SKEPTICAL INQUIRY OR SELECTIVE INATTENTION?

by Andrew Williams

N.B. Several friends of mine have experienced personal and vicious attacks from the skeptical inquirer or "quack watch" clique, so I won't pretend to be unaffected. I will promise to be as objective as humanly possible. To that end, I'll start with an example of skeptical inquiry handled well and follow it with an account in which the quackbusters look rather biased.

Penn Jillette and Teller, the eponymous duo of magic, movie and TV fame, are the current hosts (last time I checked) of their own salf-named show in the Showtime cable channel. A few months ago, I was treated to a sample of their video backlog. Two shows stand out in memory: one on creation science or "intelligent design," the other on genetically engineered (gengineered hereinafter) food and crops.

The creation science episode frankly reminded me of shooting ducks in a barrel. The promulgators of same were so unable to present their case in a scientific and logical manner that the name change to "intelligent design" stuck out like Uma Thurman's prosthetic thumb in Even Cowgirls Get The Blues. Their opponents from the skeptic corner were courteous but unwilling to throw out established scientific evidence and method in favor of theological mysticism. The information on how to do a falsification test was also useful.

Unfortunately, the balance struck in the previous episode did not hold in the gengineering debate. Opponents of "frankenfoods" were derided, while the gengineers were treated with kid gloves. Now, I'll never advocate a total raw foods diet--I have no desire to get tapeworms--but it is really necessary to taunt folks who have created their own lifestyle and aren't forcing it on anyone? And is it fair to mock them while failing to ask the gengineers some skeptical questions such as, "What if people have an allergic reaction from eating, say, an ear of corn with a tomato gene splice?" and "If gengineered foods are so great for people, then why won't the companies that make and distribute them put that information on food labels?" Not to mention questions regarding the sterility of gengineered plant pollen and its ability to escape in the environment. (Monsanto has reportedly sued one farmer whose crops got in the way of some escaped gen pollen from their "farm.")

Whenever I've addressed these points--and I'm not alone in this; Gary Null and SF writer Kate Wilhelm are among the skeptics regarding gengineered food--I've been met by responses such as, "Oh, you're nuts," or "Wacko." This reflects the attitude of many skeptical inquirers I've encountered in person and print. Their idea of refutation is ad hominem attacks. Instead of asking, "What's the source for your data?" they cast aspersions on the questioner's intelligence. Calling a fellow debator stupid is not a way to win debating points or supporters, although it may give succor to the secular choir.

I've been reluctant to address this issue because I think that, in the main, skeptics have done good work. Also, I've usually enjoyed Penn and Teller's performances, and was particularly pleased that they used their recent Las Vegas run to promote a local blood drive. (If you went to one of their shows and presented evidence that you'd donated blood, you got in free.) But confronting arguments with opprobrium instead of factual refutation isn't good policy.

Again, I am not siding with the so-called "New Age" community or the "quackbusters." I've seen intelligent, well-researched evidence from both sides. The latter could take a tip from the late, legendary science- and non-fiction writer Issac Asimov. Whenever Issac wrote an article debunking what he considered pseudoscience, he did it without hurting or angering anyone. He simply laid out the facts with his usual bonhomie and let his readers decide.

Too many CSICOPS (short for Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal) tend to substitute invective for reason, or mix both in such proportion that they can't be easily separated out. In the process, they not only stiffen the resolve of their oppoenents, they also alienate people like me who might otherwise agree with them. They are their own worst enemies. If they more readily admitted that there are questions that science cannot answer--yet--and made amends for their ad hominem attacks, they could win more converts.

No matter how good or bad the times are, it is paramount that one pay attention and not accept anyone's dogma as unquestionable truth. We need all the hard data we can get, unsullied by personal sentiment. Substituting "You're an idiot" or "Go fuck yourself" for logical refutation won't help.