluence of psychology, demographics, public opinion, politics, and culture.

          So, what have you been up to lately? Do you still have a blog somewhere?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s