Skeptical Etiquette

[palarax]

What do you do when faced by true believers in social situations. For example at work a collegue stated that she had taken her son off prescribed medication for ADHD for its homeopathic, natural "equivalent". My blood boiled and i put forward the skeptical case against homeopathy. The rest of my collegues thought that i was the one who was closed minded, and blinded by the "medical model".

Another example, a friend of my girlfriend believes in ghosts, the supernatural and such bunk, and so i have to bite my tongue when i speak with her.

What positions do you take when faced with such dilemmas?

[cyborg]

I always speak plainly. If it is brought up I will argue the point. If they do not want to have their beliefs analysed they will have to learn to not talk about them in my presence.

[CFLarsen]

"Show me the evidence."

No, I don't want anecdotes. No, I don't want glowing endorsements from woos. No, I don't want to hear techo-babble.

I want to see evidence that this works.

[writerdd]

I usually zone out, unless I have something to say that I think might actually help someone.

The other day, for example, one of my friends was saying that her mother had been waking up and seeing spirits in her bedroom. I told her about sleep paralysis (after collecting some info here), and she was so happy to find out that her mother was not the only one experiencing these things and that it was a medical condition, not evil spirits. I didn't bother saying why I thought it would be a waste for her to call a psychic or anything else, I just gave her the scientific and medical information, and let her do what she wanted with it.

Unless you're with people that like to talk about various possibilities and philosophical stuff, it's a waste of time and probably counter productive to just tell them that they believe a bunch of hooey. But if you can offer something solid that can help them in their real lives, without telling them or insinuating that they are stupid, they'll probably be more willing to listen.

[Rufo]

I actually often refer to the Million Dollar Challenge at the JREF. If there is a person who can make homeopathy work, why don't they go here and earn some money while showing everyone that they are right? In most situations people have no or very lame responses. I am always careful about giving away my own opinion on these matters, however, so I am rarely accused of being closed minded.

"Show me the evidence."™

[scotth]

I always speak plainly. If it is brought up I will argue the point. If they do not want to have their beliefs analysed they will have to learn to not talk about them in my presence.

Actually, as brutal as this sounds, I like it.

[blutoski]

Actually, as brutal as this sounds, I like it.

The only downside to this is that since skeptics are in the minority by about 1/100, this "not discussing it in my presence" probably means "not getting invited to the next gathering."

It's a risk.

[scotth]

The only downside to this is that since skeptics are in the minority by about 1/100, this "not discussing it in my presence" probably means "not getting invited to the next gathering."

It's a risk.

Generally, with the people that wouldn't invite me to the next whatever.... It would be a bonus rather than a risk.

[Dogdoctor]

For the people who accuse you of being closed minded, just remind them of the piles of crap that are available for people to chose from in picking an alt med treatment. How does one pick the right alt med treatment out the millions? If they want proof then they can just discard all the bozo treatments and use real medicine.

[andyandy]

a collegue stated that she had taken her son off prescribed medication for ADHD for its homeopathic, natural "equivalent".

What positions do you take when faced with such dilemmas?

well....taking her son off prescribed mediacation for ADHD might not be such a bad thing....the long term effects of drugs like ritalin on kids developing brains is still somewhat unknown....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011112073546.htm

SAN DIEGO -- Scientists at the University at Buffalo have shown that the drug methylphenidate, the generic form of Ritalin, which physicians have considered to have only short-term effects, appears to initiate changes in brain function that remain after the therapeutic effects have dissipated

the mass prescription of drugs like ritalin for ADHD is largely a result of drug companies "creating a need" through advertising....most scientists (this side of the Atlantic at least) agree that hyperactivity/very bad behaviour is more likely to be caused by other factors (like poor diet) - rather than brain abnormalities.....as a result, maybe homeopathy (in effect a placebo) may be better for the kid than the drug :) ........when faced with such dilemas maybe you shouldnt be so quick to judge....:)

[Ladewig]

Unless diectly asked for my opinion, I seldom proffer it. On the other hand, if someone asks me for my views on astrology, I say that it is very useful if it is used properly. The proper use is to open a daily newspaper, read all 12 horoscopes, and choose the one that you like the best.

