Practical Skepticism vs. Debunking

[UnrepentantSinner]

In several conversations I've had lately and resultant from my own musings over modern society vis organized skepticism I'm starting to wonder whether we should place less emphasis on hot button issues like Bigfoot and Sylvia Browne and place more on what I generally term "practical skepticism." That is we focus more on those things that directly effect peoples lives rather than high profile cases of fraud and duplicity.

I realize psychics are a money sucking scurge on our economy, but no less so than the diamond racquet or professional sports. I hate to give scumbags like Browne, Edward, et. al. a ounce of credit, but at least their B.S. can give people peace of mind whereas "practical" issues - and the three I'll concentrate on are scams, snake oil and Ponzi schemes not only rip people off, but when it comes to the bogus health clams of, say, homeopathy, can kill people.

Let me be clear that I'm not suggesting we stop pointing out the flimsy evidence for issues like cryptozoology or Holocaust denial, but that concentrating on Nigerian Scam Spams or bogus health "remedies" might be more productive in helping larger numbers of our societies escape the scurge of credulity.

Anyone else?

[kitakaze]

Something that comes to mind is the number of people who get a common cold and scramble for antibiotics and are prescribed them by their doctors even when there is absolutely no need. Just my idea of where common misguided thinking and proper education need to be addressed more than, say, Sylvia Browne.

[T'ai Chi]

In several conversations I've had lately and resultant from my own musings over modern society vis organized skepticism I'm starting to wonder whether we should place less emphasis on hot button issues like Bigfoot and Sylvia Browne and place more on what I generally term "practical skepticism." That is we focus more on those things that directly effect peoples lives rather than high profile cases of fraud and duplicity.


I think so. Which is why the relation between magic and skepticism is over-emphasized to a 'who cares?' level because magic doesn't affect most of our day to day lives one iota.

[Jimbo07]

My wife uses a tanning bed and thinks I should.

:mad:

[Ririon]

Let me be clear that I'm not suggesting we stop pointing out the flimsy evidence for issues like cryptozoology or Holocaust denial, but that concentrating on Nigerian Scam Spams or bogus health "remedies" might be more productive in helping larger numbers of our societies escape the scurge of credulity.

Anyone else?
You can start a skeptic group specialising in non-paranormal claims if you want to. T'ai Chi might sign up, at least. :) "Fraudbusters"? Free name suggestion.

[kitakaze]

I think so. Which is why the relation between magic and skepticism is over-emphasized to a 'who cares?' level because magic doesn't affect most of our day to day lives one iota.:confused: Wait, let me rephrase that...:eye-poppi

[kitakaze]

You can start a skeptic group specialising in non-paranormal claims if you want to. T'ai Chi might sign up, at least. :) "Fraudbusters"? Free name suggestion.How 'bout 'Murphy's Lawless'? Eh, eh?

[blutoski]

In several conversations I've had lately and resultant from my own musings over modern society vis organized skepticism I'm starting to wonder whether we should place less emphasis on hot button issues like Bigfoot and Sylvia Browne and place more on what I generally term "practical skepticism." That is we focus more on those things that directly effect peoples lives rather than high profile cases of fraud and duplicity.

I realize psychics are a money sucking scurge on our economy, but no less so than the diamond racquet or professional sports. I hate to give scumbags like Browne, Edward, et. al. a ounce of credit, but at least their B.S. can give people peace of mind whereas "practical" issues - and the three I'll concentrate on are scams, snake oil and Ponzi schemes not only rip people off, but when it comes to the bogus health clams of, say, homeopathy, can kill people.

Let me be clear that I'm not suggesting we stop pointing out the flimsy evidence for issues like cryptozoology or Holocaust denial, but that concentrating on Nigerian Scam Spams or bogus health "remedies" might be more productive in helping larger numbers of our societies escape the scurge of credulity.

Anyone else?


I think there's room for everybody to work on their favourites. This is why I like the idea of the SkepticWiki: experts can compile a resource for the rest of us, so that whatever comes up, we can tap into good skeptical defenses.

As for where organized skepticism should concentrate its efforts: I think there's a lot going on that is already covered by experts who are outside of the movement. For example, the scientific community is already defending scientific views on things like biblical creationism or healthfraud. It just takes place in the narrow confines of government panels or trials.


I'm going to agree with you about the benevolence of Bigfoot belief, but disagree about psychics. Especially the mediums like Browne, who intentionally target the grieving relatives and friends of the recently deceased. Or the ones who swarm around missing children's families. So, quantitatively, not a lot of victims, but qualitatively, it's a terrible predation.


There's also a difference between organized skepticism, which can have a strategy, versus, disorganized skepticism, which is about individuals and their pet hobbyhorses: try to organize that!

[gfunkusarelius]

hot button ones just come up more, i see lots of practical issues raised here. i know it gets frustrating seeing the same "obvious" scams busted, but when they come up all the time and are so ridiculous, it's inevitable that they will be the most popular. and i think that the lessons learned from these hot button issues can be applied to everyday skeptical thought. for example, the bazillion posts on loose change are very redundant, but if you're new to the site, you see the posts and you learn what people will say and do to sway you and you learn how to spots suspect arguments.
thankfully, i have always gotten answers on (the admittedly few so far) questions i had when i was curious and skeptical about something and wanted input from theminds on this board.

[Dr Adequate]

I realize psychics are a money sucking scurge on our economy, but no less so than the diamond racquet or professional sports. I hate to give scumbags like Browne, Edward, et. al. a ounce of credit, but at least their B.S. can give people peace of mind whereas "practical" issues - and the three I'll concentrate on are scams, snake oil and Ponzi schemes not only rip people off, but when it comes to the bogus health clams of, say, homeopathy, can kill people.

Let me be clear that I'm not suggesting we stop pointing out the flimsy evidence for issues like cryptozoology or Holocaust denial, but that concentrating on Nigerian Scam Spams or bogus health "remedies" might be more productive in helping larger numbers of our societies escape the scurge of credulity. SkepticWiki has a Frauds and Scams (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Frauds_and_Scams%28Index%29) section and an Alternative and Complementary Medicine (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Alternative_and_Complementary_Medicine%28index%29) section.

As you can see, both need work doing to them. The ACM section has lots of highly visible red links showing articles which should be included but haven't been written yet. (Mental note: finish that article on Ayurvedic medicine.)

Although I don't know much about frauds and scams, there are some articles which even I can see are needed, eg an article on Amway.

If this is the sort of collective action you're thinking of, pitch in!

[Miss Whiplash]

I'm going to agree with you about the benevolence of Bigfoot belief, but disagree about psychics. Especially the mediums like Browne, who intentionally target the grieving relatives and friends of the recently deceased. Or the ones who swarm around missing children's families. So, quantitatively, not a lot of victims, but qualitatively, it's a terrible predation.


I concur with Blutoski on the psychics. Grieving people can get platitudes for free from clergymen. There is at least a chance a clergyman would recommend someone to a grief counselor of psychologist if the grieving party showed problems adjusting to a loss. Psychics on the other hand care nothing of a person's suffering. They use grief for personal gain, be it monetary or reputation-wise. They are little more than vultures.

[rjh01]

How about teaching a person to work out what a person is saying is reasonable? Then when something 'new' comes up they can say 'BS' or 'that is reasonable' without having to refer to third parties like us.

For example I first saw the moon landing hoax in a magazine. I took one look at it and saw several arguments that were plainly wrong. If most people could do that then nearly everyone would be skeptics. CT, psychics and other woo beliefs would slowly die.

Maybe start at schools?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm going to agree with you about the benevolence of Bigfoot belief, but disagree about psychics. Especially the mediums like Browne, who intentionally target the grieving relatives and friends of the recently deceased. Or the ones who swarm around missing children's families. So, quantitatively, not a lot of victims, but qualitatively, it's a terrible predation.

Oops, I should have stated my position differently since I absolutely hate scumbags like psychics, TRVers, Astrologers et. al. but to draw a painfully tortured analogy I think frauds like them are radiation treatment for cancer vs. wearing a uranium amulet (analogizing the scammers and snake oil salesmen) - the problem of that analogy being radiation treatments can actually being helpful while psychics, etc. only offer emotional solice.
------------------

I appreciate the Skeptiwiki links (I don't post much, but I've been around the skeptical block btw), but I'm alluding to something different than trying to break through with people who seriously want to invistigate myriad issues. I'm wondering if organized skeptics need to take a less serious approach, and devote more "face time" to casual conversations with friends, family and co-workers regarding issues like scams, Alt-med and MLM rather than focusing on Sylvia Browne and Bart Striebel.

[Ririon]

...I'm wondering if organized skeptics need to take a less serious approach, and devote more "face time" to casual conversations with friends, family and co-workers regarding issues like scams, Alt-med and MLM rather than focusing on Sylvia Browne and Bart Striebel.
Which organized skeptics are you referring to? Should Randi take a "less serious approach"? Me? You? T'ai Chi?

And wouldn't taking more time discussing this with family, friends and co-workers be a MORE serious approach? :confused:

[Yahzi]

How about teaching a person to work out what a person is saying is reasonable?
And who would profit from that? Corporations? Politicians? Anybody at all? Well, I mean anybody important.

How could we possibly govern this huge country if people demanded sense and logic?

This is as silly as suggesting that if we want to curb alcoholism, we should stop running advertising campaigns that make alcohol use look like the secret to being happy, popular, healthy, and rich.

I swear, where do you people get this stuff?

[rjh01]

James Randi maybe? No. Then people might lose interest in his $1m and he would need to take it elsewhere.

[Wowbagger]

For the most part, I think UnrepentantSinner makes a good point. Most of our resources should probably be devoted to more serious, life-and-death issues. Especially, since I think these would require more research to fight. Most of the more-innocuous beliefs can be debunked with little more than citing fallacies.

However, there is still value in keeping the skeptic side visible in hot-button issues, so I think there can still be room at the end of the "budget" to deal with them, a little bit.

Perhaps our highest priority of all should be in critical-thinking education. How many people graduate high school not even being informed, the least bit, in how to spot a scam? How many know anything about fallacies?

[JollyRoger]

If it where not for skepticism everybody wanting to make an easy buck would be trying to convince you of something that they can not do.

[EHocking]

How about teaching a person to work out what a person is saying is reasonable? Then when something 'new' comes up they can say 'BS' or 'that is reasonable' without having to refer to third parties like us.Some people just don't wish to learn, nor care that they are ignorant. More often than not the response to my gently pointing out credulousness is, "What does it matter?", or "Who does it hurt?".

*I* actually stand out as the "freak" amongst family and friends directly *due* to my sceptical stance. Religious miracles, magical magnetic cures, snake oil panacaea and the fact that Big Brother represents "reality" TV are all grist for the mill in conversation, but question any of it and you're immediately treated as the idiot cousin or the out of touch intellectual.

People just don't care.

... and the scammers know it ...
For example I first saw the moon landing hoax in a magazine. I took one look at it and saw several arguments that were plainly wrong. If most people could do that then nearly everyone would be skeptics. CT, psychics and other woo beliefs would slowly die.

Maybe start at schools?Teachers that 1. care and 2. are given the opportunity to excite a child's mind instead of training them to regurgitate curricula are few and far between these days.

I get the impression that "society" increasingly is encouraging ignorance - the ubiquitous "dumbing down".