Read this now

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.

More like this

Slate has a series of three articles on what editor Daniel Engber refers to as "the paranoid style". Starting with A crank's progress, sliding into a review of Doubt is their product, and finishing with a spot-on review of Expelled he runs the guantlet of modern denialism. He also happens to hit…
Thanks to Alex Palazzo for alerting me to the article The Paranoid Style in American Science by Daniel Engber of Slate. This is a three-part series on radical skepticism and the rise of conspiratorial thinking about science. Unfortunately it is all too familiar. As Alex notes, the series discusses…
Doubt is Their Product is the focus of the second piece in a three-part series by Slateâs Daniel Engber on âradical skepticism and the rise of conspiratorial thinking about science.â After describing the strategy of manufacturing doubt, from its tobacco-industry roots to its use by energy and drug…
They announced rain today - instead it is sunny, warm and ... a perfect distraction. Since I haven't yet decamped for lab and am waiting for my wife to shower so that we can have a short picnic by the river before i head out to work, I'll just leave you a few links to some VERY interesting and…

I thought this was the money quote:

What makes this mode of thinking so effectiveand so prevalent? Like David Berlinski, the doubt-mongers swear by the foundational motto of organized science, first pronounced by the Royal Society of London in 1663: Nullius in verba, "on no man's word." They show a deep commitment to the evidentiary record, always testing the established theories and demanding more data; they attempt to undermine science from within, by aping its vaunted incredulity. But in practice their contrarian mode amounts to something like the opposite of sciencea tireless search for nonanswers, a quest for the null hypothesis.

At my blog I titled the post in which I linked to this article "Psuedo-doubt is the product of pseudo-skeptics."

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.

By bob koepp (not verified) on 21 Apr 2008 #permalink

"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.

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.'

By bob koepp (not verified) on 23 Apr 2008 #permalink