sign in sign up
<<
Home , Denialism, Skeptical Inquirer

May June pages BOX_SI new design masters 3/29/12 9:03 AM Page 37

The Trouble with Pseudoskepticism The continuing rejection of anthropogenic global warming by nonexperts despite overwhelming is rationally untenable and best described as “pseudoskeptical.” It is akin to AIDS denialism, advocacy of , and anti-vaccination movements.

LAWRENCE TORCELLO

own biases. The integrally skeptical hatever else might be argued about the nature of nature of is most evident in the science, genuine scientific research inherently in- fact that science advances through ef- volves skeptical rigor. Discrete scientific disci- forts to disprove hypotheses, even when W hope is held for their confirmation. This plines approach topics of study in ways unique to the dis- is described well by philosopher Karl cipline’s methodological needs. A paleoclimatologist Popper: cannot conduct her investigations in the same manner The point is that, whenever we pro- pose a solution to a problem, we that a pharmacological chemist working in a laboratory ought to try as hard as we can to will conduct hers. Nevertheless, science does have at least overthrow our solution, rather than defend it. Few of us, unfortunately, one reliable component: the skeptical analysis of data. To practice this precept; but other peo- ple, fortunately, will supply the criti- be studied scientifically, a hypothesis must be testable. In cism for us if we fail to supply it our- other words, science, regardless of its particular field, is a selves. Yet criticism will be fruitful only if we state our problem as clearly fundamentally skeptical endeavor involving the testing as we can and put our solution in a of hypotheses coupled with efforts to protect test results sufficiently definite form—a form in which it can be critically discussed. from confounding variables, including the researchers’ (Popper [1959] 2002, xix) May June pages BOX_SI new design masters 3/29/12 9:03 AM Page 38

When a pseudoscientist lacking expertise in a particular scientific domain makes a show of openly contradicting well-established claims of scientific consensus, as is often the case with so-called “,” the pseudoskeptical component of is made manifest.

The efforts Popper describes are re- deed, all of this is a necessary prerequi- lief in biological life, but we very well can flected in standard scientific practices, site for any findings to take on a mean- fault the investigator for so such as repeated and controlled experi- ingful level of scientific acceptance, let eagerly believing in the paranormal. Yet mentation, the publication of findings alone consensus. A scientific theory be- pseudoscientists strive to appear skeptical, only after peer-reviewed critique, and comes accepted as such only once the perhaps in part to win for themselves the requirement that such findings be laws observed, findings predicted, and some of the mandate or regard many presented openly so that other re- facts organized under that proposed people reserve for genuine . In searchers may attempt to replicate and theory have been so rigorously tested their at tempts at wearing the garb of independently confirm or reject them and confirmed over time that it be- skepticism, pseudoscientists often assert under the same rigorous constraints. In- comes highly implausible (if neverthe- the shortcomings, failures, or dangers of less logically possible) that the stated some given well-established scientific theory should ever be refuted. Any sci- consensus. When a pseudoscientist lack- entific theory as a whole will represent ing expertise in a particular scientific do- the accumulated and organized ex- main makes a show of openly contradict- planatory force of numerous repeatedly ing well-established claims of scientific tested data points. Thus skeptical cri- consensus, as is often the case with so- tique is necessarily and inextricably part called “alternative medicine,” the pseu- and parcel of the scientific process. doskeptical component of pseudoscience However, as contrasted with science, is made manifest. the most evident characteristic of pseu- The word pseudoskepticism was coin - doscience is its utter credulity—indeed its ed by the late sociologist and founding dependence on credulity as a method- member of CSICOP (now CSI) Mar- ological aspect of investigation. Simply cello Truzzi. The term, as originally used put, while scientists are busy attempting by Truzzi, is meant to identify a failure to disprove a favored hypothesis and among self-identified skeptics to remain guarding themselves against the ever-pre- in the face of extraordinary or supernat- sent danger of , pseudo- ural claims. Truzzi’s concern was that scientists actively seek confirming evi- skeptics not abandon reasonable agnos- dence for what they have already deemed ticism in favor of a dismissive cynicism. to be the case. This is so even for pseudo- Instead, Truzzi would have us remain scientists who eagerly attempt to appear true to the spirit of scientific inquiry skeptical. Paranormal investigators of the by proportioning our beliefs to the pseudoscientific stripe provide excellent strength of evidence available. And Global warming pseudoskepticism is on examples of this pretense. To call oneself when there is no supporting evidence the rise in the industrialized nations most a “paranormal investigator” (as opposed available for a claim, Truzzi would have responsible for . to an investigator of paranormal claims à us call that claim unwarranted, rather la ) is to already confess a than disproven (Truzzi 1987). that there is something paranormal to in- Since it was introduced by Truzzi, vestigate; the pursuit itself begs the essen- the term pseudoskepticism has commonly tial question. been misused by promoters of the para- We do not fault the biologist for her normal (and offended magical thinkers) well-warranted and uncontroversial be - as an ad hominem repudiation of their

