Junk Skepticism
In a March 14, 2006 essay in the New York Times science section, Dennis Overbye, the Deputy Science Editor at the Times, explains why he thinks the message about quantum observation effects, as portrayed in the movie, What the Bleep do we Know, is wrong. At one point in the essay he bolsters his point with the off-hand statement, "The parapsychologists were booted from the American Association for the Advancement of Science 30 years ago."
Wrong.
In 20 seconds of web searching Overbye could have discovered that the Parapsychological Association (PA) has been an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science since 1969, and it remains to this day a member society in good standing. I know because I've served as President of the PA for four terms, including this year, and I've been a member of the AAAS for over 20 years. You can verify the PA's status at the AAAS affiliates webpage.
This is an example of what happens when something that "everyone knows to be true" turns out to be false. I call this junk skepticism because it's the worst sort of pseudoskepticism -- mistaken ideas that are easily disproven, but no one bothers to check.
Wrong.
In 20 seconds of web searching Overbye could have discovered that the Parapsychological Association (PA) has been an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science since 1969, and it remains to this day a member society in good standing. I know because I've served as President of the PA for four terms, including this year, and I've been a member of the AAAS for over 20 years. You can verify the PA's status at the AAAS affiliates webpage.
This is an example of what happens when something that "everyone knows to be true" turns out to be false. I call this junk skepticism because it's the worst sort of pseudoskepticism -- mistaken ideas that are easily disproven, but no one bothers to check.
Comments
It may take another quarter or half century to be recognized as such by mainstream science, but we cannot deny observable facts. I view my role as creating, consolidating and interpreting those facts. It's up to future science (and creative people now) to make sense of it all.
For example, I recently have become interested in the work of Dean Radin and decided to do a Google search. The result was this skeptical review as one of the search results :-
http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radin2002.htm
This would make an excellent example for countering skeptical arguments point by point.
Fortunately, it's easy to win debates with promoters of junk skepticism, provided they are willing to engage in rational debate. When they offer their opinion about topic X, just ask for more details about X: scholarly and scientific references, a summary of the pros and cons about X, etc.
If they don't have answers, or can only provide vague references to authority on one side of the issue, then you can justifiably reply, "Well then, you don't know what you're talking about, do you?"
How have you concluded that this is 'something that "everyone knows to be true"'? It's an example of a mis-statment by a single individual through poor (or no) research - nothing more. Junk skepticism (as per your definition)? I'm afraid not.
Of course. But why does a journalist who focuses on mainstream science feel he doesn't have to check his facts? Because he has uncritically adopted the same stories that "everyone knows" to be true. In other words, each case of junk skepticism is ultimately one individual's mistake. It's the reason for the mistake that I'm pointing out.