We think it’s about time to reclaim the word ‘sceptic’ from the anti-natural medicine skeptic movement – and yes, the difference in spelling is entirely deliberate! As we’ll see, they are two entirely different things.
Doubt versus dogma
We were very interested in a recent episode of the morning discussion show ‘In Our Time’, on the UK’s BBC Radio 4, entitled simply ‘Scepticism’. The programme, hosted by writer and broadcaster Melvyn Bragg, traced the history of the proud philosophical tradition of scepticism, which has its roots in the ancient Greece of Plato and Socrates.
At its core, classical scepticism is the belief that it may be impossible to know anything with absolute certainty – that all beliefs and dogmas are equally subject to doubt and questioning. Doubt, and not negative assertion of the ‘such-and-such cannot possibly be correct’ type, is the true sceptic’s watchword. As such, philosophical scepticism has much in common with, and indeed has greatly influenced, the ideal of the modern scientific method: to objectively question the world around us, while realising that there can be no absolute ‘truth’ – only a balance of probabilities.
Sceptical paradoxes
Here’s an interesting situation thrown up by ‘true scepticism’. Sceptics have had great fun demonstrating that the dogmas of religion are unsupportable. And yet, taken to its logical conclusion, the sceptical rejection of all human reason can create the tranquillity through which many believe God can work; Michel de Montaigne, a noted sceptical thinker, concluded that, “After scepticism, man is like a blank tablet, upon which the finger of God can carve whatever word He wants”.
Bringing this line of thought up-to-date, the modern sceptical paradox is that a philosophy based on questioning all sides of a particular argument now finds itself harnessed to the ‘anti-natural’ cause. Such skeptics, typified by organisations such as Sense About Science, appear to find themselves firmly in a pro-GM, pro-mainstream medicine, anti-natural healthcare position. For a start, if scepticism leads us to question all sides of an argument – to reject the intrinsic ‘rightness’ of any position – how can the skeptics be so loudly pro-mainstream medicine and against all the alternatives? What scientific data are they using to support the very dubious view that genetically modified (GM) crops will resolve world hunger? Strictly speaking, it should be impossible for sceptics to describe themselves as ‘pro-science’ or ‘pro-technology’, since that clearly associates them with a belief in the correctness of modern science – an utterly non-sceptical position!
Not only that, but while philosophical scepticism has had enormous influence on the modern scientific process, the modern skeptic turns his or her back on the scientific method by ignoring centuries of human experience – and the clinical experience being gathered every day by practitioners – as ‘anecdote’. Only randomised, controlled trials in human subjects will do to prove any treatment approach worthy of consideration. So, it seems that the ‘pro-science’ ‘skeptics’ are actually in some respects ‘anti-science’, and they’re certainly not sceptics. Their position is effectively a form of intellectual fraud — and that’s being kind.
Descent into thuggery
Chris Woollams runs the charity cancerACTIVE, which provides information on non-mainstream cancer therapies – a red flag for many skeptics, including Prof David Colquhoun of University College London. Colquhoun wrote a piece on his blog accusing Woollams of illegally profiting from cancerACTIVE. When Woollams protested that this was entirely untrue, Colquhoun admitted as much on his blog – without removing the offending article! In the meantime, Colquhoun rallied skeptic friends via Twitter, to pen their own poisonous articles. Colquhoun only removed his defamatory post upon legal advice, presumably that he was guilty of libelling Woollams.
Bitter fruits
When the fruits of the skeptic movement are intellectual fraud, thuggery and empty character assassination, can society be expected to take the movement’s views seriously?
Perhaps today’s ‘anti-natural’ pseudo-skepticism will one day be condensed into a short chapter — of academic interest only — in scepticism’s rich history.
