How Can Skepticism

ISSUES IN SCIENCE & SKEPTICISM: 40th Anniversary Celebration How Can Skepticism Do Better? SCOTT O. LILIENFELD am delighted to contribute an essay to celebrate Before doing so, I should be the fortieth anniversary of the Committee for up front about my biases. I am a psychologist by training, and I ISkeptical Inquiry (CSI) and its wonderful maga- tend to think about pseudosci- zine, SKEPTICAL INQUIRER (SI), both of which I have entific and otherwise question- been honored to be affiliated with for the past fifteen able beliefs though a distinctly years. CSI and SI have ample reason to be proud of psychological lens. By that I their myriad accomplishments. They have helped to mean that I strive not merely to debunk erroneous beliefs but to make skepticism a household word in many quarters understand why otherwise rea- and brought tens of thousands of individuals—lay- sonable people often fall prey to persons, students, and academicians, among many them (see also Shermer 2002). others—into the fold of the skeptical movement. As fascinated as I have been Moreover, they have served as invaluable resources in evaluating the evidence—or for scholars, teachers, and laypersons. In my field of lack thereof—underpinning pseudoscientific and otherwise psychology, questionable claims, my deeper interest has long been in why seemingly rational individuals, I strive not merely to including prominent scientists, debunk erroneous beliefs are so often seduced by these claims. but to understand why Ultimately, one of our principal goals as skeptics is to impart otherwise reasonable people scientific thinking skills to the often fall prey to them. general public and to stem the rising tide of pseudoscience in the media, on the Internet, and in everyday life, including in the worlds of politics, business, and the law. How well are we doing? CSI and SI have inspired thou- encouragement of CSI and SI. Skepticism: A Report Card sands of college and high-school To be true to its mission, It is not entirely clear, but there instructors to incorporate sci- though, skepticism must be is ample reason for soul-search- entific thinking into their cur- skeptical of its own endeavors ing. Survey data suggest that the ricula. I am one of them, and I (Novella 2015; see also Horgan levels of uncritical acceptance very much doubt that I would 2016 for a well-intentioned but of paranormal claims, such as have developed my successful less than successful effort in this beliefs in extrasensory percep- “Science and Pseudoscience regard). Hence, in this essay I tion (ESP), psychic healing, and in Psychology” undergraduate look to the future and pose the astrology, remain distressingly seminar at Emory University question of what the skeptical high among the general public (see Lilienfeld et al. 2001) were movement could be doing better and college students, and may it not for the tireless efforts and to advance its laudable goals. even have been increasing over 46 Volume 40 Issue 5 | Skeptical Inquirer the past few recent decades In my view, both are ex- (1996), I have on occasion de- (Ridolfo et al. 2010). Despite tremely worthy aims, and I do tected more than a whiff of ar- our concerted efforts, we still not intend to fall prey to the rogance among some of us in find ourselves in an age in which false dilemma fallacy by implying the skeptical movement, and I pseudoscience crowds out science that we must necessarily select have no doubt fallen prey to this on the airwaves and newsstands, one goal or the other. Logically tendency myself from time to and in which leading presiden- speaking, they are not mutually time. Resisting the temptation tial candidates are convinced that exclusive. At the same time, I to perceive our critics as inher- vaccines cause autism and that have to wonder whether these ently foolish, stupid, or malicious our unassuming little planet has two aims are to some extent can at times be challenging, es- very likely been visited by extra- terrestrials. To be fair, it is con- ceivable that without our valiant efforts to combat pseudoscience the levels of such beliefs might I believe that it will be be even higher, especially in light of the misinformation explosion crucial for the skeptical fueled by the Internet, cable tele- movement to step back and vision, and social media. At the same time, it may be high time to take further stock of its ask ourselves whether, and if so long-term goals and how what, we could be doing better. In this essay, I briefly touch best to achieve them. on three major topics that I believe warrant substantially more consideration in the next four decades of the skeptical movement: (1) the extent to which our dual aims may conflict with or operating at cross-purposes. To pecially when we are addressing even undermine each other; (2) the degree that we talk mostly claims that strike us as outland- the effectiveness, or lack thereof, to each other at our own con- ish. But as soon as we commit of our debunking