D.J. Grothe’s lecture from NECSS 2010 has made the leap to the interwebz, and you may view it below.
D.J.’s subject, “Skepticism Is a Humanism,” is an affirmation of a principle that some of us think goes without saying, and which the rest of us hardly think about. It raises some interesting questions.
The talk begins with definitions. D.J. asks: Is skepticism “saying no to nonsensical beliefs”? I don’t think so. The pejorative “nonsense” almost automatically implies a degree of solipsism; an unwarranted trust in one’s ability to distinguish nonsense from truth. Everybody, Tom Cruise to Fred Phelps, thinks s/he says “no” to nonsense. It doesn’t make them skeptical. (Though it does reveal an innate, unformed inclination toward skepticism, which makes me hopeful.) A meaningful definition of skepticism would have to encapsulate the process by which we identify nonsense, rather than note the mere fact that we disparage it.
Another definition D.J. proffers is “ordinary common sense.” This isn’t any better, and may be worse, as it rips “ordinary” and “common” from their ordinary, common definitions. Skepticism is neither. It is an historical and cultural rarity.
Ultimately, D.J. settles on a simpler and more dynamic definition: Skepticism is a “method of finding things out” that is consonant with “the methods of science.” This is inarguable, and I like it. I especially like it because to accept it is to quietly acknowledge that skepticism‘s primary business isn‘t investigating “things that go bump in the night,” as D.J. calls them. Its jurisdiction isn’t the paranormal: It’s the universe.
As D.J. says repeatedly in his talk, it is not the JREF’s business to apply skepticism to economic theories, literary criticism, the merits of pop music, the ethics of diamond mining, or French cooking. (Or Global Warming.) Those are worthy pursuits, but they are not ours. We operate in the field of extraordinary claims, where deceptions tend toward the dramatic, and where there is a thick line separating truth from bullpocky. Ours is a tiny slice of skepticism.
Why should we so limit ourselves? The question isn’t central to D.J.’s talk, but I think it’s one worth asking. The best answer I can come up with is “practice.”
The JREF’s targets are almost always blatantly, inarguably wrong. With a very few exceptions, their claims fall apart upon even cursory examination. And yet their audiences — those who truly feel they have a friend in Sylvia Browne, Kevin Trudeau, Rhonda Byrne — believe them wholeheartedly. The JREF’s tiny slice of skepticism, therefore, is the place where we may witness deceit at its wacky extreme; where we may study its methods and catalogue its weapons. If we know them, and if we understand them, we may begin to note how the faulty reasoning that ensures John Edward an audience can infect, or at least inflect, a novel or a political speech; how it can spin an election or sabotage a philosophy. Deception has only a very few signatures. In the paranormal, they are always writ large.
Although I understand the practical reasons behind the choice I regret that economic theories are out of the JREF's remit. After all, many of them also fall apart under the briefest of examinations, and yet are followed with religious zeal and taught in the finest traditions of pseudoscience. What's more, they control the lives of millions of people including those who are critical of them.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
... written by popsaw,
April 29, 2010
I have noticed lately though that the JREF IS willing to venture outside of its stated mission and engage in political issues where there is zero skeptical/debunking interest interest. Here are a few recent examples... http://tinyurl.com/38jcl2v http://tinyurl.com/yc3zxy4 http://tinyurl.com/yeh6koh All are worthy and interesting subjects subjects for discussion but surely they are outside the interests of the JREF mission and are certainly seem at odds with the spirit of D.J. Grothe's statement..."As D.J. says repeatedly in his talk, it is not the JREF’s business to apply skepticism to economic theories, literary criticism, the merits of pop music, the ethics of diamond mining, or French cooking. (Or Global Warming.)" So for instance, the ethics of diamond mining are rightly viewed as inappropriate subject matter for the JREF but the Ugandan bill on homosexuality IS appropriate??? Neither are skeptical issues. Both are moral issues so why is one appropriate and not the other?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
... written by Kitty,
April 29, 2010
Total agreement with the direction of the JREF. They are good at this, and it has been practice. As for the other issues, we are talking more of a gray area. Economics? THat's like predicting the weather. Sure, another theory sounds good. FOr instance, the libertarian question (living in New Hampshire I know a lot of Libertarians). They can suppose it will work, but despite the efforts of Libertarians to start up their own nation to prove it would work and work well, we just don't know. Theory is different than fact. GLobal warming, there are a lot of scientists working on it and working on the debunking. They sometimes drop the ball, but I think they can still handle it better than the JREF.
Now as for things like human rights.... certainly the JREF can at times express their indignation and anger at something that is simply wrong. They aren't TESTING if homosexuals in Africa are deserving or not of being treated poorly. The JREF has also come out against the treatment of supposed witches in some African nations. We aren't going to test if they are witches or not. An expression on the part of the JREF to alert the many readers of some injustice is different than dealing with it as a claim or something that CAN be tested.
I work with alien abductees. Like people that see ghosts and bigfoot, they are pretty much ignored by mainstream science. They do attract attention from the media. They are abused by people that smell a buck. For my abductees I'm often the only person that they deal with that doesn't say "well you are just CRAZY" or tries to use them somehow. Want to pay a "therapist" to help you with your memories, your insurance might cover that... The JREF treats these people with respect and care. But they also treat the jerks that try to sell a bill of goods (audio cables anyone? want me to get rid of that ghost? How about eating tangarines rather than chemotherapy?) to the public as they should be treated. The same media that flocks to the abductee or bigfoot hunter or even Sniffatronic bomb finder needs somewhere to go to get the "other side" or rather a good reality check. THat place is the JREF. You call MIT and ask about aliens or big foot and first off they don't have a person you can call about that, and second whomever you get will probably laugh at you.
You can call the JREF, get that balanced sound bite, and learn where to go for more information.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
... written by Otara,
April 29, 2010
I think this is more a restated intention of scope. We have had global warming discussed here for instance. The outcome of the global warming thread was one example why these areas should be entered into with more caution,.
Its not so much an ironclad contract as an intended general area of focus, and if anything an admission of learning from previous forays into these areas.
Otara
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@ Kitty written by popsaw,
April 29, 2010
D.J. says in his talk... "it is not the JREF’s business to apply skepticism to economic theories, literary criticism, the merits of pop music, the ethics of diamond mining" In contrast to this, you say.." Now as for things like human rights.... certainly the JREF can at times express their indignation and anger at something that is simply wrong" DJ is saying that it is not the JREF's remit to address ethics where there is no skeptical interest (even though it regularly does exactly that). You however are saying that the JREF SHOULD address ethical issues where there is no skeptical interest. I personally would prefer it to stick to debunking and skepticism. If I wanted political or religious critique, there are sites dedicated to those issues but I thought the JREF was set up for the purpose of to "promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today." PS. Let us also remember that right and wrong are not absolutes and therefore the JREF cannot categorically state that something is right or wrong, ethical or unethical and is only able to offer opinion based on its own moral compass.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@Popsaw written by bkthorp,
April 29, 2010
Greetings!
Thanks for reading. You bring up interesting points. Quickly: It is probably a mistake to confuse Swift with the JREF. Swift is the JREF's blog. It keeps folks up to date on what's going on at the Foundation, and seeks to publish items that may be of interest to a plurality of our readers -- without veering too far from the mission statement.
Two of the specific items you mention, however, don't veer far at all from the JREF's mission statement. The Martin Ssempa article is about a man whose outlandish superstitions are endangering an entire population, and the Fatmir Mediu story is about a band of fanatical supernaturalists who have insinuated themselves into the halls of international power, and to no good end. It is certainly within the JREF's purview to speak about the deleterious effects of mass superstition upon society.
The fact that both of those articles touch upon questions of religion doesn't especially bother me. We are not an "atheist" organization, but we are certainly an anti-"bullying people with your supernatural gibberish" organization. Ssempa and The Family make extraordinary claims without even mediocre evidence to support them, and proceed to exert tremendous influence in the world. The question of some god's existence has nothing to do with our critique: Rather, we take issue with their certitude in the absence of evidence. If there are any gods, we see no reason to believe they are in communion with Martin Ssempa or anyone else. (Though we're willing to be shown otherwise.)
Again, thanks for reading. I hope this clears things up.
