How trustworthy is Skeptoid?

[Humes fork]

I came across this episode, and it's so horribly wrong.

Quote:

When the Muslim Conquests reached too far, an enraged Pope Urban II declared the First Crusade at the request of the Byzantine emperor in the year 1095, and overwhelming armies of Christians and barbarians, knights and peasants, overran and destroyed the great Arab centers. The great irreplaceable libraries were burned, the universities leveled, and the Holy Land fell.

What the flying **** is he talking about? The crusaders were never in Baghdad or Damascus, or in Persia, or in any of the centers of learning deeper inside Asia. He must be thinking about the Mongols, who were not Christians (let alone crusaders), and who didn't wage war due to religious reasons.

Quote:

Europe plunged into the Dark Ages, and Muslims saw the death of their Golden Age.

The Dark Ages are usually placed after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, not by the late 11th century! And most modern historians reject the vulgar but popular description of western Europe descending into barbarism after the fall of Rome. It's a Renaissance and Enlightenment myth, a myth that skeptics should try to correct, not promote.

Really, how trustworthy is this podcast? I'm very disappointed.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Really, how trustworthy is this podcast? I'm very disappointed.

He does get facts wrong from time to time, but he periodically issues podcast episodes in which he owns up to mistakes he made in earlier episodes.

http://skeptoid.com/episode_guide.php?cat=16

Quote:

Episode Guide - Feedback & Questions

6/12/12 Botches and Bungles (Skeptoid #314) - Skeptoid goes back and corrects some errors from previous episodes.
Read | Listen (11:07) | Discuss
5/29/12 Student Questions: Marauding Mammoths and Queen Elizabeth the Man (Skeptoid #312) - Skeptoid answers another round of questions sent in by students all around the world.
Read | Listen (11:37) | Discuss
4/17/12 Listener Feedback XX (Skeptoid #306) - Skeptoid dips into the feedback mailbag to respond to comments from listeners.
Read | Listen (12:11) | Discuss
2/21/12 Student Questions: Free Energy and Faster-than-Light Neutrinos (Skeptoid #298) - Skeptoid answers another round of questions sent in by students all over the world.
Read | Listen (12:29) | Discuss
1/24/12 Frequent Listener Feedback (Skeptoid #294) - Skeptoid answers some listener emails that present common flaws in scientific thinking.
Read | Listen (12:13) | Discuss
12/27/11 Approaching a Subject Skeptically (Skeptoid #290) - My process for examining a new topic, to learn whether it's fact or fiction.
Read | Listen (10:44) | Discuss
11/29/11 Listener Feedback: Dorothy and Her Straw Man (Skeptoid #286) - Skeptoid responds to some feedback emails notable for their dependence on straw man arguments.
Read | Listen (11:00) | Discuss
11/22/11 Slips and Goofs (Skeptoid #285) - Skeptoid corrects another round of errors found in previous episodes.
Read | Listen (11:42) | Discuss

Point out the mistakes in a comment on the episode (probably better if you do there rather than here) and he may include it in a future episode of corrections.

So, in answer to your question, "how trustworthy is this podcast?", it depends on your definition of "trustworthy". If "trustworthy" means he never gets his facts wrong, then it's not that. If it means that he sometimes makes mistakes, but is willing to admit it when pointed out to him, then I think he is probably trustworthy.

[theprestige]

Admitting that one is wrong on the facts when called out on it indicates some gaps in one's research.

Admitting that one has produced a bogus historical narrative when called out on it indicates that one is probably not a trustworthy historian.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Admitting that one is wrong on the facts when called out on it indicates some gaps in one's research.

Hu. So what's the alternative.... Never admit you are wrong ? That is utterly stupid IMHO.
You can be wrong. If you are told you are wrong and after checking what the person report you turn out to be wrong, then admit it.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Hu. So what's the alternative.... Never admit you are wrong ? That is utterly stupid IMHO.
You can be wrong. If you are told you are wrong and after checking what the person report you turn out to be wrong, then admit it.

Gaps in research are, to me, entirely expected and excusable. I think you are finding a disagreement between us where in fact we actually agree.