efforts; and (3) ferences and meeting groups, in the fundamental attribution error the need to consider research on our magazines, on our Internet (Ross 1977) of assuming that er- cognitive development in dis- blogs, and in other outlets, we roneous beliefs in others are the seminating scientific thinking may largely be forsaking our op- products of their intrinsic dispo- skills to the general public. portunities to change the minds sitions—such as low intelligence of the general public. I also worry or the inability to think criti- Conflicting Aims? that we may fall prey to a false cally—rather than of inadequate One issue that strikes me as consensus effect (Ross et al. scientific training or of an under- meriting considerably more dis- 1977), whereby we overestimate standable yearning for wonder, cussion is the principal aim of the extent to which others share we may find it difficult to avoid CSI and SI. Is our primary goal our views as well as overestimate communicating condescension to serve as a “resource group” the effectiveness of our efforts. and disrespect when communi- or “support group” of sorts for Furthermore, by communicating with them. Moreover, we skeptics—to provide real-world cating mostly with each other, may dismiss them prematurely as and virtual forums in which we we may inadvertently be culti- “true believers” whose views are skeptics can share our knowledge vating something of an “us ver- unmalleable. and consort with like-minded sus them” mentality in which we Perhaps my concerns are un- thinkers? Or is our primary goal regard individuals outside the warranted or overstated. I hope instead to boost the levels of sci- skeptical movement to be largely so. Even so, I believe that it will entific thinking among the pop- unreachable (or, worse, not wor- be crucial for the skeptical move- ulace and thereby diminish the thy of outreach). Like one of my ment to step back and take fur- levels of poorly supported and intellectual heroes, astronomer ther stock of its long-term goals potentially harmful beliefs? and science writer Carl Sagan and how best to achieve them. Skeptical Inquirer | September/October 2016 47 ISSUES IN SCIENCE & SKEPTICISM: 40th Anniversary Celebration The Effectiveness of Our to the contrary (Heasley 2014). become more likely to endorse Debunking Efforts In fact, much of this recent these inaccurate beliefs (Nyhan As skeptics, we spend much research points to the possibil- and Reifler 2010). Backfire effects of our time attempting to dis- ity of “backfire effects,” whereby appear to be most likely when pel false and poorly supported well-intentioned attempts to dis- false messages threaten recipients’ beliefs. By doing so, we hope to abuse individuals of misconcep- self-identity (“worldview back- bring the best available scientific tions paradoxically strengthens fire effects”) and when the myths evidence to bear on confronting them. For example, when re- themselves are repeated frequently pseudoscientific and otherwise searchers have attempted to reduce (“familiarity backfire effects”), in dubious assertions. Ironically, unwarranted doubts regarding the the latter case probably because though, we rarely pause to ask dangers of vaccines by informing people often confuse a message’s ourselves a critical question: Are participants that the side effects of familiarity with its accuracy. Both our methods of challenging oth- the flu virus tend to be mild and types of backfire effects should be ers’ beliefs themselves consistent are rarely worse than the effects of concern to skeptics, because we with the best available scientific of the virus itself, they have found frequently challenge individuals’ evidence? that participants tested immedi- core self-concepts and do so by The psychological literature ately after reading this message reiterating their misconceptions. increasingly suggests that the are more receptive to flu vaccines Fortunately, psychologists and answer to this question is a re- than are other participants. Yet other social scientists are grad- sounding “No.” Many skeptics if researchers wait a mere half an ually converging on a set of evi- appear to be unaware that a rap- hour, these effects are reversed— dence-based principles for effective debunking (Lewandowsky et al. 2012). In general, research suggests that effective debunking Are our methods of re quires communicators to dis- challenging others’ beliefs place the false belief with a com- peting, and ideally more com- themselves consistent pelling, narrative. In addition, with the best available communicators should clearly— and respectfully—explain how scientific evidence? and why the belief, although often understandable, can be mis- leading. Furthermore, debunkers should generally avoid repeating the myth too many times and instead focus on well-supported idly growing body of research on individuals become more dubious scientific evidence that count- the effectiveness of dispelling of flu vaccines than they would ers the myth.

Load more