The Science Punk is wrong.
In case you don’t know who I’m talking about “Science Punk” is not his real name. For one thing that would make him the unfortunately named “S.Punk” and for another any child with the first name “Science” would likely get beaten to death fairly early on in the British school system.
His real name is Frank Swain and I should admit here that – even though I intend to disagree with him – he outranks me utterly in sceptical, critical, rational credentials. He’s a genuine science writer, involved in the past with government schemes to improve scientific knowledge. I’m a bit of a shut-in who likes to appear intelligent because he scraped together a Philosophy degree before his health went tits up. Nevertheless, I like a challenge so here goes...
It seems that Swain sees Skepticism as unfailingly in open warfare with credulity and mysticism. He described things like the 10:23 campaign as misguided because it’s not going to change anybody’s mind. Anybody who subscribes to nonsense is already so invested in it, he argues, that you have to risk using a debating method other than bare facts if you’re going to compel them to change. And I agree with him so far. Thing is, he’s got the wrong target.
10:23 was not there to make homeopaths slap their foreheads and realise the error of their ways, it was there to make the rest of the population realise something they hadn’t previously been exposed to. We live in a mostly secular country. The figures that religions produce for memberships include everybody who ever signed up. You have to ask for your name to be removed from a religion’s database for it to happen and as so many joined a church because it will look good in the wedding photos, for example, they might feel like a bit of a git for then so obviously withdrawing their support*. Similarly with faith schools (and their misleading monopoly on the selection of well-off children to get better results) you would feel even more dishonest to retract your support in so minor yet so obvious a way after junior gets his A-levels**. That is Britain today.
Imagine a naked man (steady, it’s not that sort of blog). His left hand, Skepticism, is covered in thick red paint; the right, credulity and mysticism, is covered in blue. The only weapon we reds have is a pot of more diluted red paint (representing facts. Stick with me here, I’m going somewhere). If we keep slapping at the right hand with our diluted paint we may wash away our own sense of purpose. Swain argues that we need thicker paint – stories, anecdotes, parables – because these are the things that change minds.
I don’t think we need to bother to change those minds. We don’t need to target nutters because they’ll always be selling their snake-oil. We should be showing the rest of the public that critical thinking works because they already agree with us – they just haven’t realised or declared it yet. Just take that red hand and smear it all over the rest of that body. The head, the face, the chest, the arms, legs and feet. Let the blue hand have the cock and balls (that area could do with a bit of magic and mystery, to be honest – and there will always be lies attached to it).
The British public is already sceptical they are just a bit apathetic but I don’t even feel that we need to target anybody. Swain says that Facebook and Twitter trends are not campaigns, that Skeptics in the pub might be a wonderful social event but it’s also an echo chamber – preaching to the converted - and that blogs are only read by the same supportive crowd. So what?
There have only been three Cardiff events of skepticsinthepub so far (all excellent) but there was a barman at the pub who, while still fairly baffled as to why we seem to give so much of a shit is clearly a rational person. I haven’t tried to “convert” him or change his mind because that’s patronising and creepy and, well, I’ve been a barman and there’s probably an element of “placate the mentals” to the questions he asks.
A very good friend of mine is as much a devoted and mildly obsessed Tim Minchin fan as I am but he still enjoys ghost-hunting programmes and activities and why shouldn’t he?
Another old friend (old as in longstanding - she is utterly youthful) asked on Facebook about a “traditional” and “alternative” therapy I hadn’t heard of. By using the word “Skeptic” in my search terms I found enough references to bullshit phrases to offer an opinion. Without that word, without those blogs to steer my search I would have encountered page after page of personal anecdotes.
I’m not looking to convert anyone. I don’t think we need to. Just like millions vote for a party but there are only a few thousand actual members, we are the active members of a sceptical movement but there are millions of supporters out there who would vote along with us if they just get informed. Let people have their beliefs; we can’t prove it wrong and it helps them but equally they can’t prove that it’s right so it shouldn’t hurt us. As long as that balance is maintained we don’t need to attack anybody. 10:23 spoke out to raise debate because of diverted NHS funds and I think it was very good try.
As for Swain’s attack on Skeptical terminology I completely agree with him. It is so tiresome to hear or read a coherent opinion derailed by childish name-calling. And everybody who does it is a nob-head (see what I did there?)
(In that spirit maybe I should add a glossary of sorts so that everybody who is sceptical but doesn’t yet appreciate the fact can follow the Skeptical scene without recoiling in confusion or disgust. In fact yes, I think I will. There, I’ve committed to it in front of a reading audience of literally several people. ... If I’m lucky)
So, yeah, go ahead and download Swain's talk from the Westminster Skeptics (available on iTunes and such. It's from August. I'm that topical, me). It's a great talk (almost) full of very good points. There. I've done a blog on that now. Point proved, job done (just listen to the talk).
*You shouldn't. They built that church by exploiting your ancestors. Take your place inside.
** Yeah, you shouldn't really feel bad about this either. Faith schools have achieved good results by neglecting to choose disadvantaged kids. They should be performing better.
No comments:
Post a Comment