I’m frequently discouraged by how often and quickly people who value “critical thinking” send barbs towards others with the same goals using unwarranted accusations and mischaracterizations. It’s too common. A few weeks ago, I was accused on a Facebook friend’s page of only writing about “low hanging fruit” and that my website Doubtful News was limited to applying skepticism to “paranormal, conspiracies and alt med”. A rude and ignorant commenter who favors ad hominem insults says he “begged” me to cover issues that really hurt people like “computer scams, phishing”. That might be a blatant lie or it just might be an exaggeration, I can’t remember anyone contacting me about that at all. Regardless, it was absurd. As with pseudoscience, it’s hard to unpack such trumped-up claims. The writers’ goals were to support their efforts to make a feel-good social judgment upon me. They weren’t interested in facts, just emotions. The facts are this: my platform has LONG BEEN application of science and skepticism to all appropriate subject areas – the circle can certainly grow!
Early today on Doubtful News, I posted a story declaring the Michelle Obama photo holding a sign saying “An immigrant is taking my job” to be photoshopped. This produced a flood of repetitive comments to my personal and DN-based Facebook, Twitter, and comment threads alleging that it was OBVIOUS it was fake. Why did I bother to debunk it? Did someone actually think this was true?
Yes, they actually did. This SHOULD NOT have surprised you. Have you NOT been paying attention these many years when countless made up or misleading stories were accepted by the general public? There are simply too many to list as examples. I am frustrated you have not learned from several years of fake news. People REALLY DO believe this stuff. Read More »
It’s not the best job in the world to bust people’s clouds. How often have you been thanked for providing the Snopes link to debunk that urban legend? The typical reaction to Snopes-type debunking is to ignore it or reject it. In the former, people will continue to promote the falsehood when it’s advantageous to them. In the latter, they will double down on their original belief in the falsehood in what is called the Backfire Effect.
Snopes has a tendency to write headlines that reinforce the myth. Here are the top two stories from a screen cap today as examples.Read More »
There is much ado, again, about soft targets in skepticism – the topics that are easily dismissed, should be ignored, are a waste of time and effort. So some say. Once again, we hear that we should be paying greater attention to things that really matter like cancer and war. Therefore, I’m getting the impression that people like me who write about these oh-so-silly things like cryptozoology, paranormal and misleading news stories are less important in the skeptical scheme of things. No one is listening to me, says John Horgan, who has a shallow and limited knowledge about the skeptical community and astoundingly is out of touch with public interest.
These beliefs and disbeliefs deserve criticism, but they are what I call “soft targets.” That’s because, for the most part, you’re bashing people outside your tribe, who ignore you. You end up preaching to the converted.
Gosh, this crap is SO OLD. “Bashing”? “Tribe”? “Ignore me”? “Preaching to the converted”? All very wrong.
Pushing this sloppy argument shows you are completely out of touch with the average Joe Q. Public (who really DOES believe in ghosts, Bigfoot, and thinks the government is spraying mind-control chemicals). Or, some wish to emphasize their own agenda and values like world peace, equality, animal rights or social justice for marginalized communities which makes them feel morally superior, I guess. Or, like I’ve experienced, it’s used by people who are annoyed that you keep ruining their great comment threads by inserting relevant questions and correcting their ridiculous inaccuracies – harshing their mellow. They want you out of the way so they can keep up their carefully constructed worldview. Those are all valid social reasons, if problematic in parts, and an indication that in the real world, dealing with “soft targets” requires tact, perseverance and a strong backbone.Read More »
Thanks to the many shares, my piece on why you should not use the NaturalNews.com (NN) has gotten some wide distribution. (Not wide enough but I’m never completely happy).
My advice was to avoid it entirely, but I heard from a few who said that they link to it for creative and specific purposes.Read More »
I’ve seen a few remarks going around about how angry the anti-skeptics are about critical comments towards them. Yep, that’s a decent indication that arrows have hit the mark. A common scapegoat seems to be Wikipedia and the volunteers who edit it. But a solution to their problem is simple – add the citations to support their claims. Instead, they throw temper tantrums.
It’s currently a top subject on Natural News (which I wrote about yesterday) prompted by the hubbub over the anti-vaccination documentary by Andrew Wakefield that was cut from the Tribeca Film Festival. The admins of NN have undertaken a campaign to lash out at skeptics in a personal (juvenile and unfair) way. Snarling at skeptical critique is routine. But with the current volume of it, I think it signals that the barbs are cutting, particularly to alternative medicine proponents, paranormalists, and parapsychologists.Read More »
To continue with a theme I started yesterday on outrage fostered by social media, I found this relevant piece by Thomas Friedman: Social Media: Destroyer or Creator?
Friedman describes how that Facebook revolutions start out as pretty awesomely powerful things, then they self destruct. Hold on… I’m having a deja vu moment.
Many new communities – from atheists to religious, ghost hunters to skeptics – have flourished on the Internet as people of like minds were able to connect to each other and share their thoughts and interests. It was all great, for a while. The exciting sense of community eventually broke down into factions that became vehicles for the spread of misinformation and rumors. I hesitate to compare all these groups to each other since Friedmans’s piece is actually about a very serious issue – the Egyptian revolution in 2011 that toppled President Hosni Mubarak. Yet, the process of group formation, dynamics and destruction appears fundamentally similar. In the end, there was no consensus achieved and no progress made towards a sustainable working government. Read More »