38 Volume 36 Issue 3 | Skeptical Inquirer May June pages BOX_SI new design masters 3/29/12 1:03 PM Page 39

scientifically minded critics. Perhaps be- cause of this misappropriation, the term has failed to play a prominent role in the skeptic’s lexicon. This is unfortunate, because it is a useful term; there is no compelling justification for associating it exclusively with the obstinate of paranormal claims.1 Dogmatic rejec- tion of reliable evidence, regardless of what that evidence supports, is always misguided. Of course, given the nature of most paranormal claims, and certainly those of the supernatural variety, it is improb- able if not impossible that sufficient sci- entific evidence could ever be gathered to justify warranted assertion. To admit this is not a sign of pseudoskepticism as Truzzi promoted the term but rather recognition that some types of claims, When mainstream science—such as the efficacy and importance of vaccination—comes under even if true, are beyond the scope of pseudoscientists’ criticism, pseudoskeptical cynicism is on display. what can be scientifically supported. In contrast, pseudoskeptical cynicism is on supporting evidence in favor of a given perts not many years ago, yet it display whenever nonexperts dogmati- claim. This form of cynicism tends to proved to be right. Never theless the generate hostility toward scientific con- opinion of experts, when it is unani- cally deny the scientific explanations mous, must be accepted by non-ex- held in consensus by legitimate ex- sensus or a misunderstanding of what is perts as more likely to be right than perts—for pseudoskepticism is precisely entailed in such consensus. the opposite opinion. The scepticism the skeptical artifice used by pseudosci- Of course, this is not to argue that one that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the ex perts are agreed, entists when marching in parade against cannot legitimately question scientific consensus; indeed, without constant test- the opposite opinion cannot be held the alleged oppression or conspiracy of to be certain; (2) that when they are mainstream science. ing and questioning, science would be in not agreed, no opinion can be re- Since scientific consensus is reached danger of stagnation. Scientific inquiry garded as certain by a non-expert; and through the organized skepticism in- flourishes in the context of open intellec- (3) that when they all hold that no suf- ficient grounds for a positive opinion herent to the scientific process, the term tual contest, as evidenced by its skeptical nature.2 In scientific endeavors, a consen- exist, the ordinary man would do well pseudoskepticism is most appropriately to suspend his judgment. identified as the negligent and unwar- sus only exists because all attempts to ranted denial of established scientific discount a given claim have instead The identification of pseudoskepti- consensus. served to strengthen the evidence for it. cism is consistent with Russell’s in sights Thus, for the sake of clarity and ap- Pseudoskepticism, alternatively, can be regarding the value of expertise. When- plication, I want to reconvene Truzzi’s understood in relation to three proposi- ever those outside the realm of active re- useful designation and expand upon the tions put forth by Ber trand Russell in search into a particular topic willfully and concept of pseudoskepticism to include “On the Value of Skepticism” ([1928] without justification contradict estab- that well-known pseudointellectual per- 2005). As Russell puts it: lished scientific consensus on that topic, formance that involves the rejection of they are acting as pseudoskeptics. Thus There are matters about which those pseudoskepticism is most often, if not al- assertions already firmly established who have investigated them are through the rigorous scientific process. agreed; the dates of eclipses may serve ways, displayed by those who lack expert- Pseudoskepticism is a form of cynicism as an illustration. There are other ise in a particular field and therefore most posturing as skepticism. It is fatuously matters about which experts are not reasonably ought to proportion their be- premised on the assumption that doubt agreed. Even when the ex perts all lief to the accepted scientific consensus, agree, they may well be mistaken. for doubt’s sake is inherently rational— Einstein’s view as to the magnitude of when such consensus exists. call this the “cynic’s .” Such is ob- the deflection of light by gravitation Accordingly, when experts hold a viously not the case when there is strong would have been rejected by all ex- consensus, skepticism or denial of that

Skeptical Inquirer | May/June 2012 39 May June pages BOX_SI new design masters 3/29/12 3:56 PM Page 40

consensus on the part of laypersons is all of it is available for anyone who blithely ignore this designation of their unreasonable and is therefore properly wants to put the effort into learning denialism in the popular media or else- identified as pseudoskepticism. After those facts.4 Rather than rehearsing the where. Skepticism implies the critical asserting his skeptical propositions, facts here, I want to focus on the rea- analysis that is the hallmark of science, Russell goes on to argue that if these sonableness of sticking with expert and skepticism is precisely what has es- simple propositions were to be ac - consensus, when such consensus exists, tablished the overwhelming consensus cepted, they would have positive, even as the most practical method of avoid- among working climatologists for an- revolutionary implications for human ing pseudoskepticism. thropogenic global warming. To deny life. Russell therewith suggests that his Regularly, in the course of teaching the legitimacy of this consensus while skeptical principles have certain moral to college students, I claiming to be a “skeptic” would require and social implications. I submit that find that when informal logical an unjustified double standard regard- agreeing with Russell in this regard re- are first encountered at the conceptual ing one’s appreciation of the scientific quires only minimum reflection upon level, students tend to see them every- process. Global warming denialism is no the ethical responsibilities attached to where—like a kind of ideological parei- longer a tenable position to be held by inquiry and on the harms that threaten dolia. However, as I tell my students, an those who consider themselves to be ra- society when superstitious and pseu- informal fallacy is a fallacy because of tional skeptics. doskeptical think ing are accepted as the what is not presented with it: namely Predictably and increasingly, the de- status quo. well-reasoned arguments, precise defini- nial of anthropogenic global warming is taking on the hallmark trappings of pseudoscience, including conspiratorial claims about climatology and climatol- ogists, irrelevant appeals to nature (“if it is consistent with natural cycles, then it Prime examples of pseudoskepticism and its is not a threat”), truly fallacious appeals to authority, the elevation of dissenters dangers are found in AIDS denialism, anti-vaccination to romantic levels of heroism, and the advocacy, and—perhaps most prominently in our unwillingness to proportion belief to ra- current political mainstream—the denialism of tionally considered evidence. To call such obdurate denialism “skepticism” is anthropogenic global warming. a gross misnomer that undermines sci- ence as well as the potency of genuine skepticism. It is high time the skeptical community as a whole call out global warming denialism for the pugnacious pseudoskepticism that it is, and that we attack it with the same gusto and critical Prime examples of pseudoskepti- tions, and supportive evidence. It is not savvy heretofore reserved for intelligent cism and its dangers are found in AIDS the case, as Russell points out so effec- design proponents and anti-vaccination denialism, anti-vaccination advocacy, tively, that every appeal to expertise quacks.6 n and—perhaps most prominently in our ought to be considered a fallacious ap - Notes current political mainstream—the de- peal to authority. This is not to say that 1. The concept of false skepticism is occasion- nialism of anthropogenic global warm- experts cannot be wrong, but it is always ally applied more usefully, and still consistently ing. It is worth dwelling on the latter more reasonable to appeal to an expert with Truzzi’s use of “pseudoskepticism,” against form of pseudoskepticism for a mo- than a nonexpert when one lacks appro- those who support dubious forms of denialism on dogmatic or ideological grounds (as is the case, for ment, for global warming pseudoskep- priate expertise. It stands to reason that example, with AIDS denialism). (These are the ticism is on the rise in the industrialized the more experts agree on a particular same dubious forms of denialism identified in this nations most responsible for climate topic, the more cause there is for nonex- essay.) See especially Richard Cameron Wilson’s 3 5 article “Against the Evidence” (online at www. change. At the same time, those who perts to defer to their consensus. newstatesman.com/ideas/2008/09/evidence-scep- are most vulnerable to climate change Now again, in the case of well-estab- tic--bogus) as well as his book Don’t Get Fooled are those least responsible for it and lished scientific consensus like the one Again (2008). I maintain, with Wilson, that pseu- doskepticism is most often a product of ideologi- least able to adapt to it. As such, the regarding anthropogenic global warm- cal motivation rather than of balanced inquiry. Be- moral hazard involved in this form of ing, the denial of expert opinion by non- yond embracing the dogmatism of ideology, the pseudoskepticism compounds its global experts is pseudoskeptical. It is therefore pseudoskeptic can be identified by a misguided, cynical, and fallacious “doubt for doubt’s sake.” dangers. Much can be said about the a misleading folly for us to agree to call However, my emphasis is exclusively on the de- scientific facts of global warming, and global warming deniers “skeptics” or to nialism of well-established scientific consensus,

