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 scientific consensus is rationally untenable and best described as “pseudoskeptical.” It is akin to AIDS denialism, advocacy of intelligent design, and anti-vaccination movements. LAWRENCE TORCELLO own biases. The integrally skeptical hatever else might be argued about the nature of nature of science 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 “alternative medicine,” the pseudoskeptical component of pseudoscience 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 paranormal 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 skepticism. 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 confirmation bias, 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 climate change. to an investigator of paranormal claims à us call that claim unwarranted, rather la Joe Nickell) is to already confess a belief 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 denial 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