Back to the list

Articles

The Rise and Fall of Militant Skepticism
By Deepak Chopra, M.D., FACP

Skepticism has gotten itself into a pickle - perhaps something a lot more serious than a pickle - that is undermining its good name. The credibility of Wikipedia may be at stake (see below). We live in a skeptical age, because the cornerstone of science, "Everything must be verified," is a skeptical position. When a researcher claims to have accomplished something remarkable, such as cold fusion, his experiment must be replicated before it will be believed. The need to verify, to lay out credible facts, has become second nature, and not just for scientists.

Facts, data, information, research findings, statistics - these are woven into every aspect of our lives. Which means that skepticism is woven in, too. Hence its good name. Without accurate polls, politicians would be lost (consult Mitt Romney, who believed in skewed polls all the way to election night). But there is no reason for skepticism to become a militant crusade. Facts are facts, as the saying goes, and when a political ideology like Fascism identified Einstein as someone who conducted "Jewish science" (a term coined by the Nazis), such a label is not simply abhorrent - it misconstrues what science actually is, a universal enterprise that has no place for personal, religious, or political prejudice.

The rise of militant skepticism clouded the picture, however, beginning with its popular attack on religion. The aim of Richard Dawkins, as stated in his best seller, The God Delusion, was to subject "the God hypothesis" to scientific scrutiny, the way one would subject anti-matter or black holes to scrutiny. In fact he did no such thing with God, for the scientific method requires experiments that can be replicated and facts that can be verified. Dawkins offered no experiments to prove or disprove the existence of God. What he actually did was to subject religion to a barrage of scorn and ridicule, attacking it on the rational improbability - as he sees it - that a deity could possibly exist.

The commercial success of his book wasn't hard to explain. Long ago Darwin's theory of evolution had toppled the creation story found in the Book of Genesis, and through a domino effect the toppling continued. By the time The God Delusion appeared in 2006, organized religion was still in decline, and millions of readers were happy to seize on a "scientific" book that relieved them of any guilt over not going to church or temple. Atheism was held out by Dawkins as the only enlightened position one could take on the God question. He anticipated that readers would flock to become atheists with himself in the lead, a social movement that never, in fact, materialized. Polls continue to show that well over 80% of people believe in God, and something like 1 in 8 atheists go to church, while no massive surge in unbelief has occurred.

The God Delusion, aided by a handful of other best sellers attacking religion in the same vein, did have one decisive effect, however. Science became yoked to the tools of rhetoric and demagoguery, going so far as to lose any trace of objectivity. These tools, once shunned by science, were useful to Dawkins, given that he had no actual scientific proof that God doesn't exist. Hostile reviewers cried foul, but the complaints came from a mixed lot of religious fundamentalists, philosophers, and theologians who hardly presented a united front. Among the most educated and the least educated groups, Dawkins had no credibility. But the job had been done. It was now "scientific" for militant skepticism to practice forms of intellectual dishonesty that have only proliferated.

Thanks to the Internet, skepticism can spread with the speed of light, carrying in its wake all forms of unfairness and bad faith. A distressing example has been occurring at Wikipedia, where a band of committed skeptics have focused their efforts to discredit anyone whom they judge an enemy. The problem has been slow to gain traction in the public arena, because Wikipedia has constructed an elaborate set of rules to minimize editorial bias. Ironically, the skeptics have turned these rules, which run to hundreds of pages, to their advantage. They have become so skilled at thwarting anyone who disagrees with their point of view that a small swarm of skeptical editors is capable of outnumbering, bullying, and even banning all those who oppose them.

You can see the results at the Wikipedia entry for Rupert Sheldrake, the British biologist who has served as a lightning rod for militant skeptics for several decades. Intelligent, highly trained, an impeccable thinker, and a true advocate for experimentation and validation, Sheldrake had the temerity to be skeptical about the everyday way that science is conducted. He made his first splash by questioning the accepted assumptions of Darwinian evolution, and most recently he published a cogent, well-received book about the hidden weaknesses in the scientific method, titled Science Set Free. His avowed aim is to expand science beyond its conventional boundaries in the hope that a new path to discovery can be opened up.

But you'd never know it from Sheldrake's Wikipedia entry, which is largely derogatory and even defamatory, thanks to a concerted attack by a stubborn band of militant skeptics. Since I am close to Sheldrake personally and have Wikipedia woes of my own, it's not fair for me to offer accusations over the extent to which Wikipedia is under attack. But the skeptics have been caught in the act, which is the pickle they find themselves in, as I mentioned at the outset of this post.

You can read a detailed account in a series of online posts written by Craig Weiler at his blog The Weiler Psi. Confronting the militant pests at Wikipedia resembles taking hold of a tar baby, as Weiler relates in his most recent post, pointedly entitled "Wikipedia: The Only Way to Win Is Not to Play." The unsavory fact is that skeptics have figured out how to game Wikipedia's attempts to provide fairness, and we are all the loser for it.

Dawkins and the militant skeptics are symptoms of a deeper problem that turns out to have fascinating implications. Noisy as they are, these hostile crusaders have had no impact on the everyday activity of doing science or keeping faith. But that is about to change. The deep question of what is real is one that contemporary science can no longer avoid. How this is leading to the decline of skepticism makes for an intriguing mystery story, which will be discussed in the next post.


(To be cont.)
Deepak Chopra, MD is the author of more than 75 books with twenty-one New York Times bestsellers. Coming soon What Are You Hungry For? (Harmony, November 12, 2013)


Write Your Comment

Comments

buy xanax online xanax 2mg white bar buy xanax online what are the side effects of xanax bars buy valium can you snort green valium buy valium online overnight delivery valium for chronic back pain buy ambien not now ambien walrus buy ambien online ambient music radio free online buy tramadol tramadol 50 mg high yahoo answers buy tramadol online how much mg of tramadol to overdose buy soma online somatotype test soma without prescription buy soma drug
BleJJraaVD - June 27, 2015
green xanax bars effects recommended dosage of xanax for sleep buy xanax best xanax manufacturer order valium online no prescription diazepam valium for cats buy valium online order valium from canada buy ambien online trazodone vs ambien for insomnia ambien online no prescription fda ambien 2014 buy hydrocodone online hydrocodone apap with ibuprofen hydrocodone online buy hydrocodone online credit card adderall no rx adderall xr 30 mg effects strattera drug strattera adhd medicine
auWQZtJZIl - June 24, 2015
Unfortunately, the scientific method is forever doomed, by definition, any time it is used as a vehicle to prove a negative. In the instance of \"god\" no potential investigative tool exists. That only leaves critical thinking. Truly critical thinking can come to only one conclusion on on the existence of god...it is a rational impossibility.\n\nDawkins methodology to come to that conclusion is flawed in that he tries to do it utilizing scientific methodology, exposing his own biases. The burden of proof on the subject doesn`t fall on the atheist but upon the believer. Dawkins, and by extension Wiki, have fallen into the honey trap of attempting to prove the unprovable. It doesn`t mean their conclusions are wrong but exposes the folly of using a shotgun to attack a will o` the wisp.
montanaric - May 1, 2014
Militant skeptics undermined allready many websites and webtools like Wikipedia, WebOfTrust, AmazonBook-review, GoogleMaps and more. Don`t loose any time to discuss with them. They lie, use manipulated evidence and put your words into another context to make you a criminal. The best is to ignore them. They are well organised in international networks using RSS-feeds and other tools. If you start to correct their lies, they attack you with shitstorms from anonymous servers. Just look at all the learning-videos on http://skeptools.wordpress.com/ and you know, what`s going on and who is the source. We saved all these videos on separate tapes (evidence for future court cases). In other words: Militant skeptics have allready shouffled their own graves. A whole bunch of other skeptics will join them, because they missed to distance themselfes from the militant web-criminals, instead they supported these internet-terrorists with comments and/or linked to their slanderous websites.
skeptexposer - November 25, 2013
meanwhile when was the last time you provided any facts or evidence for your claims and the snake-oil cures you peddle? Science is not about fairness, its about verifiable knowledge, if your claim holds no water and can`t be replicated then what use is it for anyone? And yet you sell it at your clinic? You`re just plain intellectually dishonest.
sickgenius - November 25, 2013
When will you stop speaking gibberish. You are ridiculous.
sickgenius - November 25, 2013
Anyone using Wikipedia as a source for info or verification for anything other than who were the actors on Gilligan`s Island, has pretty much lost all cred from the point of the Wiki reference forward. Wikipedia`s useful for old movie history or to see if somebody`s still alive. But, to reference important questions of the day? It was never able to do that. Not even in the early days. Case in point, look up chiropractic on Wiki. It is the most useless paragraphs of gobbledygook, that the reader leaves with nothing but the feeling the wiki writers intended. Abject disdain. No surprise this Wiki-tude extends to other topics with which I`m less familiar.
Vibrant1 - November 17, 2013
Listen, I am not fan of militant scepticism but you have got all this wrong. There were no guerrilla skeptics attacking Sheldrake. The conspiracy theory started with a posychic called Craig Weiler and has no basis in fact.
truthseeker - November 9, 2013
Products
Books
Events