Skeptical Ethics— What Should We Investigate?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Skeptical Ethics— What Should We Investigate? Skepticism has, as one of its major motivations, a deep ethical concern about the consequences of unwarranted beliefs. This ethical concern should begin with the first stage of skepticism—deciding what most needs to be investigated. MARTIN BRIDGSTOCK SKEPTICAL INQUIRER May / June 2008 35 n early 2006, this magazine published a sincerely believe that they can find water by paranormal means. Groups such as the Australian Skeptics regularly subject dowsers trail-blazing paper by David Koepsell, a to double-blind controlled trials, which the dowsers regularly leading secular humanist. Koepsell argued fail (Australian Skeptics 2003). The dowsers then produce a I series of incoherent explanations and continue on their way as that it is time for skeptics to begin to develop before. In this kind of context, scientific principles may prove a their own ethical principles for investigation very poor guide to action. in the same way that scientists and other pro- A third problem is that Koepsell seems to see ethics as begin- ning with the process of investigation. It need not. It can begin fessional groups have done. at a much earlier point: the selection of the topic to be investi- gated. In general, selecting a topic for research is not an ethical Most skeptics seem strongly aware of the ethical dimensions issue among scientists, but it can be a crucial matter for ethical to their work. They regularly express horror at the sometimes consideration among skeptics. disastrous consequences of paranormal belief (e.g. Levi 2006; Hoyt 2004) or disgust at the blatant falsehoods peddled by psy- A Starting Point for Skeptical Ethics chics and other gurus (Wiseman and Greening 1998; Nickell A simple place to begin skeptical ethics is with the question, 2001). Occasionally, skeptics ex press concern at the conduct of “Why are people skeptics at all?” There are, of course, many other skeptics, arguing that they have breached ethical princi- answers, some of which have nothing to do with ethics (for ples (Wendell 2006; Nickell 2006). Therefore, we need to clar- example, skepticism is fascinating and fun), but two ethical ify these concerns and produce a coherent set of ethical ideas. concerns keep recurring that can provide the basis for an ethics Koepsell stresses that ethical principles have to be practical. of skepticism. They must provide guidance for skeptical investigators, not The first ethical concern is that unwarranted paranormal endless theoretical arguments about metaethics. So, he suggests, beliefs can lead to disastrous outcomes and cause suffering and we should use case studies to develop our understanding of even death to innocent people. There are many examples of ethics and base skeptical ethics upon the example of ethics in this. James Randi argued that Jim Jones had such a strong grip science. on the minds of his followers in part because they believed he Having made that decision, Koepsell plunges straight into could perform miracles (Randi 1980). This enabled Jones to the ethics of skeptical investigation. He argues for the principles lead them to an orgy of murder and self-destruction. Skeptics of equipoise (lack of bias), fidelity (commitment to the truth), often point to cases in the news where children have suffered or and informed consent by the subjects of research. He also takes died because of their parents’ preferences for “alternative” forms the view that compassion is a good guiding principle. of treatment (e.g., Hyde 2001). It is clear that a major source of Koepsell’s paper is a bold attempt to stake out some new ethical concern among skeptics is the understanding that poorly territory, but there are at least three problems with it. First, if evidenced beliefs can lead to disastrous outcomes. we completely avoid big ideas about ethics—metaethics—then The second major ethical concern was argued in the found- how do we decide what kind of ethical rules to adopt and ing days of CSICOP (now CSI, the Committee for Skeptical which rules are the most important? Koepsell favors concern Inquiry, publisher of the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER). During the for truth and compassion, but these sometimes have to be bal- 1970s, there was a great flowering of alternative lifestyles and anced against each other. For example, debunking a paranormal beliefs, many with a distinctly paranormal flavor. The founders belief may lead to truth but may also cause great distress among of the modern skeptical movement have repeatedly written believers. How do we decide which is more important unless we of their concern about these developments and their fear that delineate a general view of our ethical concerns? public understanding of science is so poor that perhaps the very The second problem with Koepsell’s approach is much sim- operation of science might be threatened by these new beliefs. pler. He wants to base skeptical ethics on scientific ethics, but This seems to have been one of the key reasons for founding the contexts are quite different. Science is mostly carried