As for homeopathy, I might suggest that the person save money and simply make her own homepathic remedy. I'd go on to explain that the most important part is the shaking (also known as succussing). I'd advise her to be sure to shake it up and down exactly 10 times, shake it right to left exactly ten times, and then shake it forwards and backwards exactly ten times. If she expressed doubt as to the importance of the shaking, I'd direct her to the internet where there are many, many sites that insist on proper shaking.

For other topics, I might say something like "I find it hard to believe that topic." Then I might suggest doing some research on the topic and recommend reading some pro and con sites (or books). I see it as better to steer the person towards critical thinking than to simply say "you're wrong."

[Ryokan]

the mass prescription of drugs like ritalin for ADHD is largely a result of drug companies "creating a need" through advertising....most scientists (this side of the Atlantic at least) agree that hyperactivity/very bad behaviour is more likely to be caused by other factors (like poor diet) - rather than brain abnormalities.....as a result, maybe homeopathy (in effect a placebo) may be better for the kid than the drug :) ........when faced with such dilemas maybe you shouldnt be so quick to judge....:)

The only problem I can see with what you say is that ritalin has a very different effect on those that do not have AD/HD. Those with AD/HD are calmed, and those without AD/HD get more energy.

This suggests that there is indeed something physically different about those with AD/HD, and since ritalin stimulates the brain, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the difference lies in there.

Not saying that what you're saying isn't true, and I'm not a medical expert (no medical education, but I work with children - and some of them have been diagnosed AD/HD) - only that I have my doubts about there being dietary causes.

[blutoski]

What positions do you take when faced with such dilemmas?

This usually works for me: "How 'bout those Habs?"

[Pauliesonne]

This usually works for me: "How 'bout those Habs?"

Habs?

[scotth]

Habs?

Think hockey. That is your clue.

[andyandy]

The only problem I can see with what you say is that ritalin has a very different effect on those that do not have AD/HD. Those with AD/HD are calmed, and those without AD/HD get more energy.

This suggests that there is indeed something physically different about those with AD/HD, and since ritalin stimulates the brain, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the difference lies in there.

Not saying that what you're saying isn't true, and I'm not a medical expert (no medical education, but I work with children - and some of them have been diagnosed AD/HD) - only that I have my doubts about there being dietary causes.

sure....to be honest i was just playing devil's advocate.....trying to make the point that science isn't infallible - and so when disparaging natural remedies whilst advocating scientific methods you always have to accept that science might be wrong........:)

i dont doubt that ADHD is a very real problem for some kids....but i'm kinda sceptical about the numbers - especially when it seems to "occur" mostly in America - where coincidentally the bulk of the drug companies marketing is targeted....
studies have shown that diet can play a huge part in determining a child's behavior....and if ur a parent with a really badly behaved kid and an advert comes on for ritalin - well, maybe too many people will choose the medicated route before other alternatives...

the same goes for loads of conditions - depression springs to mind....i think its really unhealthy for drug companies to create a market for their drugs....but then i guess that's capitalism at its most brutal - making money by exploiting people's illnesses or vulnerabilities.......:mad:

[Ryokan]

studies have shown that diet can play a huge part in determining a child's behavior....and if ur a parent with a really badly behaved kid and an advert comes on for ritalin - well, maybe too many people will choose the medicated route before other alternatives...

Well, if the kid doesn't have AD/HD then ritalin isn't going to help much, quite the opposite. Ritalin is also used to treat narcolepsy and fatigue - it's not something you'd want to give your hyperactive child if he doesn't have AD/HD (Although, granted, it'll probably help a bit for those that show the Attention Deficit symptoms, and not the Hyperactivity symptoms. But if the kid wasn't hyperactive before, he'll probably get it from the ritalin).

But I'll readily agree that you should try any and all alternative treatments (woo stuff excluded) before trying medications.

