Why Skeptics Should NOT Hoax

So I was listening to SasquatchWatch Radio on my iPod and the 25 May 2009 edition talked about hoaxing and who people do it. It is a mildly informative episode certainly worth taking a listen to. (Yes, I am a fan of the show. What!? A skeptic can't enjoy a Bigfoot radio show!?) Anyway, the topic of skeptics (or others) preforming hoaxes, usually for the purposes of proving that humans, or specifically believers, can easily be fooled. One of the more well known and recent examples if the Pen and Teller stunt for their HBO show Bullshit!. (I believe it was highlighted on the first episode of season 4 entitled "Cryptozoology".) The discussion of the topic in general and of this example in particular gave me cause to pause.

Why do skeptics hoax?

If it was back in the day (whenever that is) before such stunts were preformed and the goal was demonstrating that people can be fooled, it might make sense. However, most sensible people already realize the limitations of human perception and if anyone says they cannot be fooled, skeptic or believer, then they are primary target for just chuck a fooling. Still, we are in the here and now and unless you are trying to provide a point that a certain event can be reproduced though trickery, that is one thing and certainly NOT hoaxing. Hoaxing, remember, is (often) a deliberate act to deceive, usually with personal benefits to the hoaxer. (Doesn't sound too dissimilar to lying, does it?) We could argue specifics but let us keep to a base straightforward scenario for this definition.

Should skeptic hoax?

What hoaxing (by anyone) does is expose the limitations on a given piece of evidence, whether that is eye-witness testimony, photo or video images, or even physical signs, items, or features. Beyond that, it does little to reveal anything that most honest believers and skeptics alike don't already know. Most believer in Bigfoot should/do admit the limits of their evidence, but they insist that there is nonetheless evidence. More skeptics should be aware of this and not offhandedly dismiss the topic entirely. If the common skeptical logic is correct and there is (likely) no Bigfoot, then how does one expect to persuade believers if all you do is insult and isolate them from your cause? If the believer is right and there are Bigfoot, then acknowledging the limitations of the current evidence, even if it is more compelling than mainstream science is willing to admit, is key to focusing on new and better lines of evidence.

Answer?

Bottom line here is that skeptics should NOT hoax because there is no point and if anything it further isolates your potential audience of believers and only degrading your stance by insulting those who truly believe something is out there. This, of course, applies to all areas of pseudo-science and cryptozoology. If anything, Bullshit! should have attempted to take up the challenge of a specific person or group that claimed immunity to being duped or could (easily) discern a hoax. Here, a point can easily be made. In its current incarnation, the Bullshit! Bigfoot video is unproductive at best and counterproductive at worse because of its redundant nature and undefined criteria for new net results. This negative effect can also extend into those on the fence or the general public, who will view such repetitive antics as silly or even vindictive, if not dumb and pointless.

Burden of Proof

The concept of "burden of proof" is simple: where or to whom supporting evidence to a position or assertion is assigned. In the scientific method, this burden is placed upon those who make a claim. Why? Science cannot prove a negative; it can, however, prove trends (positives). It is also practical, since any observation, especially those that are extraordinary, can be accurate, incomplete, askew, or intentionally false. This same logic is applied to the US legal system, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In the UK, it is the opposite, where the defendant is required to prove their innocence. The logic for this, imo, is from a optimistic since of civility and honesty from people. Basically, a plaintiff is presumed not to speak of otherwise damaging incrimination without due cause. Since a pragmatic look at reality proves this idealized since of (British) honestly to be very much unreliable or outright false, or at least untypical, the system is thus inherently flawed. While the US version, even in pristine condition, is not perfect, it is inherently more logical and just (as defined by modern western ideals of the terms).

Why am I bringing this up? 'Cause some out there like to this the skeptics, dreaded debunkers that we are often accused of (and not necessarily without cause), should be the ones to prove certain claims as false. Srsly? I doubt those in America would like that logic used on them when in our court system. As for people in a UK-based system, I argue that the stance, especially in a scientific endeavor towards the reality of the situation, is lacking in logic, Still, how the court system in either country is set up has no baring on how the scientific methodology works. To this end, I do not understand why anyone who wants to be taken seriously by science would not want to have its evidence accepted by its methods. Considering the track record of the scientific method, minus the human factors for bias or idiocy, the only thing special pleading does is make your argument or claim look that much more like bullshit or half-baked.

Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

" Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a Bible study — unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.

"On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the Bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county." David Jones told FOX News.

"We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a Bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all," Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited "unlawful use of land," ordering them to either "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit," the couple's attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

But the major use permit could cost the Jones' thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over."

Thursday, May 28, 2009 Fox News
Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

If we take this article at face value, this is rather disturbing. I'm all for helping remove people's head from the ass of religion but this just sounds funky. If the store is true as presented, this seems like an overstep in interpreting the law and rather discriminatory. On the other hand, depending on how the event is organized and advertised, and how many people really show up, there might be technical legal grounds for the county's actions. Still, this seems like a semantics dispute more than anything. Something tells me we're not getting the whole story on this one. It will be interesting to follow this story and see where it leads.

Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology

Yes, just when you thought the world was going to hell in a hand basket, there comes a glimmer of hope... or something:

" In an unprecedented effort to crack down on self-serving edits, the Wikipedia supreme court has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates.

Closing out the longest-running court case in Wikiland history, the site’s Arbitration Committee voted 10 to 0 (with one abstention) in favor of the move, which takes effect immediately.

The eighth most popular site on the web, Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit." Administrators frequently ban individual Wikifiddlers for their individual Wikisins. And the site's UK press officer/resident goth once silenced an entire Utah mountain in a bizarre attempt to protect a sockpuppeting ex-BusinessWeek reporter. But according to multiple administrators speaking with The Reg, the muzzling of Scientology IPs marks the first time Wikipedia has officially barred edits from such a high-profile organization for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the site.

The Church of Scientology has not responded to our request for comment.

Officially, Wikipedia frowns on those who edit "in order to promote their own interests." The site sees itself as an encyclopedia with a "neutral point of view" - whatever that is. "Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited," say the Wikipowersthatbe."

By Cade Metz in San Francisco
Posted in Music and Media, 29th May 2009 00:23 GMT
Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology

In a related event, France is looking to see if it can outlaw Scientology in a recent court case. Let's wish them the best of luck... err, best prosecuting arguments! Scientology trial opens in France

Rebirth! Or, Phoenix Down & Skill Change

For those of you who care... all none of you... I finally figured out what I wanted to do with this blog. While my livejournal will be left more for random stuff, which you can sill check out to your immediate right in the RSS section, this blog I will try to make into a skeptical/critical thinking/non-theist based endeavor that allows me to take on the skeptical world from my own sad lacking little world. As you might have noted from many of the previous posts, there was more skepticism and other religious (or lack thereof)-based items anyway. So hopefully once school is let out, I will be able to focus on this thing a little more and help gain a name for myself beside an avid podcast listener to such topics. So no more "Writer's Banter". Sorry but I have other places to write the little I have to say on my most enduring and centric hobby of mine. I write stuff, not writing about writing stuff. Once I have time, Back 2 Square 1 will also be getting an overhaul with a lot of stuff so wish me luck as I finish off this Spring Quarter and welcome in the summer (in two/three or so weeks)!

So, why don't I just do things the easy way and use forums to interact with other skeptics? 'Cause I don't need to plunge myself into an ego war. Srsly, like any pseudo-science BBS, many of the same problems I've come to loath across the interwebs is found in both the good guys and bad guys little chunk of the intertubes. While I will likely have to starting being proactive in these cesspools of hate and discontent to start getting any type of readership, I try to avoid them when I can. In fact, about the only forum I am a member of with any regularity is for the MABRC; yep, a Bigfoot forum. It also happens to be the only group I am officially associated with (as their official skeptic, no less!). Maybe it would behoove me to find either a local or regional or national group to join but again I just don't feel the need to join another support group (like church). I've always been a bit of a loaner in this respect (more by necessity than anything) and I have yet to find a skeptical group that I really felt like it was worth taking the time to figure them out and maybe join; and yes, that implies that the MABRC did meet said criteria. It did help that they asked me TWICE to join their organization after I joined their forum (which is right now not publicly accessible due to some spamming and pissing-contect bullshit).