40 Volume 36 Issue 3 | Skeptical Inquirer May June pages BOX_SI new design masters 3/29/12 9:03 AM Page 41

because that type of denialism occurs outside of source for disseminating information on the sci- References the legitimate scientific process. I place emphasis entific findings regarding climate change (www. Popper, Karl. (1959) 2002. The Logic of Scientific on such denialism again here, as I have elsewhere ipcc.ch/). Another extremely valuable source, and Discovery, 2nd edition. London: Routledge. (see Torcello 2011), in order to provide a more perhaps even more valuable than the IPCC reports Russell, Bertrand. (1928) 2005. On the value of consistent criterion by which to identify pseu- for those who are just beginning to learn about the skepticism. In Russell: Skeptical Essays. Lon- doskepticism and in order to attach moral culpa- science of climate change research, is the website don: Routledge. bility to it in the context of political discourse. RealClimate: Climate Science from Climate Sci- Torcello, Lawrence. 2011. The ethics of inquiry, 2. In the course of normal scientific investi- entists (www.realclimate.org/index. php/archives scientific belief, and public discourse. Public gation, a scientific consensus may be challenged /2007/05/start-here/). Another informative source Affairs Quarterly 25(3): 197–215 by researchers actively investigating the relevant is the website Skeptical Science: Get ting Skeptical Truzzi, Marcello. 1987. On pseudo-skepticism. topic; however, the burden is upon the researchers about Global Warming Skep ticism (www.skepti- Zetetic Scholar (12/13): 3–4. Available online at to demonstrate their alternative hypothesis calscience.com/). I would prefer, for obvious rea- www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo. within the standard parameters of the scientific sons, if the subtitle read “Getting Skeptical about html. process (i.e., empirical research, peer-review, re- Global Warming Pseudo skepticism.” Finally, peated independent replication by other re- the National Center for Lawrence Torcello is an as- searchers, etc.). To be clear, doubt of established (http://ncse.com/climate) has made the defense of consensus in so far as it plays a role in legitimate climate science a part of its mandate, a move that sistant professor of philos- research guided by the scientific process is not ought to be applauded widely by all advocates of ophy at Rochester Institute pseudoskeptical, but ignoring established scien- science and skepticism. of Technology. His research tific consensus is pseudoskeptical. 5. provides a very useful 3. Much of the increasing pseudoskepticism and teaching focus is on regarding global warming is attributable to a discussion of expertise and how to sort through ethics, informal logic and well-organized, and well-documented, campaign expertise, along with an important exploration of critical thinking, and social and political phi- how politics can thwart the public’s proper un- against legitimate climate science on the part of losophy. He is the faculty advisor to the RIT derstanding of science in cases like climate corporate polluters—and politicians under the fi- Skeptics. A longer companion to this article, nancial influence of such corporate interests. See change in his recent Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell George Monbiot’s Heat: How to Stop the Planet Science from Bunk (2010). “The Ethics of Inquiry, Scientific Belief, and from Burning (2007) and Chris Mooney’s The 6. Elsewhere, I have argued for an ethical duty Public Discourse,” was published in 2011 in Republican War on Science (2007). among academics, politicians, and journalists to Public Affairs Quarterly. A related article, 4. A good place to begin learning about publicly confront and counter pseudoskeptical "Sophism and Moral Agnosticism, Or How to anthro pogenic global warming is by turning to the claims against scientific consensus when such Tell a Pluralist from a Relativist," appeared in claims are made in the context of public policy Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The Pluralist in 2011. Email: [email protected]. which was created to serve as an authoritative debates. (See Torcello 2011.)

Earn your master’s degree in Science and the Public through the University at Buffalo and the !

Explore the methods and outlook of science as they intersect with public culture and public policy. This degree is ideal for enhancing careers in science education, public policy, and science journalism—and prepares you for positions that involve communicating about science.

This unique two-year graduate degree program is entirely online. Take courses from wherever you are in the world at your own pace! Courses include: Science, Technology, and Human Values; Research Ethics; Critical Thinking; Scientific Writing; Informal Science Education; Science Curricula; and History and .

For details, visit www.gse.buffalo.edu/online/science Questions? Contact John Shook, CFI Vice President for Research, at [email protected].

Skeptical Inquirer | May/June 2 012 4 1