************************************************************************ SYMPTOMS OF PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM (c)1996 William J. Beaty ************************************************************************ http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html Still under construction! Many members of the mainstream scientific community react with extreme hostility when presented with certain claims. This can be seen in their emotional responses to current controversies such as UFO abductions, Cold Fusion, cryptozoology, and numerous others. The scientists react not with pragmatism and a wish to get to the bottom of things, but instead with the same tactics religious groups use to suppress heretics: extreme close- mindedness, hostile emotional attacks, circular reasoning, dehumanizing of the 'enemy', underhanded debating tactics, twisted justifications, and all manner of name-calling and character assassination. Two can play at that game! Therefor, I call their behavior "Pathological Skepticism," a term based upon skeptics' assertion that various unacceptable ideas are "Pathological Science." Below is a list of the symptoms of pathological skepticism I have encountered, and examples of the irrational reasoning they tend to produce. (Note: all the quotes are artificial examples) 1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse. "The phenomenon you have observed is impossible, crazy stuff. We know of no mechanism which could explain your results, so we have grave suspicions about the accuracy your report. There is no room for your results in modern theory, so they simply cannot exist. You are obviously the victim of errors, hoaxers, or self-delusion. We need not publish your paper, and any attempts at replicating your results would be a waste of time. Your requests for funding are misguided, and should be turned down." 2. Erecting barriers against new ideas by constantly altering the requirements for acceptance. (A practice called "moving the goalposts.") "I'll believe it when 'X' happens" (but when it does, this immediately is changed to: "I'll believe it when 'Y' happens.") Example: "I won't believe it until major laboratories publish papers in this field. They have? That means nothing! Major labs have been wrong before. I'll believe it when stores sell products which use the effect. They do? That means nothing, after all, stores sell magic healing pendants and Ouija boards. I'll believe it when important scientists come out in support of it. They have? Well that means nothing, look at Pauling and vitamin-C..." etc, etc, forever. 3. Belief that fundamental concepts in science rarely change, coupled with a "herd following" behavior where the individual changes his/her opinions when colleagues all do, all the while remaining blind to the fact that any opinions had ever changed. "The study of (space flight, endosymbiosis, drillcore bacteria, child abuse, continental drift, etc.) has ALWAYS been a legitimate pursuit. If scientists ever ridiculed the reported evidence, it certainly was not a majority of scientists. It must have been just a few misguided souls, and must have happened in the distant past." 4. Belief that science is guided by concensus beliefs and majority rule, rather than by evidence. Indulging in behavior which reinforces the negative effects of concensus beliefs while minimizing the impact of any evidence which contradicts those beliefs. "Your findings are in direct oppostion to the accepted ways in which the world works. Your evidence cannot be right, because if it is, it would mean that hundreds of textbooks and thousands of expert researchers must be wrong." "I don't care how good your evidence is, I won't believe it until the majority of scientists also find it acceptable. Your evidence cannot be right, because it would mean that hundreds of textbooks and thousands of learned experts are wrong. 5. Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed phenomena without first investigating the details, then refusing to investigate the details. "Your ideas are obviously garbage. What, try to replicate your evidence? I wouldn't soil my hands. And besides, it would be a terrible waste of time and money, since there's no question about the outcome." 6. Maintaining an unshakable stance of hostile, intolerant skepticism, and when anyone complains of this, accusing them of paranoia. Remaining blind to scientists' widespread practice of intellectual suppression of unorthodox findings, and to the "expulsion of heretics" through secret, back-room accusations of deviance or insanity. "You say that no one will listen to your ideas, and now the funding for your other projects is cut off for no reason? If you're thinking along THOSE lines, then you obviously are delusional and should be seeking professional help." 7. Ignoring the lessons of history, and therefor lowering one's guard against repeating them. "Scientists of old ridiculed the germ theory, airplanes, space flight, meteors, etc. They were certain that science had everything figured out, and that major new discoveries were no longer possible. Isn't it good that we researchers of today are much more wise, and such things can no longer happen?!" 8. *Denial* of the lessons of history. An inability to admit that science has made serious mistakes in the past. A belief that good ideas and discoveries are never accidentally suppressed by closemindedness, then revising history to fit this belief. "Throughout history, the *majority* of scientists never ridiculed flying machines, spacecraft, television, continental drift, reports of ball lightning, meteors, sonoluminescence, etc. These discoveries are not examples of so-called 'paradigm shifts', they are obvious examples of the slow, steady, forward progress made by science." 9. Use of circular reasoning to avoid accepting evidence which supports unusual discoveries, or to prevent publication of this evidence. "We will not publish your paper, since these results have not been replicated by any other researchers." "We will not publish your paper, since it is merely a replication of work which was done earlier, by others. 