Again, the reasons for (re)starting this blog as simple: when I go to said forum, whether believe or skeptic, I feel rather useless (a topic I have discussed in previous posts). I feel there is no point in me being there as I have (appearently) NOTHING to contribute in any way, shape, or form. While most skeptics would laugh at my sorry attempts to debate Bigfoot proponents over at the forums, I do my best and have done some good work exposing some misconceptions (like the Nebraska-Loess Man v. the Nebraska Man - a topic which I'll highlight in a upcoming post). I need to get back into the swing of things this summer with some rebuttals from some lacking debate with people who appearently think that science is deliberately trying to hide Bigfoot from the rest of the world. Same old story, right? Well, I have some things that will hopefully get a better debate going, though with only member of the MABRC on the forum it will be interesting to see what becomes of my usefulness. I still want to do a Bigfoot expedition. Why? Well, it's not to prove I am a worthy skeptics who is willing to get out into the friend; that argument is just ignorant. No, I want an excuse to camp and satisfy my curiosity as I lament my realization that there is little likelihood of the hairy one out there. Sux!

Oh well, I just want to see what really goes on during these trips and since it is "unreasonable" for me to go half-way cross the country for such a deal and since I do (literally) live on Big Hairy's front doorstep, I might as well see if anyone wants to make a few days of it. I'll keep you all posted on this crazy scheme. Is Bigfoot a sacred calf, as the skeptics say? No, as I continually go after the topic and its faults and do not conclude the current stack of evidence, which is surprisingly more than most skeptics are willing to acknowledge yet still so lacking, is enough. As the great UFO photo says, "I want to believe." However, I think there needs to be another part to that quote, "...but I can't." Why? Lack of solid evidence. Perhaps enough to warrant some minor inquiry but nothing that I would bet the barn on. Still, I think there is something more to this whole deal and I think whatever it is it behooves us skeptics to take the subject from a new angle. Since most other skeptics just brush the subject aside, and usually rightfully so, and it is of great interest to me, why the Hell not? I will stick with what I know and let those who know other things do their stuff.

I would try to join the JREF but they seem as egotistical as the BFF... crikey, I need a bloodly drink before deciding which Hell-mouth to descend into. Until then, I need some sleep; and something to fast-forward time to the summer!

Rethinking Skepticism

This is the body of a latter I sent to a few noted skeptics as a response to Junior Skeptic Editor Daniel Loxton's Where Do We Go From Here? and What Do I Do Next?: Leading Skeptics Discuss 105 Practical Ways to Promote Science and Advance Skepticism, which was featured on Skepticality; three times! (Look up episodes 63, 86, & 98).

Firstly, awesome podcast to one and all; and same for the new manifesto, part duo. After reading both works by Loxton (et. al.) and listening to accompanying podcasts, I feel somehow vindicated for my small efforts and pursuits in promoting skepticism and "fighting the good fight" as it were. The 'next steps' list read more like a to-do list that I kept crossing off in certain areas. Granted, this number is quite small compared to the total 105 listed, but the emotional boost was a plus. I would be surprised if no one makes a podcast series out of this, first starting with the original essay and then working through all 105 suggestions. You have a minimum of 106 episodes already, plus any dual-length episodes or expanded topics and possible interviews. By then, the supposed next step in this evolving process of 'evolving skepticism into the modern world' as joked about in the most recent podcast will have been published, allowing for even more content. One might also take up this task from a more "Joe-Skeptic" angle; that is, to take these idea from the perspective of a skeptic not of the ranking of Randi, Dunning, Swoopy, or Watson. It's an idea worth exploring. As for myself, I already try to promote skepticism in my own podcast that covers anything and everything (with commentary all around), in the various postings I make around the interwebs, in my poetry and writing, in my own personal and social life, at work and school, and even am a member of a Bigfoot "research" group as their Official Skeptic (whether or not I'm just the token skeptics is debatable but I'm so-far respected and have not been ostracized ...yet), though so far I have done much of my musing with them through their forums (I'm temped to lead a "field expedition" this summer just for kicks and for the chance to get out into the woods and see what critters and evidence we can 'spook' up!). I'm not making much of a splash but a splash is made and apparently that's what counts.

Some things I have noted in my own interactions with the skeptical movement give me pause to reflect on things. What bugs me to no end about the skeptical movement is the apparent adherence to rhetoric. It is one thing to read a homeopathic claim and have one's doubts, it is quite another to denounce someone's personal experience offhand. It's not that I think they are on to something or should be used as empirical evidence; rather, I fear we as a movement are losing too many potential "converts" due to how many situations are handled. We might not have dogma in the skeptical movement, but you don't need it for others to think that you do. A personal face need to be put back on the name skeptic and believers alike. While shows like "Skeptics Guide to the Universe" are an invaluable resource of information and entertainment for skeptic (and believer), certain talking points and buzz-words, or what appear to be, are all too often sounded-off like at a political rally. While it might better resemble rhetoric as Sophocles and Aristotle knew it, far too often this verbiage resembles the contemporary definition with all its negative and dastardly connotations. As was made clear in an episode of "Skepticality", when a Seattle skeptic overturned many preconceived notions about The Discovery Institute, while affirming others, we skeptics must be careful not to start categorizing believers based on assumed knowledge and stereotypes. Just as skeptics are trying to put a human face back on the movement, there is a very human face to all those who see the world differently, if incorrectly. This effort to re-envision skepticism will utterly fail if the diatribe we speak presents this face-lift as merely a mask to cover an ugly stereotype, which would then prove more fact than fiction. We must be careful to remember that such generalizations are made for a reason, and that the truthful basis for such otherwise bias and narrow-minded views are often much larger than many would like to admit. We must also be sure not to dismiss the concerns or even complaints of believers about skeptics; even the hypocrite can make a valid point. If rhetoric is a "necessary evil", then let it be less about the fundamentals of science as the only way to truth and more about personal relations that bring real change to people who more likely than not truly search for the truth. The rest just comes naturally, as it were. While podcasts and other mass audience forums need a more generalized approach, their model for success should not be the foundation of the "man on the streets", which appears more commons than not.

I find myself less interested in involving myself with most skeptical groupings or events, like forums, local meet-ups, talks, etc., and prefer to listen to podcasts and do my own promotion through my own channels. The reason is simple: I feel stupid and useless in them. It is one thing to expect a certain level of knowledge in a given area, quite another to demand it like a proficiency test to get into MIT or Harvard. Few of us have the time and resources to be adept at a great many things or topics, and certainly for skeptics this broad pool of information is of utmost importance. It is the cornerstone of our ability to understand the world for what it truly is and for how we defend this rational and scientific view of reality. Yet there is a sense of superiority and pompous in many of these skeptical social gatherings that is a major turn off. I do make an effort to acknowledge the failings of the human condition in these instances and admit feeling the arrogance all too often present when one knows that others who are steadfast in their ways are lacking a more clear understanding of reality. This said, when I browse a skeptical forum, I feel I can offer nothing to the conversation and find some of the conversations being had rather disheartening. I also fully admit for sounding off like a bigot on certain religious issues when my banter and opinion gain their peak during my rantings and enjoy inflaming those I might otherwise wish to persuade to my point of view, or at least debate with constructively. However, the line between personal opinion, ranting, and objective understanding are all too often lost in the mix. Like what is seen on any of the news outlets over the last decades, opinion and fact have not been given proper distinguishing lines; such is even more of a problem online. As for the face-to-face skeptical meetings, many reflect the boring features of bible studies from my youth, except there is science in place of scripture and usually beer (both of which I will NEVER complain about). I feel unfulfilled, like with some podcasts. Maybe my experiences are just that ad I do not reflect even a minority of skeptics, but I speak out anyway. While the group gatherings and fellowship with other skeptics is akin to religious believers and church, from a sociological perspective, I think a promotion of "the lone skeptic" might help more become more active in "spreading the faith"... or lack thereof, as it were. Not everyone can serve in such socially-based ways ad it is likely a benefit to have those who are able to go their own way in furthering "the good fight". Standards will always be needed to ensure quality but how they are kept can be done with a lot more heart and a lot less ego by certain individuals. We all are on a never-ending journey to acquire new knowledge ad should never forget it.

I know some of these observations have been touched on in the two essays but I speak them to say my peace. I will continue my own efforts and hope you all will yours. I think these essays are on the right track to breathing new life into the skeptical community. To further this discussion, I will be making then an "open letter", that is, I will also be posting it to a couple of my web-logs. (Just F.Y.I.) Hopefully something worthwhile will come of it all. Until then, thank you all for your time.

Your thoughts?

Damn, another year...

One more trip around the sun and all I get is this odd smell about me. Oh well. Still working on papers for school finals. Should have number two done tonight. Then one more to go. Work today then papers. No enjoying my birthday today. Will get to changing up this blog as some point.