Perhaps you meant to respond to my second sentence?

[Puppycow]

Here is the larger context. Note that he does mention the Mongols too:

Quote:

The growing empire began to crumble under its own weight, as geopolitical factionalization and fragmentation took their toll. Mongols fought back in the east, stretching Muslim armies thin. When the Muslim Conquests reached too far, an enraged Pope Urban II declared the First Crusade at the request of the Byzantine emperor in the year 1095, and overwhelming armies of Christians and barbarians, knights and peasants, overran and destroyed the great Arab centers. The great irreplaceable libraries were burned, the universities leveled, and the Holy Land fell. Muslims and Jews alike throughout the region were killed by the tens of thousands.

Perhaps he meant the combination of the Crusades and the Mongols ("barbarians").

[icerat]

I called out Dunning on some significant factual errors in one of his podcasts, he aggressively challenged me and asked for links for evidence, I provided them and his response was to delete my comments.

So needless to say I have no confidence at all in that site.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Convenient.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Hu. So what's the alternative.... Never admit you are wrong ? That is utterly stupid IMHO.
You can be wrong. If you are told you are wrong and after checking what the person report you turn out to be wrong, then admit it.

I think the point of the post was something like, to err is human, to really screw up............

[Dinwar]

How trustworthy is it? Not at all. 100% untrustworthy. You should verify every single comment Mr. Dunning makes yourself before believing any of it.

Want to know the weird part? Mr. Dunning admits this, very openly, on his website. He admits that he's not an expert, and that he may get facts wrong, even seriously wrong.

Mr. Dunning is not creating a one-stop-shop for all knowledge. He's producing an entertaining and educational show on an enormous variety of topics. This necessarily means he's going to discuss things he's not an expert on, and that he's inevitably going to make errors. Mr. Dunning has enough respect for his listeners to expect us to do some fact checking as well. He's not writing gosples, he's making a radio show--and to expect perfect accuracy is simply insane.

Originally Posted by icerat

So needless to say I have no confidence at all in that site.

Good! The first step to learning is to take ownership of the material. Relying on Mr. Dunning to provide everything is stupid. And the first step in growing up is realizing that authority figures aren't infallible.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Admitting that one has produced a bogus historical narrative when called out on it indicates that one is probably not a trustworthy historian.

Please point to where Mr. Dunning claims to be a historian. I've never seen him do so, though I'll admit to not being as dilligent in listening to his podcasts as I once was (weird thing about the 'net--spend a week away from it and your habits change). You're saying he's not something he never claimed to be, to the best of my knowledge, and the only rational response is "Okay. So what?"

[icerat]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Good! The first step to learning is to take ownership of the material. Relying on Mr. Dunning to provide everything is stupid. And the first step in growing up is realizing that authority figures aren't infallible.

Whether we like it or not, most people are not "grown up" and do believe a lot of what they read on the internet because it fits into their existing narrative. Case in point being Mr Dunning and some of the sites he used as sources in the podcast I was concerned with.

I ended up there because others were citing him and pointing others to the podcast. The problem isn't so much "authority figures" not being infallible, as people rarely investigate whether someone is an "authority" on a subject or not in the first place.

Alas, that's the real world we live in.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

What the flying **** is he talking about? The crusaders were never in Baghdad or Damascus, or in Persia, or in any of the centers of learning deeper inside Asia. He must be thinking about the Mongols, who were not Christians (let alone crusaders), and who didn't wage war due to religious reasons.

{pedant}
Persia is not an Arab center, and those regions to the east are Turkic.
{/pedant}

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Please point to where Mr. Dunning claims to be a historian.

I know of no place where Mr. Dunning claims to be a historian. Clearly, if he does not claim to be a historian, he is probably not trustworthy in matters of history.

But certainly it's possible for Mr. Dunning to produce historical narratives, without claiming to be a historian. What, then, are we to make of Mr. Dunning's historical narratives? Should we judge them on their own merits, regardless whether or not Mr. Dunning claims to be a historian? Or should we simply assume that Mr. Dunning's historical narratives are untrustworthy, since we have no evidence that he claims to be a historian?