I didn't know you could show adverts for ritalin drugs in the US. That sickens me. Adverts for medical drugs are illegal in my country.

[andyandy]

i'm pretty sure all medical adverts are ok on tv in the states....if someone from the US could confirm/clarify this?

[andyandy]

As ever, i have found an article that can more eloquently express the inherent problems of medical advertising.....

http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/16/one_more.html

below is a snippet.....

Most forms of advertising, to some degree, rely on "information asymmetry," the idea that the party doing the marketing knows more about the product and how to sell it than the consumer. Information asymmetries result in higher profits for advertisers. It is, thus, in their interest to increase the divide: for them to know more, and the consumer, less. When the product is chewing gum, the imbalance is usually no big deal. But when you’re talking about something as crucial as health care–where the opportunities for information asymmetries happen to be much greater–all sorts of problems crop up.


Pharmaceutical companies argue that direct-to-consumer drug advertising "empowers" the patient to learn more about medical options. As I mentioned earlier (page 30), this is pretty much a joke, for these drug ads are as uninformative and image-oriented as Calvin Klein ads (although much less sexy). They’re also not geared toward educating people about medical options, which would include drug-free or otherwise unprofitable practices.

What’s more, drug companies know that high information asymmetry in health care has been well-documented since the 1960s. Drug companies also know that patients–although ignorant of professional medical standards–routinely overestimate their ability to make medical judgments. The line about advertising "empowering" thus becomes a cruel irony, encouraging patients to rely even more on their own misjudgments.


anyway, im not sure what this has to do with the initial thread......lol :)

[blutoski]

Think hockey. That is your clue.

Exactly. In Canada, uttering that question will derail any conversation. Chaos ensues.

Then, I can go into the kitchen and make myself a sandwich.

[Humphreys]

I argue with them aggressively, and furiously, until they're forced to leave, or concede in some way.

[writerdd]

I argue with them aggressively, and furiously, until they're forced to leave, or concede in some way.

And you think this helps how?

[Humphreys]

And you think this helps how?

No one mentioned anything about helping.

[ceo_esq]

Apropos of skeptical etiquette - is it truly possible that no one has ever coined the term skeptiquette? I just Googled and got zip - and yet it seems so obvious.

[Cheesejoff]

Try and be tolerant, because there's another group of people who are not tolerant - Fundamentalists.

In my opinion being an elitist is almost as bad as being gullible, so try and stay reasonable.

Perhaps you could show your colleague some statistics on 'alternative medicines' to convince her as that sort of thing could set the child back in later life - he may not do as well at school if he's not getting proper medication.

[Meffy]

The only downside to this is that since skeptics are in the minority by about 1/100, this "not discussing it in my presence" probably means "not getting invited to the next gathering."

It's a risk.
To me that counts not as a risk but a potential benefit.

[burrahobbit]

I would generally shoot my mouth off (except if the other guy was a client!)

When it comes to medical woo I am generally more vocal. With astrology and such (usually) harmless stuff, I don't normally argue (unless in a particularly grouchy mood)

[BenK]

I the case of ghosts I tend to blame anything "unusual" on said ghost, I don't think I gain much but I do get to express my distaste in a humorous fashion :)

[Dark Jaguar]

I've recently dealt with the most "woo" person I've yet met, a middle aged mother of a few friends of mine. I honestly had no idea how to proceed with anything around her.

Just as an example of how impenetrable her mindset is by rational discourse, I basically just explained a bit about scientific method, and the second I hit the word "phenomenon", she said "and what about phenomenon?", and I said "well basically it's just a method of explaining them, you know, observations". Well, it suddenly went to "but that's not it, think "phenomenon", truly THINK it, you see what I mean?". I think I'll go into script mode here, and this is paraphrasing.

DJ: Sorry, don't know what you mean. Could you say that another way?
Odd person: Well, you know, phenomenon, the universe and phenomenon, powerful isn't it?
DJ: I don't understand what you are talking about.
Strangeling: I know, you are too closed minded to understand.
DJ: Perhaps, but if you could take the time to explain what you mean. Maybe you could define the word?

Anyway, it went on like this because she could not for the life of her actually come to a definition. Phenomenon was apparently an ethereal deep word for her. I decided to look the word up in the dictionary (which, by the way, only seemed to convince her more that I was a poor brainwashed soul) to say a phenomenon is basically just an observation. She disagreed, so I asked for her definition, just explaining we need to use terms we can both agree on before we continue. I didn't care what definition she used, so long as it was made clear.

Eventually, it just came to a point where she refused the very concept of "definitions". Never got a good idea what she was blathering on about, and in fact I can't even remember the majority of what she said (my memory works in a way that I can only paraphrase people because I remember the meaning of what they said (as I interpretted it anyway) rather than the words, so when the words are devoid of any meaning I can discern, I can't remember a thing). She ended up spouting a long string of stuff I couldn't make sense of, I think spirit is a word she used, and I just couldn't hold back a rather rude comment of "are you high?", which ended the conversation right then and there. However, it was either that or hold back until I just burst out laughing. Okay, the third option was to nod politely :D, but in all honesty, I think I just had to make it totally clear to her that everything she was saying was completely devoid of meaning to me.

[lenny]

"Show me the evidence."
No, I don't want anecdotes. No, I don't want glowing endorsements from woos. No, I don't want to hear techo-babble.
I want to see evidence that this works.i expect that "show me the evidence" works wonders against anecdotes, woo endorsement and techobabble; but in a social situation, esp with people you care about, personal experience may well count as evidence to the person speaking.

disputing this aggressively it taken as stating: "you are lying." or "you are crazy". the first is not nice, unless it is true; the second is not helpful, esp if it is true.
I always speak plainly. If it is brought up I will argue the point. If they do not want to have their beliefs analysed they will have to learn to not talk about them in my presence.
speaking plainly and calmly sometimes works rather well, but there is no need to "win" and it probably is bad etiquette to insist they yield, ignoring the fact that a skeptic can sound as much like a preacher as anyone else, and be ignored by those who do not already agree with you.

but if they drive the argument, there is no breach of etiquette to reply calmly and clearly.

[writerdd]

speaking plainly and calmly sometimes works rather well, but there is no need to "win" and it probably is bad etiquette to insist they yield, ignoring the fact that a skeptic can sound as much like a preacher as anyone else, and be ignored by those who do not already agree with you.

but if they drive the argument, there is no breach of etiquette to reply calmly and clearly.

I never tell anyone I am talking to that they are lying or a fool. But I do speak my mind and say things like, "That's very intersting, but it sounds fishy to me. I've read blady blah blah. If you are really interested in finding out the truth about this issue, I would be happy to poke around and send you some links or loan you a book."

I try to change the subject for the meantime, because I normally don't have enough information at my fingertips to have a detailed discussion and I'd rather not listen to them babble on and on about woo for the entire evening.

[Kochanski]

I can't say I have one particular way of handling these situations. It usually depends on the situation and the people.

At work I am less vocal, although occasionally highly sarcastic, which usually gets missed by most. I held my tongue one time when the person in the cube across from me asked how to spell feng shui, I was tempted to spell g-a-r-b-a-g-e but just said I did not know.

Among friends I say what I think. I do try to respect my friends and not belittle them or their ideas, but I do point out the problems with their beliefs and will ask them rational questions about them. They pretty much know that I will call them on any woo nonsense they bring up, so it rarely comes up. I do get the occasional "there are no atheists in foxholes" and "everyone believes in god 5 minutes before they die" comments to which I reply "bollocks".

In other places, I pretty much speak my mind if I am at all conversant on the subject. It really depends on the crowd. If you are in a crowd of "true believers" of whatever the ilk, there is no point in saying anything, they have all the answers, they do not hear what you say. If you suspect there are people that don't buy the whole deal, then if you can say something intelligent on the subject, do.

And when someone suggests we get John Edward to come to our Sci Fi convention (it gets mentioned every so often), I say loudly, "yes please, but only if I can invite a few choice people who can confront him and show that he is a fraud ":D