out CSICOP. For example, Paul Kurtz writes that in the 1970s, “I in laboratories and evaluated by other scientists. By contrast, was distressed that my students confused astrology with astron- skepticism operates in the community, where scientific rules omy, accepted pyramid power, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and thought are poorly understood. Therefore, the kinds of Kirlian photography, and psychic surgery without benefit of ethical dilemmas faced are likely to be quite different. An exam- a scientific critique” (2001). Later in the same paper, Kurtz ple is evident in the widespread skeptical testing of dowsers. explains why science itself cannot perform this educational For the most part, dowsers appear to be amiable people who function: “science has become overspecialized . [which is] one Martin Bridgstock is a senior lecturer in the School of Bio- reason why the scientific outlook is continuously undermined molecular and Physical Sciences at Griffith University, Queens- by antiscience and pseudoscience. [S]pecialists in one field land, Australia. He is a scientific and technical consultant to CSI may not necessarily be competent to judge claims in others. .” and in 2006 was awarded the Australian Skeptics’ prize for critical Partly for this reason, Kurtz believes that skepticism has a thinking. He can be reached at [email protected]. major role to play in a modern society which is largely ignorant of the true value and nature of scientific inquiry. 36 Volume 32, Issue 3 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Echoes from Other Thinkers simple question. Which paranormal beliefs most merit investi- It seems clear that these two ethical concerns—the disastrous gation? We all know that huge majorities of people in western effects of unwarranted beliefs and the danger of widespread societies subscribe to paranormal beliefs. Skeptics are greatly ignorance of science—form the basis of much skeptical thought. outnumbered. Therefore, it seems logical that the most skep- They are not new concerns. Martin Gardner, in his seminal tical attention should be devoted to those paranormal claims work Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (Gardner 1957, which are regarded as the most dangerous. It is here that the 6, 186–87), outlined both. Back in the nineteenth century, most impact can be made, either in terms of relieving suffering mathematician and philosopher W.K. Clifford, advocating or in terms of protecting the rational basis of modern science. an “ethics of belief,” argued that believing without adequate Koepsell’s ethical approach is set within the process of investiga- evidence is “always, everywhere and at all times wrong.” He tion and so neglects this crucial ethical question. gave two reasons. First, believing without adequate evidence What should the priorities be? Which paranormal claims was likely to lead to disasters and, second, holding unwarranted beliefs makes us more gullible and less able to distinguish truth It is horrific to learn of children dying of cancer from falsehood in the future (Clifford 1879). Clifford’s arguments went into eclipse for and malnutrition because their parents could not about a century but now appear to be distinguish well-evidenced from poorly evidenced enjoying a minor revival (Zamulinski 2002). It seems clear that skeptics have been con- claims about health. Clearly, the more skeptical cerned about the dual consequences of inad- work that can be done here, the better. equately supported belief for a long time. There are other ethical concerns that skeptics sometimes present. For example, in 2004, astronomer Philip Plait addressed the Australian Skeptics’ seem to merit investigation using these ethical criteria? I hope convention in Sydney, Australia. He resoundingly refuted the that my fellow skeptics will have thoughts on this. I offer my claims that the Apollo missions were hoaxes and told of how own as a contribution to the discussion. distressed he had felt when he learned of these accusations Judging by reports in the news, two types of belief seem to (see also, Plait 2002, 173). The Apollo moon missions were a be most dangerous and cause the most suffering. One type is staggering feat of technology and organization, and the courage belief in modern alternative medicine, which claims to be a valid of the astronauts is beyond doubt. The “Apollo Moon Hoax” substitute for mainstream treatment. Again and again, one hears claimants are seeking to deny NASA and the astronauts their of children whose parents have rejected mainstream medicine— rightful acclaim. Plait’s outrage is both understandable and with which the prognosis was good—and opted for alternative illustrates a different type of ethical concern over the injustice “cures” that have not worked (Hyde 2001; Stickley 2002). It is to NASA and the astronauts. Still, the most widespread ethical horrific to learn of children dying of cancer and malnutrition concerns are the two explained above: that unwarranted belief because their parents could not distinguish well-evidenced from can lead to appalling suffering and can endanger our best meth- poorly evidenced claims about health.