Report from NECSS 2010
This past weekend was the second North East Conference on Science and Skepticism, or NECSS (meant to be pronounced “nexus”). The conference is jointly sponsored by the New York City Skeptics and the New England Skeptical Society. While I have a completely insider view of the conference, I want to share my thoughts about it in the context of what, if anything, it says about the skeptical movement.
First, I think it reflects the fact that the skeptical movement is heading in the direction of greater collaboration and cohesion. We are slowly weaving together the many threads that make up what is very loosely called the skeptical movement.
This was more than a conference run by two local skeptical groups – the keynote was given by D.J. Grothe, president of the James Randi Educational Organization (JREF). James Randi himself gave a talk and participated in two panels. There was also a live taping of the Skeptics Guide podcast (SGU), a performance by George Hrab who produces the Geologic podcast, and another panel on promoting skepticism which included Steve Mirsky from Scientific American and was moderated by Julia Galef who hosts the Rationally Speaking podcast.
And finally there was a Science-Based Medicine panel that included myself along with David Gorski and Kimbal Atwood, both popular science bloggers.
This was a collaboration among many groups and new-media producers. What I think this reflects is the degree to which the skeptical movement has come together spontaneously using social networking and new media tools. I know I have made this observation before, but NECSS really reinforced for me the transformation of the skeptical movement brought by Web 2.0 and new media.
But it did more than just connect existing strands of skepticism – it has brought new people into the movement, and has shifted down the average age of a self-identified member of the skeptical movement by several decades.
As a result the movement is more vibrant than ever. There is an energy that was simply not there 10 years ago, and you can really feel it at events like this.
The conference also reflected, most notably in the speech by D.J., that the movement is intellectually vibrant as well. What this means is that skeptics have fairly deep and sophisticated ideas about what it means to be a skeptic, and what the skeptical movement is and should be. There is a passionate and reasoned exchange of ideas.
This brings with it meaningful differences of opinion, and this inevitably leads to conflict. What are the boundaries of skepticism? Should we engage directly with moral, political, religious, and social issues, or stick with empirical science?
I have taken the “big tent” approach myself. While I emphasize science, I also freely explore the intersection of science with these other areas, although I do not engage with “purely” social or moral issues. While others are as likely to opine on their political opinions as on a scientific topic, or to directly engage with faith-based claims. In my opinion, it’s all good, and I do not think I am in a position to define the limits of what others do in the name of skepticism. I simply define what I do.
Meaningful substantive differences of opinion are inevitable in any vibrant intellectual movement. The trick is to engage in an internal discussion about these issues, without fracturing the movement itself. The skeptical movement, while increasingly vibrant, is also quite fragile (there isn’t a lot of hard infrastructure to create stability or permanence). This makes us dynamic, but also unstable.
Right now there is vociferous debate among the “new atheists,” the “accommodationists,” “scientific skeptics,” and other poorly defined and delineated factions about whether or not there is even one skeptical movement, let alone what its limits and strategic approach should be.
This is all good – as long as we remember that most of us have vastly more in common in terms of our world view than the issues that separate us. We don’t all have to agree on everything to work together to make the world a bit more rational and scientific. A little bit of internal tolerance is in order, I think. Otherwise we are likely to fracture before we even fully come together. That is what generally happens with such movements – they splinter along ideological lines having to do with “strategic vision.”
But I am encouraged by NECSS and other similar skeptical events (like TAM and DragonCon) that we are a community – increasingly young, vibrant, and connected. The future seems bright.
Very well put Dr. Novella. This has also been on my mind lately, and it’s nice to hear the viewpoints of other Skeptics with regard to this topic (or set of topics). NECSS also reaffirmed my opinion that we do in fact have a movement or maybe various groups moving toward similar goals. It inspires me and I also hope it inspires others.
Great post. I am also in favor of the ‘big tent’ approach, but what I see is that the majority of issues that cross the skepticism table are science issues. While it is important that we do all we can to dissolve misinformation on that front, it seems to me that science is quite adept at defending itself, as it has done so against fundamentalist persecution for a few centuries, and progress has seldom slowed and never halted.