Call to action
- Share this article widely with those you feel may have been swayed by skeptics who hold themselves out to be objective, but in reality are using a form of pseudo-scepticism to impart a dogma that supports the status quo. This may be through the over-use of prescription drugs or childhood vaccination in healthcare, or the notion that GM crops are required to alleviate poverty and hunger in developing countries
- If you consider yourself a sceptic, and can, hand on heart, say that your sceptical deliberations rely on the open-minded principles of enquiry on which the great philosophical tradition of true scepticism is founded — congratulations! However, if you are purporting to use skepticism to demonstrate that natural solutions to healthcare or agriculture are worthless, you may wish to re-examine if skepticism is an appropriate term to describe your method. Have you, for example, become wittingly or unwittingly involved in what Martin Walker calls ‘corporate science’?
Let’s remember that an open and questioning mind is one of the greatest gifts a human being has.
Comments
your voice counts
Anonymous
18 July 2012 at 8:07 pm
Anyone convinced of any benefits from GM should read, or encourage others to read Jeffrey Smith's book Genetic Roulette.
Steve Barwick http://www.TheSilverEdge.com
18 July 2012 at 10:28 pm
What a great and truly needed article. Here in the U.S., the leaders of the so-called "skeptics" groups are nothing more than paid propagandists for giant corporate-government entities associated with either Big Pharma or Big Farma. They use pseudo-scientific rhetoric to make their flimsy cases against natural health and the organic movement, and when that fails they simply resort to labeling anything they disagree with as "quackery."
More importantly, they attempt to dominate the internet by using search engine optimization techniques to place their "skeptic" web sites at the tops of search engine results and push pro-natural health and pro-organic web sites down as far as possible in the search engine results (see this article to learn more about how they do it: http://www.thesilveredge.com/Mr.%20Science%20Labels%20Colloidal%20Silver%20Usage%20as%20Quackery.shtml).
The bottom line is that the so-called "skeptics" are nothing more than paid propagandists for the corporate system, utilizing what can only be termed as drive-by shooting tactics in their vain attempts to discredit the natural health and organic foods communities.
Les Rose http://majikthyse.wordpress.com
19 July 2012 at 10:38 am
Hilarious! You say Skepticat's report on the Scientific Research in Homeopathy conference is character assassination, when the report details Lionel Milgrom's character assassination of anyone who criticises homeopathy. You really do not get the logic here. Skeptics are not claiming anything. They are not "so loudly pro-mainstream medicine...". They are not asserting anything, they are simply asking questions. The question for you is, where is the evidence? But you bizarrely insist that millennia of anecdotes are evidence. No philosopher of science will agree with you. Sorry, but turning the logic on its head won't wash.
You have hijacked the word `natural'. There is almost nothing natural about the way humans live today. If we lived naturally, we would die painfully before 40. I don't care whether you call a treatment natural, I only care if it works.
And I am deeply miffed that you didn't notice my blog post which asked questions about CancerACTIVE and Woollams.
Les Rose http://majikthyse.wordpress.com
20 July 2012 at 9:02 am
Just as I thought. You refuse to publish dissenting comments. Utterly typical of pseudoscience supporters. Yet you publish an abusive and totally untrue accusation that skeptics are funded by big business. You won't of course publish this comment either, but I want you to know that we are onto you. I have published my comment elsewhere so that the world knows how you censor debate. Can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
ANH Admin
20 July 2012 at 12:12 pm
Thanks for your comment, Les, and for illustrating our points so effectively. Incidentally, we didn’t post your first comment instantly because we have a comment moderation system and we’re a small team.
Incidentally, we’ve removed the link to your article, as we never support malicious gossip of any kind.
ANH Admin
20 July 2012 at 12:21 pm
In response to Guy Chapman, who posted a long list of complaints regarding cancerACTIVE: we've take the decision not to publish your comment. As we said in reply to Les Rose, we're not interested in publishing malicious gossip or character assassination, and if people are interested in the ongoing saga of the skeptics and cancerACTIVE, there are plenty of other blogs for them to visit.
We also didn't feel that your comment addressed the thrust or content of the article, which was about the intellectual inconsistency at the core of the skeptic movement.
Les Rose
20 July 2012 at 3:17 pm
So you don't support `malicious gossip'? What about this from `Anonumous'?
"the leaders of the so-called "skeptics" groups are nothing more than paid propagandists for giant corporate-government entities associated with either Big Pharma or Big Farma."
