Betsy McCaughey — an outspoken proponent of the myth that Democrats’ health care reform proposals will lead to the creation of “death panels,” as well as a former lieutenant governor of New York and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute — has stepped down from her position as a director of Cantel Medical Corp., which bills itself as a “leading provider of infection prevention and control products in the healthcare market.”Frankly, I don't like to use this blog for ANY political purposes because in general my take is that a lot of politics is beyond the scope of skepticism. Some questions don't lend themselves to a purely rational analysis, for example qualitative questions.
Regardless, this outcome reminded me of an ongoing debate in skepticism dealing with the role of civility and the value of ridicule in confrontations with differing points of view. I posted a tiny message on twitter and it cross-posted to facebook. And this exchange with Reed Esau and Daniel Loxton took place. I enjoyed the discourse so much that I didn't want to lose it - and there may be others out there that would like to comment on it. So I'm preserving it here on my blog.
DoctorAtlantis There are many skeptics who question whether ridicule is appropriate. Being nice is - well, nice. But check this: : http://bit.ly/3qvxcg
So that's the thread. Got anything to add?
Be civil. ;)
Posts
7 comments:
Yes - the Think Tank sessions that the Skeptic Zone has. We've traveled across the country and internationally, discussing with people at skeptical conferences and our lectures. Would they be a useful resource in that regard?
Oh, there's also episodes that Skeptic Zone podcast have done with parapsychologists like Dr Caroline Watt and the interview that Richard Saunders did with Alex Tsakiris of Sceptiko podcast.
Did I miss something? You call Jenny McCarthy a retard and then remind people about the need for civility. Geez....sounds like you're completely out of touch and like you never left 7th grade.
@HannahJ I can see where that would be challenging. The argument is about the need for civility and that bit was specifically about how that I found it difficult to be civil when ignorance and fear were being used to promote dangerous ideas that could literally kill people.
For example, I disagree with the people who say that we never landed on the moon. But I'd have an easier time arguing with them civily because even if they became a huge political contingent and made congress pass a resolution that said America never did that - we still wouldn't lose thousands to millions of lives because of it.
But in the case of the anti-vaxers it's a baby-with-the-bathwater situation. They make erroneous statments about the safety of vax and ignore the millions and millions of unmaimed and living people who only have the quality of life they have because of vaccines.
That's the civil argument.
But what do you think best describes someone who is trying to ban life-saving technology because they are afraid of it? Someone who wants to slow down the advancement of medicine? Slow it down?
Perhaps I should call her a "Retarder." Because she's trying to retard progress?
I dunno. I think it would be nice if people with polio or who had been disfigured through small-pox would protest her everywhere she talks.
The reason conversations like this never happen in a coffee-shop is because there's often a nice pub around the corner.
@Podblack: now that you mention it, Richard Saunders' talk "Fakes, Frauds & Fools" should be a great resource on this topic as well.
Re: What's already in the literature includes Ray Hyman's "Proper Criticism," which is a set of guidelines of civility that includes "Use the principle of charity." That guideline refers (at least implicitly) to a philosophical principle relevant to language understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
It's a principle that can be pushed to its limits on some topics that skeptics discuss.
Martin Gardner has also occasionally had things to say about the role of ridicule, such as quoting H.L. Mencken's "one horse-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms" and commenting "One horse-laugh in its appropriate setting may be worth a dozen scholarly papers, though never at the price of the latter" (cited on p. 107 of David J. Hess's _Science in the New Age: The Paranormal, Its Defenders and Debunkers, and American Culture_--I think that may be from _Science Good, Bad, and Bogus_).
Post a Comment