I think that politics is the area where skepticism is needed the most, as this is what most affects the lives of the masses, and the fingers of corruption reach deep into America’s pocket. After learning about “The Fellowship” and their annual prayer breakfast in DC, it became clear to me that some serious critical inquiry into our government is needed on the part of its citizens. While many Americans are already suspicious of our government, I think most dismiss it as either conspiratorical thinking or lack of voice to make a difference.
While it is fun to rip apart homeopaths and psychics, and that they indeed do some harm in the world, these subjects pale in comparison to the convoluted mess of self-service, negligence and wastefulness that dictates our country.
A major problem I foresee down the road will be the great divide between the “new atheists” (rationalists) and faithiest (accommodationists). The pretzel logic that faithiests use to justify the view that science can’t challenge religious dogma, is so, let’s say, unskeptical. It’s crucial that every skeptic continue to consistently challenge all extraordinary claims and beliefs, regardless of the source or whether or not they will offend some members of the skeptical community or a majority of the public. It’s so unbecoming of a traditional skeptic. I suspect that the true motivation behind this silly, accommodating approach has more to do with holding onto one’s celebrity for dear life than actual common sense; in other words, fame trumps reason. If the faithiests would simply ‘fess up and honestly admit the real motive behind their stand (stardom), then the position would at least be honest and, therefore, much more acceptable (and maybe even understandable to a certain extent). However, if they continue to hide behind convoluted “rationalism” to defend this tenuous, screwy position, maybe it’s time for steadfast skeptics to start thinking about forming a branch that returns to the roots of honest, rational thinking. Anyone for being all skeptical, all the time?
Why can’t someone believe in god, or aliens or monsters from outer space, or whatever and still be a “skeptic”? Carl Sagan stated in his Cosmos series that believing in aliens was rational, he just didn’t believe in Earth visiting aliens. If I believed in a universe spanning deity, but accepted scientifically proven tenants about the way the world and universe work, does that make it unacceptable for me to be part of the skeptical movement?
Or what about believing that vaccines causing autism? Or magnets can cure cancer & arthritis? Or that Ouija boards tell the future? Or that psychics are accurate? Or that therapeutic touch cures diseases? Or that prayer heals ? Or in palmistry? Or the Tooth Fairy? Homeopathy? Astrology? And so on… Hey, go for it. And if you think Sagan was infallible, be my guest. As a skeptic, I don’t bow at the alter of the leaders of the skeptical franchise. Sometimes, I wonder if deep down many skeptics are no different than members of most other groups out there; take your pick. More and more, this movement seems to be more like one of a thousand business models than a group of independent critical thinkers, like it once was. Just look at some of the comments. Sometimes the sound of butt-kissing is deafening.
“More and more, this movement seems to be more like one of a thousand business models than a group of independent critical thinkers, like it once was. Just look at some of the comments.” Hardly the statements of a skeptic. What makes it seem so? And which comments?
As one example: “9) Money is the lifes blood of all movements, go out and get some… actually, get a lot!” I’m seeing more and more examples like this lately. (For more, read some of Shermer’s recent posts.) Also, related to the point I was trying to make: Many, if not most, of the skeptics’ leaders have been taking the “don’t offend” position on only religious matters, which is not only disingenuous, but it is more of a marketing (business) decision (appealing to the masses) than a logical conclusion. All I’m saying is at least be honest with us. And as for being a skeptic, I’ve been a skeptic for many, many years, rustle, which means that once in awhile, I’ll even question the motives of those in the ivory tower of the skeptical movement, instead of accepting, carte blanche, whatever they feed us. Don’t you think that, as a skeptic, you can be skeptical about the intentions of other skeptics? I hope so.
“Don’t you think that, as a skeptic, you can be skeptical about the intentions of other skeptics? ”
The real challenge is in questioning your OWN intentions and beliefs.
I get it. “Be skeptical of the skeptics.”
Paul, let’s be realistic here. This is a world of rich media, and it takes cash to get the word around. A business model is what skepticism needs.
And while I personally don’t favor the non-offensive approach to religion (its boring), I understand and agree with the Skeptologists’ consensus not to offend them. In a PR battle, that is a guaranteed lose, because the religious ALWAYS end up on the high road in the public eye. It is painful to accept, but the playing field is not level. There is nothing disingenuous there, it makes perfectly sound logic in the context of their objective. It might not be ideal, but we are not idealists.
Considering what we know about the development in life on earth, and the countless other star systems and planets in the universe, it isn’t irrational to believe there is life elsewhere. But believing in the prevalence of naturally occurring processes is a far cry from believing in mythical beings.
Indeed, the two ideas are pretty different and totally different thought processes would go into both of them, but they have the same problem in that they cannot be scientifically proven or disproved. We just don’t have the evidence yet to say life is as prolific as we think it might be, and we haven’t identified any extra-solar planets similar enough to Earth. Divine worship is, for good or ill, commonplace throughout human culture. I would have a very difficult time saying that one of those beliefs is ok and the other is not.
Testable religious claims are fair game, but that’s specifically not what I’m talking about.
“Don’t you think that, as a skeptic, you can be skeptical about the intentions of other skeptics? ” One perhaps could be ‘cynical’, if that’s how you feel, but I can’t be skeptical of peoples’ intentions because there’s no proof of their intentions, either way.
“As one example: “9) Money is the life’s blood of all movements, go out and get some… actually, get a lot!” Yes, definitely a suggestion for a business model but in no way does this betray someone’s skeptical bonafides. In fact, it would seem evidenced-based and quite provable.
“Many, if not most, of the skeptics’ leaders have been taking the “don’t offend” position on only religious matters, which is not only disingenuous, but it is more of a marketing (business) decision (appealing to the masses) than a logical conclusion.” How is taking the “do offend” position a logical conclusion?
The idea that the only course for contesting religions claims and influence is flame-throwing is not a logical argument; its simply an opinion.
Robo: As for the PR battle, I get it (although I don’t agree that it is necessarily the best approach). I’m just saying, be honest. That’s all. The pretzel logic (logical fallacy: argument by artifice) used by the faithiests is so unbecoming a skeptic & disingenuous. I’d have more respect if they’d just leave the freakin’ topic be.
tmac57: How about both? Are the two positions mutually exclusive?
rustle: Can’t be skeptical of people’s intentions? Why not? Certainly it can be proved. Be creative. Listen to Randi (who’s always analyzing intentions). As for the business model, sorry…I don’t see it as a “business” (although many do); I see it as spreading the idea of thinking logically about all claims & beliefs through the use of reason, no more, no less. Is absolutely everything for sale? Yuk. I hope not (wishful thinking). As for the “logical conclusion,” I think it’s well established, scientifically, that the Earth isn’t 6,000 years old & that prayer doesn’t heal (as offensive as that may seem to so many religious types). As for the “flame-throwing” approach, one could probably argue & prove that it works best in the long run. It’s strange that you would challenge that approach, yet accept the idea that business models are evidence of anything. Do you know how many businesses go belly up each & every day? Or maybe you think the free market can solve all our problems.
Fellow skeptics: We may disagree on our approaches and the goals of the skeptics. To repeat my main point, however, the leaders of the skeptic movement need to be honest; otherwise, like many other “businesses,” corruption can begin to creep into the system (and trust me, in some instances, it already has). Yes, we should be skeptical of our own ideas & beliefs, but we must also challenge our skeptical figureheads. Too many of us are simply taking our talking points from those in the positions of power. We need to be forever vigilant and skeptical, regardless the source. Otherwise, we’re just another one of a thousand organizations following the same foolish and crooked path that often leads to dishonesty, which is what I think is happening here. Instead, we should be strive to be a new kind of “business model.” Let’s be leaders, not followers (in every sense of the word). That’s all I’m saying.
In any population, only a small percentage are leaders, the rest are followers. I can’t say whether it is genetic or social, but it is what it is. You are correct in that failure to challenge authority leads to corruption, but again we’re talking about another slice of the population that actually will challenge it. We need leaders for the non-questioning followers to follow, and I see good ones at the head of this blog.
Robo,
“It is what it is.” You’re probably right, but at one time I thought that, possibly, the skeptics, by their very nature, might actually break away from such primitive behavior as the traditional hierarchy & that maybe we were onto something new that was based more on logic, reason, and critical thinking than falling back on our basic “instincts.” (There are some cultures that actually have no real leaders.) But if you and the others are wedded to system as is, so be it. As for your seeing “good [leaders] at the head of this blog,” I know differently, but since it’s none of my business, I’ll keep my mouth shut. But it does tell me that you, as well as others (including myself, but not in this case) can be snookered. Enough said.
