James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
This three-part series on radical skepticism and the rise of conspiratorial thinking about science, by Daniel Engber, in Slate, is required reading for anyone interested in the role of skepticism in science and society. It's called "The Paranoid Style in American Science."
Here's the concluding paragraph to the second of the three parts. But it's not the money quote. For that, you'll have to read the whole thing.
It's no surprise that suspicion of science has grown distended in recent years and now looks a bit like paranoia. Each new uncertainty campaign further degrades our faith in science and softens us up for the next one. The doubt-mongers tend to divide and proliferate. Skepticism breeds more skepticism.Tip of the hat to the Daily Transcript.
Comments
I thought this was the money quote:
At my blog I titled the post in which I linked to this article "Psuedo-doubt is the product of pseudo-skeptics."
Posted by: Hume's ghost | April 21, 2008 4:14 PM
Now here's something you'll really like!
Dee Snider from Twisted Sister:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY1eCl5vBWE
It all gets down to them telling the rest of us how to think. Well, we aint gonna take it any more!
Posted by: PGosselin | April 21, 2008 4:19 PM
Yes, skepticism, as a cognitive attitude, is susceptible to corrupting influences, and the result might well be called 'pseudo-skepticism.' But real skepticism is not particularly friendly toward the products of science, even if it is an essential ingredient in the process of science. When presented with some product of science (a theory, a hypothesis, an explanation, etc.), skepticism counsels against either affirmation or denial. Tentative acceptance or rejection is as far as a consistent skepticism can take us.
Posted by: bob koepp | April 21, 2008 7:19 PM
"When presented with some product of science (a theory, a hypothesis, an explanation, etc.), skepticism counsels against either affirmation or denial. Tentative acceptance or rejection is as far as a consistent skepticism can take us"
What is the real world difference between "tentative acceptance" and "acceptance"? I am skeptical of this kind of Skepticism. If you "tentatively accept" something, you accept it with the possibility that you might change your mind later, but if you "accept something " it is the same. If you have to make a decision based on such a thing, you would still go with the acceptance. If not you don't accept it. If you can never change your mind, then you have faith in something.
Posted by: Markk | April 23, 2008 11:01 AM
Markk - OK, I fudged about "how far" a consistent skepticism can take us. To be more precise, I should have said that it might be possible for a skeptic to tentatively accept/reject a thesis -- it would depend on whether the skepticism was local or global.
As far as the "real world difference" between tentative x and x, it's obviously going to depend on what you pack into the notion of 'tentativeness.'
Posted by: bob koepp | April 23, 2008 5:27 PM