10. Confidence that the unknown is in the far distance, not staring us in the face. "Your evidence cannot be real because it's not possible that thousands of researchers could have overlooked it for all these years. If your discovery was real, scientists who work in that field would already know about it by now." 11. Belief that certain fields of science are complete, that scientific revolutions never happen, and that any further progress must occur only in brushing up the details. "Physics is a mature field. Future progress can only lie in increases to the energies of particle accelerators, and in refining the precision of well known measurements. Your discovery cannot be true, since it would mean we'd have to throw out all our hard- won knowledge about physics." 12. Excusing the ridicule and scorn directed at 'maverik' ideas and anomalous evidence as being a desirable and properly scientific natural selection force. "It is right that new discoveries be made to overcome large barriers. That way only the good ideas will become accepted. If some good ideas are suppressed in this process, well, that's just the price we have to pay to defend science against the hoards of crackpots who threaten to destroy science." 13. Justifying closemindedness and refusals to inspect evidence by claiming a "slippery slope." Using the necessary judicious allocation of time and funding as a weapon to prevent investigation of unusual, novel, or threatening ideas. "If we take your unlikely discovery seriously, all scientists everywhere will have to accept every other crackpot idea too, and then we'll waste all of our time checking out crackpot claims." 14. A blindness to phenomena which do not fit the current belief system, coupled with a denial that beliefs affect perceptions. "Thomas Kuhn's 'paradigm shifts' and sociology's 'cognitive dissonance' obviously do not apply to average, rational scientists. Scientists are objective, they are not prone to the psychological failings which plague normal humans. Scientists always welcome any data which indicates a need to revise their current knowledge. Their "beliefs" don't affect their perceptions, scientists don't have "beliefs", science is not a religion! 15. A belief that all scientific progress is made by small, safe, obvious steps, that widely-accepted theories are never overturned, and that no new discoveries come from anomalies observed. "All your observations are obviously mistakes. They couldn't possibly be real, because if they were real, it would mean that major parts of current science are wrong, and we would have to rewrite large portions of we know about physics. Science proceeds by building on earlier works, never by tearing them down. Therefor it is right that we reject your evidence and recommend that your funding be withdrawn." 16. Hiding evidence of personal past ridicule of ideas which are later proved valid. Profound narcissism; an extreme need to always be right, and a habit of silently covering up personal mistakes. " X is obviously ridiculous, and its supporters are crack- pots who are giving us a bad name and should be silenced." But if X is proved true, the assertion suddenly becomes: "Since 'X' is obviously true, it follows that...") 17. Belief in the lofty status of modern science but with consequent blindness to, and denial of, its faults. A tendency to view shameful events in the history of modern science as being beneficial, and a lack of any desire to fix contemporary problems. "It was right that Dr. Wegner's career was wrecked; that he was treated as a crackpot and ridiculed. His evidence for continental drift convinced no one. And besides, he did not propose a mechanism to explain the phenomena." 18. A belief that Business and the Press have no tendency towards close- mindedness and suppression of novelty, and that their actions are never are guided by the publicly-expressed judgement of scientists. "If the Wright Brothers' claims were true, we would be reading about it in all the papers, and flying-machine companies would be springing up left and right. Neither of these is occurring, therefor the Wright's claims are obviously a lie and a hoax. 19. Refusing to be swayed when other researchers find evidence supporting unconventional phenomena or theories. If other reputable people change sides and accept the unorthodox view, this is seen as evidence of their gullibility or insanity, not evidence that perhaps the unconventional view is correct. "I'll believe it when someone like Dr. P believes it." But when Dr. P changes sides, this becomes: "Dr. P did some great work in his early years, but then he destroyed his career by getting involved with that irrational crackpot stuff." 20. Elevating skepticism to a lofty position, yet indulging in hypocricy and opening the way to pathological thinking by refusing to ever cast a critical, SKEPTICAL eye upon overly-skeptical behavior itself. "Criticizing skeptics is never beneficial. It even represents a danger to science. One should never say these things, it just gives ammunition to the enemy; it aids the irrational anti-science hoards who would destroy our fragile edifice." 21. Belief that modern scientists as a group lack faults, and therefor clinging to any slim justifications in order to ignore the arguments of those who hope to fix the flaws of Science. "I think we can safely ignore Thomas Kuhn's STRUCTURES OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS. Despite his physics training we can see that Kuhn was an outsider to science; he obviously doesn't have a good grasp on real science. Outsiders never can see things in the proper positive light, it takes a working scientist to see the real situation. Also, he stressed his central themes way too much, so I think we can ignore him as simply being a sensationalist. And besides, if he's digging up dirt regarding science, then he must have a hidden agenda. I bet we'll find that he is a christian or something, probably a creationist." 22. Blindness to the widespread existence of the above symptoms. Belief that scientists are inherently objective, and rarely fall victim to these faults. Excusing the appearance of these symptoms as being isolated instances which do not comprise an accumulation of evidence for the common practice of Pathological Skepticism. "This 'Pathological Skepticism' does not exist. Kooks and crackpots deserve the hostile mistreatment we give them, but anyone who does similar things to skeptics is terribly misguided. They are trying to hurt science, and must be silenced!"