Snookered? That’s mighty narrow of you, fella. I tried respecting your view and gave you some healthy rebuttal, but I guess the gloves have to come off now. DARN.
The kind of thinking you are exhibiting here is idealistic foolishness. You are romanticizing the idea of clinging to some core principal no matter what the cost in reality. You are skeptical of the upper echelon of skepticism, and branding those who don’t share your view as sheep. That same style of argument is the foundation of anti-corporatism, btw. Furthermore, these leaderless cultures that you speak of.. where are they? Oh yeah, they are in undeveloped nations where people live in huts and treat wounds with spit.
So go ahead and keep chasing that whale, Captain Ahab. If you come to your senses before you get swallowed, skepticism will still be here for you.
Healthy rebuttal? How kind of you to lower yourself, but you should learn to control your temper, suck-up. Your true self finally came through; it just took a little nudging. If you would have just stated from the beginning that you strictly adhered to the status quo & that there was only one way to think & organize a group, you would have saved me a lot of ink, lackey. Ooh, challenging the corporate groupthink mentality. Have I offended your latest idol, toady? Or maybe you have fantasies of one day being the emperor yourself, when you’ll need to keep everyone in their place? Dream on, Walter Mitty (My own literary reference. Cool huh?). So long, suckah!
As I set it –
a) Skeptics can rank evidence logically.
b) Skeptics will believe what the evidence shows pending better evidence.
I am agnostic because the best evidence I have access to does not support a strong belief in an overarching supernatural intelligence directing our reality. An apriori litmus test that says a skeptic MUST be agnostic or atheistic would preclude me from changing my mind if new evidence came to light. Skepticism is not about what you believe; it’s about what you are willing to believe.
I agree. For me, skepticism is not about a belief set or non-belief set, it is a process of rational and critical thinking.
There should be no litmus tests, or required agendas.
Can a Young Earth Creationist or a Moon landing denier qualify as a skeptic? If the answer is no, then you have yourself a litmus test.
Well, Max, if you eliminated everyone from the skeptical movement that believed in something that isn’t true, you would have no one left.
Of course YEC’s and Apollo deniers can be skeptics if they are able to accept better evidence and change their minds. They aren’t enthralled to the woo until they cease reviewing the evidence or close off the possibility of being wrong.
But rational and logical conclusions are not subject to belief or interpretation. There is truth, and then there is everything else. The discipline of skepticism requires that we not believe in invisible beings without evidence, and to openly admit that we were wrong if new evidence does surface.
For example, Bob Carroll of The Skeptic’s Dictionary openly admitted that he was wrong about the danger of secondhand smoke.
http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter41.html
Why the hell didn’t you just link that to begin with? It would have brought a much swifter conclusion to that big argument. Pfft.
Did you just let out a puff of smoke? ;)
No, but I think I farted a little. It really stinks being wrong sometimes.
Been there, done that. I think the fear of being wrong about something can be a positive thing, if it makes us a little more circumspect. For some reason, the older I get, the less I seem to ‘know’.
Funny you should say that, it is central to my approach to enlightening people. Logic and rationality works when dealing with otherwise smart people. For everybody else, you have to embarass the shit out of them before they wake up to reality.
Few things motivate a person to reconsider their position than making them feel as stupid as they behave.
Plus it is a lot more fun that way.
Skepticism’s attraction for me is in the requirements of evidence and proof. I spend a lot of time reading about politics and philosophy, so reading skeptic blogs and listening to the podcasts offers respite from the ever more vociferous and hubristic claims to ‘skeptical’ authority in those fields. The issue of religion as it concerns skepticism seems to me to hold great importance in that its adherents continue to battle (too effectively, I fear) for popular acceptance and governmental influence. That is where I place my attention and efforts. Keeping an eye on my local schoolboard, watching out for local government shenanigans in support of religion, and discrimination of secular groups or interests concern me the most. I’m not one to shy away from revealing and defending my conviction of the absence of the supernatural but I don’t think I’d affect anyone’s opinion positively if I marched down the sidewalk, wearing a sandwich sign that proclaimed “There is no god”. Skeptical examination of the lack of historicity of religions, refutation of supernatural claims, and illustrations of the inconsistencies in the application of religious rules and requirements holds more promise to me.
If I had to pick something I’d like to see the skeptical movement coalesce behind, it would be the promotion of critical thinking as an educational requirement and in the popular culture. And that would seem like something that could be supported by most, if not all, of the campers in the big tent.
rustle- Well said,and I especially agree with “…the promotion of critical thinking as an educational requirement and in the popular culture.”
The thing that I see though, is that there are people in power that realize the subversiveness of reason, and do everything within their power to make sure that their audience is distracted away from it with every fallacious argument in the book. Do I sound cynical? Did I mention that I live in Texas?
Okay, I know, I know, don’t be so pessimistic (to myself). We just need to know our enemy,and not underestimate them, for they are extremely savvy despite what seems like utter ignorance coming from their mouths.
Technically speaking we are a minority, and as such we should take a page (or several) from political organizing, with regard to other minority groups.
1) We have to frame, or create an/the issue(s).
2) We have to create “buzz” (no one knows there’s a problem/issue until you draw their attention to it i.e., no one will listen unless we talk)
3) If there is to be coalition building, you need to ask some key questions, because organizations are not equal (one will usually have more resources than the other, more power) you have to ask: 1) What will we gain? 2) Do we really have the same agenda? 3) Can we trust each other? 4) When do we dissolve the coalition, and under what circumstances? 5) Exactly who is responsible for what? 6) What are the deal breakers etc.
4) Grow the movement (this is not only about resources, but also about spreading the word)
6) Stay on message (This is vital, movements are fractured by infighting, unclear objectives, and poor communication)
7) Constantly illustrate that there is more to be done, while celebrating each “little” victory, in other words, baby steps.
8) Don’t overextend yourself, and your resources (one of the best ways to kill a movement is analysis paralysis or biting off more than you can chew)
9) Money is the lifes blood of all movements, go out and get some… actually, get a lot!
“framing” is a con artist’s game; if self-proclaimed skeptics use that as a tool then they have no chance of success because they have already deluded themselves – that or they are willing liars, just like many of the promoters of woo-woo, and an enemy of respectable skeptics.
Yes,’framing’ does carry a lot of baggage, such as political manipulation, bias, spin, etc. Perhaps what we need, is to effectively ‘define’ issues such as homeopathy, to show why they should matter to skeptics and the public in general, so we can better mobilize to counteract such nonsense.
We also need to correct the ‘framing’ of skeptics that others have done such as skeptics = naysayers,cynics,etc.
We need respectable skeptics to be the friendly face for the public, and we also need some with less slightly less scruples who are willing to do some sneaky stuff behind the scenes. This is politics, the “game” as it is played.
Politics doesn’t necessarily have to be dirty, or sneaky. More to the point, everything that I said, is in any minority politics text (the science, not the practice) We can be both political and ethical, I think the general reaction to the political style organizing, shows more cynicism of politics (understandable) than skepticism as to the mechanisms of politics.
“fraiming” simply put, just means presenting a complex issue in easily understood terms, from within the context of ones perspective. I think you’re confusing “framing” with “spin.”
One is tool for communication, and the other for obfuscation.
Chris, I believe that I understood your use of ‘framing’, but, there is another common usage of the term in politics especially, that does involve, the use of psychological manipulation through the use cognitive linguistics. Its the manipulative aura surrounding the word that might might make a skeptical audience wary.
Matt Nisbet specializes in framing science.
As I recall, he either came up with or endorsed the “Tick” Global Warming propaganda ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghUVT_Z5oDs
The framing is: If you don’t fight Global Warming, you hate children.
How original.
I am 24 years old and I am very excited about being a part of the skeptical movement! I am going to my first TAM this July and I can’t wait to see what the future holds for the skeptical movement. It’s an exciting time!
I am a militant atheist first. Skepticism is something that is a little harder to reach. Working on it though – I am evolving.
Skepticism leads toward atheism, but not vice-versa. I don’t want the skeptical community to be flooded with atheist wackos who think Zeitgeist the movie exemplifies skepticism and critical thinking.
Hmm, I wonder what the chances are of having a public debate, or series of talks, on this subject of whether religious people are ‘true’ skeptics, at a big skeptic meeting like TAM.
I reckon the chances of that happening are low. Those that are the public face of the skeptical community seem far too wary to tackle this subject. But heck, if it were to happen, you can bet your house that it would be a sell-out. I know I’d go.