Skeptics hate misleading twaddle

Skeptics are tired of doing this. Please stop making us do this

I follow The Daily Grail for a several reasons – it’s a font of of all manners of interesting, amusing and delightfully random news (specifically referring to its mostly-daily News Briefs feature), it’s home to some interesting writing and articles and presents a variety of viewpoints that I find, if not always relevant to my personal interests, at least useful to gain a more wide-ranging viewpoint of things. However, the paranormal- and supernatural-themed website’s oft-resentful and bellicose attitude towards skeptics, especially more prominent ones such as Phil Plait from Bad Astronomy, is not one of them. Here’s a good example of this rather irritating and at times downright misleading tone, from webmaster Greg Taylor’s latest post, forebodingly titled “Skeptics <3 the Paranormal”, which is itself a response to the Bad Astronomer’s excellent post regarding skeptics’ role(s) and attitude(s) towards the Catholic Church and its dealing with the mounting clerical child sex abuse scandal:

[From Phil Plait’s post] Skepticism deals with issues of the paranormal, issues with faith, issues where scientific evidence can be used to test a claim. In this case, I don’t see skeptics needing to be involved more than any other interest group.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Skepticism is just about doubting things, and employing evidence to assist you in reaching conclusions. Not "scientific evidence". Not just "issues of the paranormal". But Phil Plait here is just reiterating what most of us already know - that the modern "skeptical" movement is largely a grouping of people who fear that supernatural thinking will somehow blow out the candle of rationalism. They are as ideological as any other faith-based group.

This is just idiotic. First, Taylor’s line about skepticism being “about doubting things” and using evidence to find the truth is exactly what Phil himself wrote. There wasn’t exactly a need to repeat it as though it were a correction or a clarification. Then, he proceeds to make another “correction”, this one apparently implying that skepticism is about the use of evidence, yet “not ‘scientific evidence’”. This is absurd; any nonsense can be paraded around as “evidence” in support of whatever bit of bullcrap kooks and cranks can come up with. Only evidence that is acquired through scientifically explainable means and can be tested and quantified in a logical and rational (ie. scientific) manner can be presented as credible. So, yes, skepticism certainly is about “scientific evidence”, amongst other things.

Also, nowhere did Phil claim that skepticism was “just [about] ‘issues of the paranormal’”; in fact, he stated the exact opposite in giving examples to indicate what topics could be broached through skepticism – “issues of the paranormal” being just one of them – in addition to explaining the nature of skepticism (“[dealing with] issues where scientific evidence can be used to test a claim”). It’s written in plain English, for Pete’s sake.

That last bit about modern skeptics being a group who tremble in fear at the thought of supernatural thinking, and especially that they are “as ideological as any other faith-based group”, is the sort of crap you expect to hear from anti-skeptic reality-deniers, not someone like Taylor who claims to be a skeptic himself. Skeptics may or may not be ideological; that certainly is only verifiable on an individual basis (according to the basic definition of “ideology” being “a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions”), not applicable to everyone. But, there is no harm in an ideology based on knowledge, science, rational thought and a critical mind. And to claim that skeptics are on the same level as “any other faith-based group” is just massively moronic.

Even worse, though, is when Taylor takes on Phil’s take on how skeptics ought to deal with the Catholic Church on the issue of clerical child sex abuse:

Just as interesting was some of the rationalisation for skepticism not to get involved with the Catholic controversy:

A ham-fisted attack on religion and the Pope will probably not make you any friends, no matter how evil a deed they’ve done...charging in with guns blazing is not a good idea.

Really? Does Phil just reserve this protection for Catholicism, given they way he ham-fistedly attacks ufology based on little or no research of his own? Or Randi, who ham-fistedly attacks parapsychologists when it seems as if he hasn't even read their research? Guess what guys - you're *not* making any friends. You might like to heed your own words if you're truly trying to educate people...

This just reeks of irrational butthurt. Claiming that someone like Phil Plait would go after cranks and kooks and tear apart their bogus and pseudoscientific claims like a rabid dog without any research would be amusing in its stupidity if it weren’t so ignorant and pretentious. Really? A renown skeptic, a certifiable (and certified) expert in several fields and a man known for his endless promotion of critical thought and scientific inquiry, would just attack subjects without knowing the first things about them? I find that rather difficult to believe, to put it quite mildly.

Finally, the point in attacking bogus anti-reality claims is not to make friends. People can hate skeptics or love them; the point is to expose bullshit and the frauds, con-artists and delusional weirdos who propagate it. Also, this is simply not what Phil was talking about to begin with, so add a “red herring” to the list of fallacies in Taylor’s post for a silly and irrelevant distraction. Phil’s point was that charging after the Catholic Church, the Vatican and the Pope personally and trying to have him arrested at once is simply not a wise option (or even a viable one, realistically), unless skeptics and atheists actually want to have virtually every single Catholic in the US (and elsewhere) turn on them. The Catholic Church and Pope Ratzi need to be investigated lawfully and have whatever crimes they are responsible of come to light, and then be punished for them following due process.