Any evidence for that? Nobody making such claims has ever provided any. Of course, the writer is not brave enough to be identified. What you people need to understand is that the skeptical community isn't a front for corporate interests. Nobody gets paid to attack pseudoscience. We are just people who care about the truth, and give up our spare time (and in my case time that I could have billed to paying clients). It may seem incredible to you that a relatively small band of dedicated people, with virtually no funding and nothing more than evidence as their weapon, can actually trigger concrete change for the public good. But that's the truth - get used to it.
In contrast, supporters of pseudoscience are commonly paid to do it. Homeopaths are usually in private practice. The chiropractic `profession' is big business. German homeopathy companies pay a journalist who smears a UK academic [...] Oh sorry, you don't support malicious gossip ;). Or more accurately, you don't support free speech when it doesn't suit you.
I find your excuse about the moderation delay unconvincing. Funny that my first post only appeared after I stung you by publishing it elsewhere.
My blog post was factual and simply asked pertinent questions. I think you should link to it so that readers can judge for themselves. That's what I do on my blog, however abusive the commenters are.
[This comment has been moderated and abbreviated by ANH-Intl.]
ANH Admin
20 July 2012 at 6:38 pm
If by 'Anonumous' you mean Steve Barwick, please see our reply to Josephine Jones above.
If you'd like to debate the topic of the article - the shaky to non-existent intellectual and philosophical underpinnings of the skeptic movement - please go ahead. Your comments seem to have strayed somewhat from the point, however.
Here's a thought for you. While we agree that any sceptical enquiry should involve drilling deep into any issue, and searching for available evidence to answer it, we have been bemused that we rarely see any positive outcomes from the UK skeptic community. In other words, skeptics seem to focus on things they don't like, rather than seek for positive solutions to current problems. In the nutritional and lifestyle arena, which is one of our greatest areas of interest because of its role in chronic diseases, the evidence for beneficial effects is very solid, yet is rarely implemented in the primary care setting. Yet skeptics are quiet on the issue. Any ideas why?
Josephine Jones http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/
20 July 2012 at 4:29 pm
You aren't interested in publishing malicious gossip or character assassination? Then I ask you read through the above post with an open mind. Think about what it is saying. Think about what it really means.
It seems to me that you are basically lumping together all those who disagree with you under the 'skeptics' banner then accusing us all - baselessly - of intellectual fraud and thuggery. I would consider this to be malicious and an attempt at character assassination. It is also based on a truly incredible twisting of facts. Either that or a total lack of understanding of what the scientific method is and a lack of appreciation of all the medical advances that have happened because of the application of science.
As you will no doubt be aware, Guy Chapman's unapproved comment has been published on my own blog, where I go into more detail about my problems with this article. His comment does not constitute 'gossip' - it is a simple summary of plain facts already published on his own posts about CANCERactive.
I note that you linked to my CANCERactive post using the words 'poisonous articles'. My CANCERactive post was well considered and tactful; I didn't mean to be vicious or 'poisonous'. I was merely voicing legitimate concerns - which you have completely failed to address. My post was not about Chris Woollams' business affairs or CANCERactive's charitable status - unlike the 6 other posts which were - including posts from Les Rose and Guy Chapman.
Another comment here states "so-called "skeptics" are nothing more than paid propagandists for the corporate system, utilizing what can only be termed as drive-by shooting tactics in their vain attempts to discredit the natural health and organic foods communities.". You saw fit to publish this - which is not only malicious but also untrue. This could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to smear critics. That is what you might call defamation.
Apologies for writing my own post before even commenting here - I truly did not expect you to publish anything I might write. In light of you publishing the comment by Les Rose, perhaps I was being unfair. No matter. I plan to publish this on my own blog in any case.
ANH Admin
20 July 2012 at 6:16 pm
Thanks for your comment, Josephine. Our article was about the intellectual inconsistency of the skeptic movement, and we're happy to debate that with you and anyone else. Examination of our website should convince you that we're perfectly familiar with the scientific method. As for Steve Barwick's comment below, he hasn't named any individuals or organisations, so it's a fair contribution to the debate. We suggest you respond to him directly.
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences