175. Author Steve Volk on Skeptical Arguments Designed to Mislead (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Interview with*investigative*journalist Steve Volk examines the role of skeptics in science. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with*Philadelphia-based journalist and author of*Fringe-ology, Steve Volk.

Click here to read more ...

[Michael Larkin]

Enjoyed the interview, Alex, and will be looking at Steve's site. May have more to say shortly, but want to make one observation for now, namely that I've noticed that at the end of your interviews lately, you may ask a few questions raised by them.

For instance, this time, you asked (I paraphrase):

1. Does the "X" factor undermine science?

2. Has sceptical science provided any explanatory model, and if so how would we evaluate its results?

The questions don't seem to be transcribed, and I wondered if, in your opening post for a new thread based on an interview, you might like to consider mentioning any such questions to help keep the thread on topic?

Just a thought.

[Hjortron]

Enjoyed the episode. I agree with Steve about how "This is too good; can this actually be true or do I believe this because I want to believe it?" is a necessary question that everyone has to ask themselves when they plow through this stuff.

Many skeptics even use it as a selling-point for their position. "It can't be true, because it's too good to be true. Haven't you seen the world? It's so rough!" While nothing is true because it would be great if it was true, it also isn't false simply because it would be great if it was true.

And the question you ask at the end is quite hard to answer, concerning how science would be impacted. I think that, to some extent, I agree with Chris Carter. Science itself wouldn't be impacted too much; nothing in our overall methodology would be changed. The impact would lie in the philosophical interpretation of scientific results only. Neal Grossman talks about something similar where the biggest impact would come to philosophy and psychology, for it is those branches that most need to assume that materialism is true to continue function as they do today.

And to answer the second question: No. There is no materialistic framework for understanding the NDE, none that I've seen at least, that accomodates all the data. The best I've seen are vague phrases like "there might be a psychophysiological explanation" à la Keith Augustine, and that's saying precisely nothing.

[Michael Larkin]

The parallel between the sceptics vs. believers controversy in matters of materialism and controversies in other scientific areas is uncanny. I suppose one example of the latter that particularly engages me is the so-called "climate debate", where there is also conflict between sceptics and believers.

However, in the climate debate, it is the believers who enjoy the support of the media and the elites, whereas in the materialism debate, it is the sceptics who enjoy that.

I suppose the point is that it isn't scepticism or belief that is relevant to whether or not a view is supported. What matters is what the media and elites regard as the "orthodox" view on scientific issues. For the most part, they are very conservative (with a small "c") about whose side they will take--what they will promulgate and what they will choose to turn a blind eye to.

In many areas of human affairs, the media will play an active part in questioning orthodoxy. But not in science, apparently. I can't help thinking that this is largely a result of the ignorance of journalists when it comes to science. It's very hard work to delve into the intricacies, and much easier to be lazy, adopting a predigested attacking stance (journalists do so like to engage in polemics, don't they?), secure in the knowledge that one has the backing of the "authorised to pronounce on the issue". Not to mention, secure in the knowledge that orthodoxist pressure groups and activists will have provided preformatted responses ready for journalistic cut-and-paste.

Politicians, key players amongst the elite, are at least, if not more, clueless when it comes to an understanding of science. And, it's even more obvious why they would want to be seen to be backing orthodox scientific opinion. It's not so much that the media and elites are evil, as that they're bone idle and/or ill-informed; not so much conspiracy as cock-up on their part. This leaves them wide open to manipulation by special interest groups (Psicop, environmentalists, even businesses), who may be the real villains of the piece.

I suspect that people (that includes many scientists) in both the materialism and climate debates, though they may feel constrained by PC issues from saying so explicitly, are often privately open to unorthodox views. Indeed, it may go well beyond mere PC; their very livelihoods may be jeopardised if they dare to speak their minds.

The elephant in the room is the unwillingness/inability of media and elites to engage in rational thinking and debate. It's just too much trouble, too much hard work. It has ever been so: at one time, the authority to kowtow to was the church. And in one sense, the new authority is also a church; in its dynamics, it is no less religiously dogmatic. And just as the old church used to reach for suitable invective (heretic, infidel, etc.), so also does the new church (denier, flat-earther, anti-science, woo-woo, etc.). Scientists, journalists and politicians are often well-meaning, but our present Western societies are so structured that special interest groups, seemingly undetected, are tails that are wagging the dog.

There's also the marked tendency to conflate issues. The unorthodox vis a vis specific issues like climate change or materialism must also be creationists, politically right or left wing, and so on. I think that orthodoxists are easily spotted by their attempts to commandeer language (scarily like Newspeak) in service of their aims; to use it to limit understanding of issues; to make it very difficult for Joe Public to perceive the nuances involved in controversial scientific areas.

In short, the issue is much bigger than what is happening in areas that Skeptiko is concerned with. It's a great malaise of our technological world, in which shiny modernity is blinding us to the fact that age-old forces are in play: superstition, dogmatism, the need to marginalise and demonise. As fast as we demolish old boogeymen, we create new ones to fill the void. No longer having dark-skinned people, dumb blondes and poofters to despise, we must have deniers, creationists-by-proxy, woo-woo merchants, and so on.

My hope is that at some point, the penny will drop that this is what the situation really is, and that we will be able to develop a society in which it is possible to recognise that people, faced with the same data, can legitimately hold different opinions. That the solution is to have open and cordial (if sometimes vigorous) debate, in which all sides are inclined to give evidence primacy over personal proclivity.

That doesn't mean that everyone will come to the same conclusion; perish the thought. It rather means that everyone will treat with respect those whose interpretations differ. As I see it, the science establishment increasingly has been shaped as the new sacerdotal elite, rushing to fill the vacuum left by the church. Scientists are only human, and are maybe unwittingly allowing themselves to be so manipulated. To some extent or other, many of us, not just the media and the elites, are encouraging that to happen. Because many of us are also lazy; can't be bothered to investigate and raise our heads above the parapet.

[Open Mind]

I agree with all Steve Volk's comments.

1. Does the "X" factor undermine science?

Yes and no. Yes, if one assumes metaphysical materialism = science. No, if one assumes science will one day go beyond quantum physics to something deeper still.

Materialism is a metaphysical assumption based upon classical physics being fundamentally true but is almost certainly fundamentally false. The term 'physicalist' emerged to accomodate modern physics....obviously non-materialists can follow physics too.

Since psi is a mental phenomena that extends beyond brains in space (e.g. remote viewing, telepathy) and time (e.g. precognition) and violates minds being like classical computers ... the 'physicalist' is forced (once they accept psi) that if minds extend beyond classical assumptions, mental phenomena is utilizing something else ... the first stop being quantum physics, however this is of little help because as Stapp points out for QM to work in actual practise requires a posing of the question that is not defined in QM ... so arguably a deeper 'X' factor is missing from current science.

So perhaps the answer is not 'yes and no' but yes, yes

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Michael Larkin

However, in the climate debate, it is the believers who enjoy the support of the media and the elites, whereas in the materialism debate, it is the sceptics who enjoy that.

I think conventional science has set itself up to take an incredible hit on "climate science"! When a few facts come out , they won't have a leg to stand on, and even some of their own gurus - such as James Lovelock are admitting it was an awful mistake:

Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change | Mail Online

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Michael Larkin

Enjoyed the interview, Alex, and will be looking at Steve's site. May have more to say shortly, but want to make one observation for now, namely that I've noticed that at the end of your interviews lately, you may ask a few questions raised by them.

For instance, this time, you asked (I paraphrase):

1. Does the "X" factor undermine science?

2. Has sceptical science provided any explanatory model, and if so how would we evaluate its results?

The questions don't seem to be transcribed, and I wondered if, in your opening post for a new thread based on an interview, you might like to consider mentioning any such questions to help keep the thread on topic?

Just a thought.

thx Michael... good suggestion. Perhaps you or whoever gets to the thread first can add them to the first post if I don't get around to it.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Hjortron

Many skeptics even use it as a selling-point for their position. "It can't be true, because it's too good to be true. Haven't you seen the world? It's so rough!"

I recall Andy's interview where the old Jewish doctor who was angered by the mere mention of "God"... "6 million dead" he murmured. As much as we might identify with anyone's individual pain, this kind of reasoning is a terrible way to try and answer theses questions.

And the question you ask at the end is quite hard to answer, concerning how science would be impacted. I think that, to some extent, I agree with Chris Carter. Science itself wouldn't be impacted too much; nothing in our overall methodology would be changed. The impact would lie in the philosophical interpretation of scientific results only. Neal Grossman talks about something similar where the biggest impact would come to philosophy and psychology, for it is those branches that most need to assume that materialism is true to continue function as they do today.

I get the point, but don't agree... I often poke at my wife about psychology (Joni E. Johnston, Psy.D. | Psychology Today)... wouldn't almost every psychology study have to be reexamined in the way I'm talking about?

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Since psi is a mental phenomena that extends beyond brains in space (e.g. remote viewing, telepathy) and time (e.g. precognition) and violates minds being like classical computers ... the 'physicalist' is forced (once they accept psi) that if minds extend beyond classical assumptions, mental phenomena is utilizing something else ... the first stop being quantum physics, however this is of little help because as Stapp points out for QM to work in actual practise requires a posing of the question that is not defined in QM ... so arguably a deeper 'X' factor is missing from current science.

So perhaps the answer is not 'yes and no' but yes, yes

maybe we ought to rip all the science books apart and give half their pages to the religion department and the other half to engineering... science can be restated as that which:

a. gets up closer to God

or

b. makes the iPhone better

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Michael Larkin

My hope is that at some point, the penny will drop that this is what the situation really is, and that we will be able to develop a society in which it is possible to recognise that people, faced with the same data, can legitimately hold different opinions.

IMO the trend seems to be heading in the opposite direction... manipulation, disinformation and public deception seems to be on the rise (Skeptiko – Science at the Tipping Point Blog Archive 142. Jim Marrs On Donald Rumsfeld and ?What is Building 7??)