If we judge his historical narratives on their own merits, and find them lacking in trustworthiness, are we not then justified in concluding that Mr. Dunning is not a trustworthy historian?

And if that is the case, isn't it then the height of jackassery to excuse Mr. Dunning's untrustworthy historical narratives, on the grounds that he never claimed to be a historian?

Indeed, wouldn't it be obvious that, since Mr. Dunning produces untrustworthy historical narratives, that he is not a trustworthy historian, regardless of whether or not he claims to be a historian?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I know of no place where Mr. Dunning claims to be a historian. Clearly, if he does not claim to be a historian, he is probably not trustworthy in matters of history.

But certainly it's possible for Mr. Dunning to produce historical narratives, without claiming to be a historian. What, then, are we to make of Mr. Dunning's historical narratives? Should we judge them on their own merits, regardless whether or not Mr. Dunning claims to be a historian? Or should we simply assume that Mr. Dunning's historical narratives are untrustworthy, since we have no evidence that he claims to be a historian?

If we judge his historical narratives on their own merits, and find them lacking in trustworthiness, are we not then justified in concluding that Mr. Dunning is not a trustworthy historian?

And if that is the case, isn't it then the height of jackassery to excuse Mr. Dunning's untrustworthy historical narratives, on the grounds that he never claimed to be a historian?

Indeed, wouldn't it be obvious that, since Mr. Dunning produces untrustworthy historical narratives, that he is not a trustworthy historian, regardless of whether or not he claims to be a historian?

This is an awfully reptitive and wordy thing to say.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

This is an awfully reptitive and wordy thing to say.

Dinwar took RP's statement the wrong way. Being repetitious and rewording the same thing different ways helps to ensure that you get your point across when it is obvious to you that they didn't understand it the first time.

I think some would call it passive-aggressiveness.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Yes, but I don't feel like reenforcing bad behavior by exerting effort on it. (I get the idea: him being wrong means he's untrustworthy, despite the fact that is in dispute currently, and I have no clue what icerat's complaint is.)

But ~

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

......and I have no clue what icerat's complaint is.

This is a common one with skeptics. Back before the internet, the 'meme' was that everything written in books was true, thinking that if something was false, why publish it.

Today, everyone goes to the internet for all of their information, putting their trust in Wiki, and the likes. Skeptics are thought to be a good source of information also, since their nature is to question 'everything' and weed out the bad info.

As a skeptic, I may find info put out by others and still question it, like you see happening in this forum a lot. However, a lot of people aren't so skeptical. They will take things said as true. There are times when this is a bad idea, and other times where it is harmless. I think the most that could happen in this instance is that they will get into an argument with someone else that knows more about the subject, and look dumb. I.E., no real harm.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Oh, I mean, I'm kinda curious what the actual factual dispute was.

[icerat]

The actual dispute really isn't the issue for me, it's deleting comments that dispute what you're claiming. Fair enough if they're abusive or some such, but that wasn't the case.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by icerat

The actual dispute really isn't the issue for me, it's deleting comments that dispute what you're claiming. Fair enough if they're abusive or some such, but that wasn't the case.

Yeah, but you are talking about it here, and KN voiced interest, you might as well tell the story.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Here is the larger context. Note that he does mention the Mongols too:


Perhaps he meant the combination of the Crusades and the Mongols ("barbarians").

I've read at least one history book that says the Muslim Golden Age did not end because of the Mongols or the Crusades, but because their leadership embraced fundamentalism at the expense of science and art.

[icerat]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

Yeah, but you are talking about it here, and KN voiced interest, you might as well tell the story.

it's a controversial topic and I've to much else to do to get in to yet another discussion about it, which would inevitably happen!

But just to clarify I have rechecked and he didn't delete all my comments, just the one were I supplied all the reliable sourcing and links to dispute his claims. I inquired as to where it went (in case it was just an error) and got no response.

The point is, in response to the OP, I don't consider the site trustworthy because of that experience.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by theprestige

we judge his historical narratives on their own merits, and find them lacking in trustworthiness, are we not then justified in concluding that Mr. Dunning is not a trustworthy historian?

Missed my point entirely. First, we know that Mr. Dunning isn't a historian at all--trustworthy or otherwise--because he's never claimed to be one. So technically yes, he's not a trustworthy historian. But he's also not an untrustworthy one. He's also not a naked one, or a flying one. The adjective you put before "historian" is irrelevant--he's not a historian, so he's not a historian of any type!

Quote:

And if that is the case, isn't it then the height of jackassery to excuse Mr. Dunning's untrustworthy historical narratives, on the grounds that he never claimed to be a historian?

Please point to where I excused him. Far as I can recall, I did no such thing. In fact, I more or less said that you should never trust him on anything, and that you should double-check whatever he says about anything you're interested in enough to bother with (it'd be best to double-check EVERYTHING, but there are limits to what people can/will do).

I never said that we should excuse anything. I said that we listeners have a responsibility to check our facts before we accept something someone on the internet (or radio, or TV, or in the coffee shop...) says. If you drop that responsibility, absorbing bad data--even from sources you respect--is pretty much inevitable.

Originally Posted by Careyp74

Dinwar took RP's statement the wrong way. Being repetitious and rewording the same thing different ways helps to ensure that you get your point across when it is obvious to you that they didn't understand it the first time.

~sigh~ I can't believe I need to say this, but apparently it needs explicitely stated: Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't understand you. Just because I quote something you say, doesn't mean that that's ALL I'm responding to. This is a discussion. The quote I quoted is representative of the views many posters seem to hold. Those views are, frankly, silly, particularly if one wishes to call one's self a skeptic. I"ve never disagreed with the people saying that Mr. Dunning is wrong about the facts; I've disagreed with the evaluation that this somehow undermines Mr. Dunning's credibility in a field he's never claimed any credibility in, and which he has never demonstrated any knowledge of in the podcast--there's frankly nothing TO undermine, and Mr. Dunning himself says that you should be skeptical of all claims, even his own. I'm also surprised at the level of surprise. Mr. Dunning has stepped outside of his area of expertise here. That's one of the things that skeptics like to jump on people for, because it leads to serious errors. Well, here's another example for you!

Quote:

I think some would call it passive-aggressiveness.

I call it being obnoxious.

[DuvalHMFIC]

I like Skeptoid, and I've probably heard every episode. I also know that he cobbles together bits of info. each week for a 10-12 minute podcast, and that not all of his information is going to be correct.

As for trustworthiness? He's been in a bit of hot water before for some, let's say, questionable business dealings. That, and the fact that the first 30 episodes or so, he bragged about not even accepting donations. Then, he simply started asking for recommendations to his podcast. Once he had a loyal following, bam, the begging began.

I've donated to many podcasts that I deem worthy (such as Dan Carlin's Hardcore History). I don't see why I'm going to donate to a man that has said "with just a few more donations, I can make Skeptoid my full-time job." Making a 10-12 minute podcast once a week shouldn't be a full-time job. And that website is built, and is basically running itself at this point. He adds the text for each new Skeptoid, and then there are the forums. Oh, but he should be paid for his tweets.

I really don't mind Brian, but the begging bothers me.

Sorry, I'll end my rant.

[Tomtomkent]

Meh, the begging is supurflous. He avoided it when he could, as did the pod delusion and the bugle. If a guy can no longer use his speaking engagements or own cash to support a show he seeks revenue, same as many others.

As for accuracy and trustworthyness? He's a guy. Doing a citizen journalist piece. Not a phycisist, not a historian, not a psychologist. By the low standards of ley expertise it's ok, and the few times I contacted with corrections, by comments or email, Mr Dunning was gracious enough to give honest responses to why he reached a different conclusion, or changed his view based on new evidence.

The only time I remember comments being deleted was because the guy trying to correct other listeners was incredibly patronising with a "thats wrong I'm the expert" attitude, rather than citing sources. Hey,he may have been the leading expert in the field, or he may have just typed the name of an expert andbeen random guy #567 how can we tell? In my experience actual experts would have the courtesy cite a text book or study when I ask where I can validate their comments, not tell users how long they studied x.

Then again, in my experience most humans recognise a discussion of how other people mayhave reached differing conclusions from flawed sources, and if those conclusions were deliberate falsehoods or or understandible mistakes differs from discussing the current theories. A subtlety that is often missed by those few commentors I have had negative experiences in skeptoid discussions or most other forums.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I call it being obnoxious.

Enh. I thought it was obnoxious when you pointed out that Dunning never claimed to be a historian, as if that was even relevant to whether or not his historical narratives are trustworthy.

I apologize for being unnecessarily wordy in my response.

And I didn't miss your point, incidentally. Apparently the consensus is that Dunning is not very trustworthy as a historian, which I think neatly answers the OP's question. With such wide agreement on that point, we can probably say goodbye to being obnoxious :P

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Gaps in research are, to me, entirely expected and excusable. I think you are finding a disagreement between us where in fact we actually agree.

Perhaps you meant to respond to my second sentence?

There is a lot of competition out there for listeners. It may be excusable but more reliable sources are going to make my listening short list.

[Dinwar]

Quote:

Enh. I thought it was obnoxious when you pointed out that Dunning never claimed to be a historian, as if that was even relevant to whether or not his historical narratives are trustworthy.

Fair enough. I do think it directly speaks to his trustworthyness in matters of history, though--it's a basic truism of skepticism, far as I can tell, that when one speaks outside of one's area of expertise one frequently makes a fool of one's self. Sorry if I came off as obnoxious; I merely thought the point warranted being brought up.

Quote:

I apologize for being unnecessarily wordy in my response.

No worries. Your response wasn't unnecessarily wordy, in my opinion. It's just that I disagree with it.

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

The only time I remember comments being deleted was because the guy trying to correct other listeners was incredibly patronising with a "thats wrong I'm the expert" attitude, rather than citing sources. Hey,he may have been the leading expert in the field, or he may have just typed the name of an expert andbeen random guy #567 how can we tell? In my experience actual experts would have the courtesy cite a text book or study when I ask where I can validate their comments, not tell users how long they studied x.

Not knowing what the actual posts said, this is my guess on what happened. Not that anyone was being patronising--but this is a written medium, and how many of us have never been misunderstood due to that fact?If Mr. Dunning was having a rough day, and people were pestering him, he could easily misread a post as coming off as patronizing when it wasn't intended to. It's annoying, but part of the price we pay for evolving to speak face-to-face.

I may be entirely wrong here, and as soon as someone presents evidence I'll gladly adjust my assessment to meet the facts. But given the facts presented in this thread, and seeing how Mr. Dunning deals with corrections and criticisms in the past, this seems a logical interpretation just now.

[DuvalHMFIC]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Meh, the begging is supurflous. He avoided it when he could, as did the pod delusion and the bugle. If a guy can no longer use his speaking engagements or own cash to support a show he seeks revenue, same as many others.

I have yet to hear Dr. Novella beg for donations for the SGU, and it's over an hour long every week. Same with Skepticality (although I haven't listened in a long while, maybe they beg now too?)

Yes, a donation is a donation, and everyone can value it however they like. It just rubs me the wrong way when a guy wants people to donate enough that he no longer has to work other than a 10 minute podcast once a week, that he may or may not be doing proper research for.

Because these are donations, is he set up as a not-for-profit? Is he tax exempt? Yes, this really bothers me if that is the case.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

I have yet to hear Dr. Novella beg for donations for the SGU, and it's over an hour long every week.

SGU is associated with the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore has an avenue of financing itself.

Quote:

It just rubs me the wrong way when a guy wants people to donate enough that he no longer has to work other than a 10 minute podcast once a week, that he may or may not be doing proper research for.

A fully understandable stance, in my opinion. If the show was longer, or more than a radio show (ie, like a half-hour TV show), I could see it becoming a full-time job. And certainly, if the information is wrong that's full justification for refusing to donate to it.