- BKT
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
@bkthorpe written by popsaw,
April 29, 2010
Thanks for the reply. "The Martin Ssempa article is about a man whose outlandish superstitions are endangering an entire population" Whilst I vehemently disagree with Ssempas actions, I found no mention of 'superstition' in the article nor any reference to superstitious practice or belief which endangers a population, unless mere belief in God is now classed as superstition! "the Fatmir Mediu story is about a band of fanatical supernaturalists who have insinuated themselves into the halls of international power, and to no good end." Having examined the article, I found no mention of supernaturalism. Fatmir was described as a "Christian fundamentalist." This raises the question that if his views were not based on his belief in God (making it an ethical issue rather than a supernatural/ ethical issue) would the article still have been posted? According to D.J.Grothe, non supernatural ethical stories (diamond mining etc) are " worthy pursuits, but they are not ours. I would conclude that a mass murderer that commits murder on the basis of his belief in God would get column inches on SWIFT whereas the same crime committed by an atheist would be ignored! SWIFTS interest therefore appears to be in the God aspect of the stories and not the ethical aspect. The reader might wrongly conclude that God = evil and atheism = good! Thanks, Popsaw
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@Popsaw written by bkthorp,
April 29, 2010
I see how you have come to your conclusion, and I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding. "Belief in God" is not the JREF's purview. The claim that one knows the mind of "God," and that one should be able to dictate "God's" wishes to the public (and/or punish them for not agreeing), certainly is. At the very least, we're talking about a claim of communication via supernatural means. This can be tested. Maybe not practically, but at least in theory.
- BKT
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
JREF Mission? written by Griz,
April 29, 2010
I'm no expert on it, but I'd certainly hope that anyone who uses their belief system to oppress another group of people or influence the government would attract JREF attention. In my opinion, the influence that organized religion and superstition has on government here and abroad is universally detrimental.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
@bkthorp written by popsaw,
April 29, 2010
At the very least, we're talking about a claim of communication via supernatural means. This can be tested. Maybe not practically, but at least in theory. I reckon that the whole of Christendom and most other religion claims to know the mind of God through as revealed through the bible or 'sacred' writings. Biblical faiths hold that man was created in Gods image etc and that God is inconocible. For this reason, I perceive that belief in God IS in JREF's purview but is also irreconcilable in terms of testing. Thanks Popsaw
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@ Griz written by popsaw,
April 29, 2010
I'm no expert on it, but I'd certainly hope that anyone who uses their belief system to oppress another group of people or influence the government would attract JREF attention. In my opinion, the influence that organized religion and superstition has on government here and abroad is universally detrimental. Surely, if all those who were to use their belief system to oppress another group of people or influence the government were to attract JREF attention, it would cease to be a skeptics organization and more of a political one. Given that governments are mostly responsible for oppression and that government belief systems range from democratic, communist, theocratic, monarchist etc etc, I see no end nor resolution. World peace is a noble cause but I actually enjoy the skeptic/debunking issues raised by the JREF
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Re: Brandon on Brandin' written by Steve Cuno,
April 29, 2010
Part of building a strong brand is defining what you are. Many organizations have weak brands because they fail to understand that defining what you are also means defining what you aren’t. Kudos to the JREF in its continuing effort to define and stick to its mission.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Mission written by ClareZ,
April 29, 2010
I am all for sticking with the JREF mission. The branding argument is one good reason. The odd article on the mechanics of critical thinking would be useful too. But in the last year JREF has strayed quite a bit. I think some of it is growing pains and the pressure to fill space weekly whether anything of note is going on or not. I love ghost hunting. I love it even more when the more prosaic explanation is discovered. I have learned a lot reading JREF but lately it has become more of an opinion page than a serious look at flim flam.
I hope DJ is sending a message and regrouping around the original focus of the organization. I look forward to it if so.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Swift in NOT the Foundation. written by Jimminy Rickets,
April 30, 2010
I have learned a lot reading JREF but lately it has become more of an opinion page than a serious look at flim flam.
I agree with this, but I don't see it as a bad thing.
The archives of the Swift blog (which is not to be confused with the Foundation itself) is bursting at the seams with good material on very specific forms of woo, but to tell those stories again or again would make the place a one trick pony. Having said that, the website might be well served by publishing a subsection where the basics of flim flam are laid out, but I have a different feeling on the Swift blog.
There is nothing mutually exclusive about having a renewed focus on the JREF mission while at the same time providing a broader and more varied experience for the readers of Swift.
If anything, I think that such a model brings more people to the page. on the other hand, if this blog takes a step backwards and just tells stories about another stupid thing that Sylvia Browne did, you will please the folks who are already here but no one else.
So I'd like to see the page dramatically redesigned with a strong section on the mission, a good reference are for traditional woo and a good, entertaining blog to help draw in new eyes.
That strengthens the core mission and is all good.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
re: Jimminy Rickets written by ClareZ,
April 30, 2010
Point taken and good ideas about structure. It is true that if all that is available is rehash then it gets dull and looks like a crank is running the show. It has stretched the limits in the past year - but growing pains are called pains for a reason. I look forward to the future of JREF and SWIFT.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please
register if you do not have an account yet.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed