skepticism

History and Hyman’s Maxim (2015)

Daniel Loxton (Old) Insight blog, Posts , , , , , 0 Comment

This lightly edited article was originally published at the defunct Insight blog at Skeptic.com on May 24, 2015. An archived version is available here.

In a post last year called “The Forgetfulness of Skepticism,” I discussed one of the difficulties that skeptics face as a result of our small community and very broad subject area:

Generations of skeptics have devoted themselves to understanding paranormal and pseudoscientific claims, beliefs, and impostures. But even with those efforts, the fringe has remained radically under-examinded. Because this realm is so vast while the scholars and activists interested in exploring it are so few, our work has often had something of a scrambling quality. In our rush, skeptics have tended to neglect, or at least to set aside for some future time, some of the improvements of better-established fields.

Many other fields benefit from the attention of historical, theoretical, and philosophical spin-off disciplines. Consider, for example, art history, English literature, medical ethics, or philosophy of science. Skeptics, by contrast, are caught in a kind of perpetual startup culture. With so many urgent triage priorities, the considerable task of recording, maintaining, and passing down legacy knowledge becomes a “nice to have”—a luxury for further down the road. As a result, we tend not to remember very well. Read more

Considering a Complaint About Skeptical Tactics (2015)

Daniel Loxton (Old) Insight blog, Posts , , , , , 0 Comment

This article was originally published at the defunct Insight blog at Skeptic.com on February 20, 2015. An archived version is available here.

Few skeptical tactics are as hard-hitting or as ethically fraught as undercover investigation and “sting”-type traps designed to expose the roots of too-good-to-be-true claims—or even to catch tricksters red-handed. A recurring controversy over those tactics has flared up again over the last few days, following some sharp remarks about skeptics from former Ghost Hunters cast member Amy Bruni. Bruni took to her Facebook Page to express her frustration with skeptics who engage in such tactics, presumably in reaction to two recent sting attempts (dubbed “Operation Bumblebee” and “Operation Ice Cream Cone” by organizer Susan Gerbic). Bruni wrote: Read more

Skeptic Investigates: Is the Earth Flat? (2018)

Daniel Loxton (Old) Insight blog, Posts , , , 0 Comment

This article was originally published at the defunct Insight blog at Skeptic.com on March 20, 2018. An archived version is available here. Portions of this article appeared previously in Junior Skeptic #53, bound within Skeptic magazine 19.4 (2014).

Recent news stories,1 celebrity endorsements, and Google search trends2 have highlighted an apparently growing conspiracy theory belief that the Earth is not a globe, but instead a flat disc. According to believers, government forces promote a completely fictitious model of the cosmos in order to conceal the true nature of the Earth. Are these claims true?

No. The Earth is Round

The evidence for a spherical Earth is overwhelming.3 Most obviously, there are many thousands of images and videos of the Earth from space, including a continually changing live stream view of the globe from the International Space Station—not to mention all the astronauts who have personally seen the Earth from orbit. Flat Earthers claim that all images of the globe are fraudulent inventions, and all testimony from astronauts is false. It is unreasonable to dismiss all of the evidence from the entire history of space exploration, especially when there is zero evidence for a decades-long “globularist” conspiracy. However, we do not need to rely on evidence from modern space agencies to confirm the roundness of the Earth for ourselves. Read more

“Never Say Anything That Isn’t Correct” (2010)

Daniel Loxton (Old) Skepticblog, Posts , , , , , , , 0 Comment

This lightly edited article was originally published at the defunct Skepticblog.org on Feb 16, 2010. An archived version is available here.

In November of 2007, I heard that an alleged energy healer named Adam McLeod (“Adam Dreamhealer” [archived old Dreamhealer.com website; recent naturopathy practice website]) was scheduled to appear on a popular Canadian Broadcasting Corporation talk show, The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos. (Watch segment.) I was familiar with the Adam Dreamhealer case, and also uncomfortably aware that media outlets usually treat miracle healers as harmless, untestable human interest stories. I was concerned about the ethical implications of promoting Adam’s claims to a national television audience. (Adam had claimed abilities for “energetically diagnosing illnesses,” and treating cancer “from 3000 miles away.”1 According to his [old Dreamhealer] website, Adam is “uniquely able to influence the health and healing of large groups of individuals at his workshops by joining the auras of all in attendance.”2) Read more

What, If Anything, Can Skeptics Say About Science? (2009)

Daniel Loxton (Old) Skepticblog, Posts , , , , , , 0 Comment

This article was originally published at the defunct Skepticblog.org on Dec 22, 2009. An archived version is available here.

NASA visualization of arctic surface warming trends. NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Scientific Visualization Studio, Larry Stock, Robert Gersten

As many skeptics know by now, legendary skeptical trailblazer James Randi set off a firestorm last week with two Swift blog posts about global warming. His first post carried his strong suspicion that consensus science on climate change is incorrect, while his followup post wondered “whether we can properly assign the cause to anthropogenic influences.”

Skeptical bloggers were swift to respond. Critics (including PZ Myers, Orac, Sean Carroll, and James Hrynyshyn) chastised Randi for speaking outside his domain expertise; for dissenting from current consensus science; and for lending his name to the disreputable “Oregon Petition Project.” Others, like Phil Plait, corrected Randi while sensibly reminding us that “anyone, everyone, is capable of making mistakes.” And, inevitably, global warming deniers seized upon the event. (One headline, at Britain’s Telegraph.co.uk, gleefully crowed “James Randi forced to recant by Warmist thugs for showing wrong kind of scepticism.”) Read more

Climbing Heinlein’s Hill (2010)

Daniel Loxton (Old) Skepticblog, Posts , , , , , , 0 Comment

This article was originally published at the defunct Skepticblog.org on Oct 22, 2010. An archived version is available here.

Digital painting of a white house on a hillRobert Heinlein’s classic 1961 sci-fi novel Stranger in a Strange Land includes a passage I’ve often thought of as a parable for scientific skepticism.

Understanding the fallibility of eyewitness testimony, Heinlein imagines a special class of “Fair Witnesses” — licensed professionals trained to observe accurately and give legally admissible testimony. In one scene, cantankerous patriarch Jubal Harshaw demonstrates that one of his staffers is a certified Fair Witness:

“Anne!” Anne was seated on the springboard; she turned her head. Jubal called out, “That new house on the far hilltop — can you see what color they’ve painted it?”

Anne looked in the direction in which Jubal was pointing and answered, “It’s white on this side.”

Read more

Skeptics as Model Train Lovers: Part II (2010)

Daniel Loxton (Old) Skepticblog, Posts , , 0 Comment

This article was originally published at the defunct Skepticblog.org on Sept 19, 2010. An archived version is available here.

[Continued from Part I]

Speaking personally, I must say it’s a joy to watch the growth of the skeptical subculture, humming with its proliferation of cons and pub nights and vibrant online portals. And yet, much of that scene is related only indirectly to the cause I work to advance. At some risk of being misunderstood: it’s not my goal to grow a social community, even though I am part of it.

My area of primary interest is more specific. As a (relatively junior) contributor to the specialized field of skepticism, I care most about active efforts to investigate fringe science topics, share the findings, and promote science literacy as widely as possible. After decades of work, this research and educational outreach effort eventually became the seed for a thriving subculture, but it is not synonymous with that subculture. Read more

Skeptics as Model Train Lovers: Part I (2010)

Daniel Loxton (Old) Skepticblog, Posts , , 0 Comment

This article was originally published at the defunct Skepticblog.org on Sept 7, 2010. An archived version is available here.

A couple of days ago musician George Hrab (host of the Geologic podcast) wrote to me to share a post written by an old friend of his — a kind review of a recent Hrab show, which I’m happy to share here.

The most interesting aspect of the post (and the reason George passed it along) is the blogger’s reaction to the people he met at the show: an unfamiliar community of people called “skeptics.” As a person of faith, “Myklor” finds these skeptics alien and fascinating — and ultimately (I’m happy to say) endearing. (He does not, incidentally, distinguish between skepticism and atheism — a fine point in a social setting, to be sure, given that many skeptics are both.) Read more

Steven Novella Takes On Some of the Oldest Clichés About Scientific Skepticism—Again (2013)

Daniel Loxton (Old) Skepticblog, Posts , , , , , 0 Comment

This article was originally published at the defunct Skepticblog.org on Jan 29, 2013. An archived version is available here.

Skepticblog’s Steven Novella has an interesting post up at Neurologica this morning, in which he addresses some issues of conflation between scientific skepticism and other movements or interests. Specifically, Novella discusses the very old (and demonstrably false) complaint that scientific skepticism refuses to “take on” religious claims, and the similarly perennial complaint that skeptics ought to get into the business of political claims.

On religion, he emphasizes once again the same point he has made throughout his career (a point on which I precisely agree, and which has for decades been the practical, time-tested, virtually universal position of scientific skepticism as a movement): Read more

Learning from Martin Gardner (2010)

Daniel Loxton (Old) Skepticblog, Posts , , , 0 Comment

This article was originally published at the defunct Skepticblog.org on May 25, 2010. An archived version is available here.

By now you will most likely have heard the sad news of the death of Martin Gardner — the father of modern skepticism — at age 95. He was, as his friend James Randi wrote, “a very bright spot in my firmament.”

Many people feel the same way, and for good reason. Gardner’s impact cannot be overstated. It is fair to argue that Martin Gardner created the modern skeptical literature from whole cloth. His 1952 book In the Name of Science (retitled Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science for the second and subsequent editions; hereafter referred to as Fads & Fallacies) set the standard that later led to the creation of CSICOP — and to all that has followed since. Through his books and his “Notes of a Fringe-Watcher” column in the Skeptical Inquirer, Martin Gardner was a meticulous skeptical scholar for six decades. (Amazingly, his most recent Skeptical Inquirer articles appeared earlier this year.) Read more