My beef with Skepticism, in a nutshell

I recently received this nice comment from Mike Shaw (in response to "Skepticism: What's the difference?"):

Very elegantly constructed, as with all of your posts, but please could you offer a summary paragraph for the hard of thinking? (like me).

I am very much in sympathy with your implied concerns about Skeptic; it always reads like a religious tract, and I often find myself put off by the sheer evangelism of the writing. This is a pity, as it's clearly written by well-meaning intelligent humans. Why is Fortean Times, with its lack of peer-review, legions of crazy people and absence of critical thought so much more fun to read?

My position is very simple: I think that we need a movement promoting critical thinking. But unfortunately, so such movement exists. Even worse, a number of people have co-opted the terms "Skepticism" and "critical thinking" to describe their own subculture, even though their subculture has nothing to do with critical thinking, beyond their rhetoric. As a result, the public becomes even less able to learn about genuine critical thinking. Thus, the first step in promoting critical thinking has to be exposing the fraud of "Skepticism."

The "Skepticism" movement is indeed a subculture, even though its members deny that. They will self-identify as "Skeptics" both in conversation and in print, and they have an array of "Skeptical societies." They have their own publications, like Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic. They have their own heroes and luminaries, like Michael Shermer and James Randi. The "Skeptics" would have you believe that a "Skeptic" is merely a person who thinks critically. But are all critical thinkers so fascinated by the paranormal and by conspiracy theories? If a critical thinker believes that his time is better spent scrutinizing media coverage of Bush's WMD claims, would he spend his time reading the hundredth article debunking Bigfoot in Skeptical Inquirer?

Genuinely promoting critical thinking- or even genuinely engaging in critical thinking- is difficult. It's much easier to pretend to promote critical thinking. In the case of "Skepticism," this pretense is accomplished through use of what is, in effect, a catechism. If you believe in evolution, and don't believe in Bigfoot, UFO's, or telekinesis, and have the right beliefs on a number of other issues, you're a Skeptic. Getting people to believe the catechism is much easier than teaching them to think critically, because the "Skeptics" are free to use sensationalism and propaganda techniques, as I've explained before. And since the catechism is generally well-proven by science, it can be very hard to convince Skeptics that having the right beliefs is not the same as critical thinking.

But, in order for the catechism to work, the Skeptics have to be careful to not step outside its bounds. This is why Skeptics frequently make statements like, "...I was dismayed in 1976 by the rising tide of belief in the paranormal and the lack of adequate scientific examinations of these claims." (Why not be troubled by a lack of critical thinking in general?) Or take the James Randi Educational Foundation, "an educational resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific and supernatural." (Why doesn't James Randi, or any other "Skeptic," found an educational resource to help people skeptically examine the news media?) The defining attribute of Skepticism is not critical thinking, but opposition to a vague enemy called "the paranormal," which even James Randi admits cannot be defined clearly. And of course it can't. It can't, because it's a bogeyman, an incoherent grab-bag of scientifically disproven beliefs that Skeptics have seized upon as a monolithic enemy. And they need an enemy, because if they don't actually stand for critical thinking, then they have to define themselves as being in opposition to some external foe. They cannot stand examining themselves against a yardstick of real critical thinking, so they assure themselves that at least they are smarter than the people who believe in Bigfoot. Even worse, straying outside the catechism would mean facing issues that aren't settled yet. That would mean genuine critical thinking, and the possibility of one day having one's beliefs disproven.

And this is why Skeptic is so much more boring to read than Fortean Times. Skeptical publications devote themselves to endlessly rehashing the catechism. How can anyone be entertained by yet another tired trip to the same old foregone conclusions? How many articles debunking Bigfoot can one stand? The message of "Skeptical" publications, drilled home over and over again, is that there's nothing to see here. Yes, they make token comments about how science doesn't have all the answers and how the universe is full of wonders- but those are just formulas. How many articles do "Skeptical" publications devote to unanswered questions? Approximately zero. Take ball lightning, for example. Ball lightning was for a long time dismissed by science. Now it's proven to be real, but it has resisted explanation for decades. It appears to violate both the laws of gravity and of conservation of energy. In short, it is a demonstrably real paranormal phenomenon. Has Skeptical Inquirer ever run an article on it? No. Their only interest in ball lighting is in using it to explain away UFO reports. If you read the books of William Corliss, you'll find countless inexplicable phenomena attested to in the pages of esteemed peer-reviewed scientific journals, including Science and Nature. And yet, my experience has been that "Skeptics" mock Corliss, and I have seen not one single article in any Skeptical publication admitting that any of these phenomena are real.

Or take the RFK assassination. The evidence makes it blatantly clear that RFK was killed by a conspiracy. There's nothing particularly outlandish about that claim. After all, three people can kill a senator, just like three people can rob a liquor store. But the problem is that "conspiracy theorists" are one of the imaginary enemies that "Skeptics" need in order to define themselves. So while you will find endless rehashes of the JFK assassination in skeptical publications, you won't find a single article on RFK.

That, then, is why the Fortean Times is entertaining, and "Skeptical" publications are not. Skeptics pay lip service to the wonder of the unknown. The Forteans- for all their flaws- embrace it.