Stupid Quote of the Day: Randi, skepticism, and cranks

First, a little backstory. As anyone in the skeptic blogosphere will no doubt be aware by now, James Randi, one of the most renown debunker of pseudoscience and frauds and the head of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), recently caused quite a bristly stir amongst fellow skeptics when he published a blog post that indicated he had fallen into believing some anti-anthropogenic global warming nonsense. As PZ Myers pointed out, his key argument seemed to be concerning the Petition Project, which is little more than AGW denialists’ equivalent to the Discovery Institute’s “Dissent from Darwin” list of anti-evolution cranks in that only a very small number of the signatories are even qualified, and that the source of the list is a tiny anti-AGW “think tank” in Oregon. It really is disreputable hogwash, and that such a prominent skeptic as Randi seems to have fallen for it, at least initially, is rather depressing.

Of course, Randi’s post sparked a bit of a firestorm amongst skeptic blogs, some even going as far as calling Randi a Global Warming denialist, which is actually rather unfair. Randi didn’t deny AGW outright as actual denialists do; he was wrong in saying that there are holes in the evidence and that some of it is ambiguous, as the evidence itself, in its totality, is exceedingly clear. But to call him a denialist outright is just dense.

Of course, the reason why so many skeptics got fired up at Randi’s post (to which he’s since made a partial, but not completely satisfactory, retraction) is that, well, they disagreed with him. Skepticism isn’t a one-way avenue where everyone who practices it follows the same mindset and arrives at the same conclusions; if anything, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Skepticism is all about criticism of everything, from the evidence to each other and our views and opinions. To be a skeptic means to question anything unless or until it has shown to be incontrovertibly true (though even then, reversals are still possible, and always will be). A skeptic is not someone who denies anything; it’s simply someone who refuses to believe in something that has no reason to be believed in.

Naturally, though, this definition is often contested or even denied outright by opponents of skepticism, who tend to see skepticism (as with anything else that acts as a rejection of their prized yet scientifically and rationally groundless beliefs, such as atheism) as a sort of religion, a stringent mindset that all its sheep follow without dissent or criticism for fear of being ostracized from the rest. This is purely idiotic … and brings us (finally) to today’s Stupid Quote. From Greg Taylor over at The Daily Grail, who’s long had a bone of contention against Randi and the skeptic movement in general, speaking about the general dissent aimed at Randi over his post:

Randi took a position which was diametrically opposed to the current scientific consensus, and furthermore one that was absolutely contrary to the argument being put forth on a regular basis by other skeptics such as Phil Plait and P.Z. Myers. There was no other option for them but to criticise Randi – it was either that or be hypocrites. What would be a better test of the health of modern skepticism is if other skeptics pulled Randi up for speaking nonsense about more fringe topics. Which he does on a regular basis. And the silence is deafening. The real truth of modern skepticism as a dogmatic faith is revealed in those particular moments.

Wow. Now, usually, I tend to let Greg’s anti-skeptic, anti-atheism rants pass by without a word, but this one is just chock-full of dumbassery and I simply cannot resist tearing it apart.

First of all, Greg claims that most skeptics vehemently opposed Randi’s post and claims because … not doing so would have been hypocritical. Right, it can’t be that they actually disagreed with him, and that Randi actually made one rare but grievous slip-up in his skepticism by doubting the evidence for AGW (and especially for using the completely debunked Petition Project as a prime argument). What’s even worse, is that in saying so, Greg implies that the skeptic movement is somehow obligated, usually, to follow Randi in his opinions and views as though his way of thinking was The Truth^TM, which is really quite insulting to skeptics. We don’t “follow” anyone. The reason why skeptics tend to agree with each other more often than not is that, well, skepticism, by its very logic – evidence equals truth of claim, lack of evidence equals invalidity of claim – tends to lead to the same conclusion(s). But, of course, skeptics are humans, so invariably, there will be disagreements and different interpretations, and some skeptics will be plain wrong. As was Randi in his AGW-“skepticism” post.

Then, Greg accuses Randi of “speaking nonsense about more fringe topics”. Again, I have to call “bullshit!” on this. Randi uses scientific evidence, along with reason and logic, to expose frauds and to destroy their pseudoscientific claims. I’m sorry, Greg, but until someone comes up and produces actual credible, concrete, testable and incontrovertible scientific evidence demonstrating how precognition is real, or telepathy, or telekinesis, or clairvoyance, or whatever, then the only way to approach such claims is to dub them as pseudoscientific bullshit. It’s not an attack; it’s a statement of fact. They are as credible as someone who claims that giant green lizards rule the world, or that the sky is bright pink and that it rains muffins. If there is no evidence to support a claim, than it is overwhelmingly probable, to the point of near-certainty, that said claim is simply false, and it should therefore be treated as such, and its supporters, as frauds and cranks.

You know why the “silence is deafening” when it comes to other skeptics dissenting with Randi’s conclusions and assertions regarding pseudoscience and claims about paranormal abilities? It’s because they agree with him, and therefore, have no reason to dispute his findings. The fact that skeptics don’t always rip into each other over anything and everything is not evidentiary towards a pact of agreement or that skepticism is a “dogmatic faith”, as Greg so idiotically claims. It’s simply because they mostly do agree with each other, and that Randi himself has shown to be mostly correct in his conclusions. There is usually no reason to disagree with what he says.

Truly, I am getting quite tired of hearing about how skepticism is a “faith”, as much as I am sick of hearing the same for atheism, or any movement that espouses rationality and scientific facts over nonsense and wild, unsupportable claims. The fact that we reject notions that cannot be tested, proven, or even demonstrated in a laboratory setting, is not indicative of close-mindedness, but simply of a refusal to believe in whatever bullshit gets thrown our way. If you make a claim, it is then up to you to support your claim and show how it is true and factual. When you are unable to verify your claim in any way, then you and your claim will be discredited. Whining about it does not help your case, and neither does bitching at skeptics who simply point out how baseless your claim is.

Technorati tags: skepticism · skeptics · Greg Taylor · pseudoscience · James Randi · denialism