Friday, November 18, 2005

Rupert Sheldrake lays the SMACKdown!

Well... you know... as much as a scientist can, leastways...

ISS: Latest News and Events:
"I read your exchange with Michael Shermer with much interest. I agree with both of you about the need for skepticism as a essential part of the scientific process. But media skeptics are not usually part of a constructive scientific debate but rather follow a narrow, negative agenda. Michael claimed that skeptics such as himself are “thoughtful, inquiring, and reflective.” But there is a big gulf between this ideal and what media skeptics actually do, which, as you pointed out, all too often involves condemning open-minded inquiry. Like you, I have been the target of many skeptical attacks, and my experience has been very similar to your own.

Michael ended by trying to rebrand his kind of negative skepticism as positive.

'The skeptical fences are there for a reason - to keep the borderlands of science from shading too far into pseudoscience, non-science, and nonsense… Scientists don’t have the time or resources to shilly-shally with every new idea that comes down the pike. That is what the skeptics do, and as part of the scientific process: this is the power of positive skepticism.' In other words, media skeptics are the self-appointed frontier guards of science, a job for which they think they need no credentials except their fervor.

...It’s easy to be a media skeptic. You get the last word. You can say what you like. You don’t have to spend years doing actual research. And you yourself can remain immune from criticism, because those you criticize have no right of reply.

... The problem seems to be in part that the media feel the need to present a “balanced” view, and this creates an opportunity for negative skeptics to pursue their agenda. Well-funded skeptical advocacy organizations like CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, concentrate their attention on getting their message into the media as often as possible, always with the privilege of the last word. They are very successful. Some TV channels, including National Geographic in its current “Is It Real?” series, have allowed themselves to become mass-market vehicles for organized skepticism.

If the media want to give a balanced view, one simple solution would be to reverse the normal procedure. Ask the skeptics to speak first, saying why they think something like telepathy is impossible, and then let those who have carried out real investigations present actual evidence. Better still, create a level playing field. Allow replies. This would be much more interesting for readers and viewers."

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment