June 16, 2012, by Brigitte Nerlich
Scepticism: Process, not position
Scepticism activism
Scepticism is as old as human thinking, as old as philosophy and as old as science. Most recently scepticism has, on the one hand, become embroiled in a major controversy about climate change, and on the other hand scepticism has also become a form of activism, with Skeptics in the Pub being a major example. The main aim of this and similar movements is to dispel myths, for example, about creationism or homeopathy. People who engage in this form of ‘skepticism’ activism use the ‘k’ to mark a difference between this scepticism and, according to Alex Pryce of the Scottish Skeptics Society, ‘the more cynical connotations of the word’.
Cynical scepticism
What are the more cynical connotations of the word scepticism? Pryce goes on to say in this interview with BBC news: “I think a lot of people confuse scepticism with cynicism. …That’s a tendency to reject ideas out of hand without giving them any real consideration, and that’s not what scepticism is about. Scepticism isn’t a set of beliefs. It’s a system of inquiry that ultimately gives people the ability to understand the world around them – and I think that’s a really positive thing.” This type of non-cynical scepticism is often described as rational scepticism.
Rational and irrational scepticism
I recently read Adam Corner’s brilliant interview with a climate sceptic. When reading this interview it becomes clear that the interviewed climate ‘sceptic’ would never accept the label ‘irrational’. On the contrary, he would probably use the term ‘irrational’ for those that some climate sceptics call ‘warmists’, i.e. those that accept rather than reject the theory of anthropogenic climate change and global warming. In the interview the sceptic also rejects the label ‘denier’ which is sometimes used to draw a line between opposing views and groups in the ideological battle about climate change. The word ‘denier’ is used on both sides of the current climate change (scepticism) debate to distinguish between what one may call the in-group and the out-group. As the UK Skeptics group pointed out, for example: “We are nothing to do with opposition, activist, or denialist groups who wrongly refer to themselves as ‘skeptics’ because they adopt a position of non-belief (eg global warming skeptics, vaccine skeptics, etc).”
Active scepticism
In this battle for the best scepticism in the context of climate change, the terms scepticism and sceptic are gradually losing their meaning. There is a real danger inherent in this semantic loss or semantic attrition. The danger lies in adopting ‘scepticism’ as a position or attitude instead of living it as a process. It is easy to adopt scepticism as a position from which to pronounce on certain issues, such as climate change, or to use ‘sceptic’ as a label to attack opposing positions. It is much more difficult to live scepticism as a process, as in what Johann Wolfgang von Goethe called ‘active scepticism’: “An active scepticism is one which constantly aims at overcoming itself, and arriving by means of regulated experience at a kind of conditioned certainty.” Adopting this perspective, one can say that although scepticism may usefully be seen as a process, it is not an infinite regress. One can reach a point at which ‘conditioned certainty’ emerges. This view obviates the situation in which contemporary climate scientists seem to find themselves. A point of conditioned certainty has been reached but certain sceptical opponents either conflate this with what some call dogmatic certainty unworthy of trust or as hiding an inexhaustible multitude of uncertainties. From both points of view political actions based on science become impossible.
Science and scepticism
This brings us to another danger in adopting scepticism as a position rather than a process. Positions always call forth opposing positions, with each calling the other ‘the wrong kind of scepticism’. Adopting polarised positions (or attitudes) makes it impossible to see the elephant, indeed the two elephants, standing in the battlefield between these positions, namely science and, in the current, most prominent, ideological skirmish, the climate. Science becomes almost a swear-word for some, something to be saved at all costs for others. The question of whether and how to deal with climate change is completely sidelined and easily forgotten.
Moderate scepticism
The whole issue of science and scepticism is nicely discussed in a blog entitled ‘What if anything can sceptics say about science?’ The blog makes a case for what one might call a moderate scepticism, a perspective which echoes to some extent the views expressed by Bertrand Russell in his essay ‘On the value of scepticism’: “I advocate a middle position. There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed; the dates of eclipses may serve as an illustration. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein’s view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment. These propositions may seem mild, yet, if accepted, they would absolutely revolutionize human life.” Wouldn’t that be great!
Scepticism, truth and certainty
The blog mentioned above also talks about lay and expert sceptics, an interesting distinction, which one might want to explore further within a Collins and Evans framework of a sociological exploration of (scientific) expertise. One might also want to analyse its relation with what others have called informed vs excessive scepticism, for example. I myself find it quite fruitful to distinguish between ‘organised scepticism‘, which is the life-blood of science; ‘active scepticism’, which is at the core of (science) communication and investigative journalism, and ‘special interest scepticism‘ (which is often related to the interests of powerful groups or businesses). However, all these distinctions need to be used with great care so as to avoid building them up as opposing positions which then undermine the process of scepticism and search for what Goethe called ‘conditioned certainty’.
I therefore think that the general definition of sceptic as provided for example by the Oxford English Dictionary (“A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions.”) may be misleading and that Goethe provides a better philosophy of scepticism. We might not ever be able to reach ‘the truth’, but we can find some temporary valid ‘conclusions’. This may be the only way to achieve what Robert Merton called “the institutional goal of science”, namely, “the extension of certified knowledge”, which should not be confused with the establishment of absolute certainty. This might also be the only solid ground on which to build science-based policy.
Can’t seem to access the “polarised positions” link. . .
Has been repaired!
Very much enjoyed this post, Brigitte. 3 points:
1) Regarding the Corner/Chambers interview, many of the comments on Bishop Hill are worth a look, including some by Chambers himself: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/15/geoff-chambers-talks-to-adam-corner.html I think if these dialogues are framed as a means of ‘overcoming’ climate scepticism, then they are much more likely to falter, and raise the hackles of the ‘sceptic’ side. At the Policy Exchange event, Peter Lilley said he was pleased to here that Adam didn’t want to send him to a Stalin-style re-education camp. While it was intended to be a joke, I think it was revealing of how a bunker mentality may develop if one feels as if is heavily outnumbered in an argument.
I might also wonder what the aim of these dialogues is: to further debate, to try and ‘shout louder’ about the science, or to get wider agreement on policy. If it is the latter, it’s worth noting that the number of people ‘believing’ (ugh) in climate change is far outnumbered by those supporting related policy measures (more wind farms etc).
2) The Dutch PBL published a discussion between one of their scientists, Bart Strengers, and prominent sceptic Hans Labohm, in 2009. Sadly, it has not been translated into English, but the Dutch version is here: http://bit.ly/KH7fst
3) The Bertrand Russell essay you link to is terrific – lovely writing.
Hi,
Yes, I think you are right. If, and I would have to ask Adam about that, the dialogues are framed to ‘overcome’ climate scepticism, those who organise the dialogues would shoot themselves in the foot. The whole affair would be like opening up the ‘deficit’ model controversy all over again, which would then have to be overcome by ‘engagement’ etc. But I really don’t think that’s the case. There is, I believe, a genuine wish on both sides to ‘engage’ with the other but the obstacles to reaching mutual understanding are just enormous. One of these obstacles lies in what both sides regard as science and pseudoscience. Those who are sceptical about what others regard as settled science frame the settled science as pseudoscience; and those who go with the settled science regard what those who are sceptical engage in as pseudoscience. Now, with the advent of psychological approaches to understanding the underlying reasons for polarisation, a new battle around (pseudo)science has emerged, this time around psychology. Here we find those that see themselves as under a psychological lens protesting against being psychoanalysed or rather pseudoanalysed (which is not really the case, I believe) and those who see their efforts at gaining a psychological understanding of polarisation as a genuine scientific effort. And so it goes on. I can’t quite see where this is supposed to end.
How interesting! I like the connection with Collins’ expertise. You know David Hess’ book on science & the New Age, yes? Interesting history there. There are also some interesting pieces in the CSICOP archive, on the sort of openly pro science Kurtz skepticism. http://www.csicop.org/si/archive Sometimes think a constructivist approach to scepticism is the way to go (cf Gieryn). Scepticism is what sceptics do…?
Thanks for these great links. I had not thought of those. That’s the beauty of blogs. One writes something and others do the research (kidding!). More seriously I like the focus on ‘doing’. One should really study what sceptics do and what that doing means to them. It would also be great to compare various ways of ‘doing scepticism’, especially with relation to various sciences and not so much sciences… (but that again depends on where you come from), climate science, homeopathy, paranormal psychology, etc.
Adam Corner’s brave venture seems to have provided him with plenty of material for his next paper! The responses at his blog and at Bishop Hill are interesting – some welcome the initiative and present reasoned arguments, others just turn to insults. I hope he has a thick skin and will be able to engage constructively with the former while ignoring the latter. To answer Warren’s question, I suppose the aim is to allow the two ‘sides’ to understand each other’s position more accurately, and establish what common ground there may be. It is most unlikely to lead to any conversions. It is interesting that this seems to be the first time that anyone within the ‘climate change communication industry’ has thought to do this!
Im not going to say what everyone else has already said, but I do want to comment on your
knowledge of the topic. Youre truly well-informed. I cant believe how much of this I just
wasnt aware of. Thank you for bringing more information to this topic for me. Im truly
grateful and really impressed.
That’s very kind of you to say, but in fact I know very little. I am hoping to learn more in the future and if I do, I’ll write another blog!
Being the sceptic interviewed by Corner, I would be interested to know what you found to be brilliant about the interview, since you don’t say.
I agree with you that Goethe’s definition of scepticism is more fruitful than the dictionary’s, but that sems a bit unfair on poor old Oxford English, whose compliers make no claim to be among the greatest geniuses of all time. Goethe’s entire life was a sceptical quest, and reading accounts of his life, and especially the Italian Journey and conversations with Eckermann, one has the impression that his works were almost accidental by-products of that quest. But most of us sceptics aren’t like that.
You are right that I would never accept the label “irrational”. Should I? Would you? I did accept Corner’s point, which I’d consider incontrovertible, that we are all influenced by irrational motivations, but I resisted his attempt to make me admit that my opinions on climate change were entirely determined by my political and cultural attitudes. Mind you, it would have been funny if I had admitted that, since my political and cultural attitudes are far closer to Corner’s than to those of most climate sceptics. So my agreeing that he was right could count as proof that he was wrong.
Hi
I knew the moment that I had typed the word brilliant that it was the wrong choice of word. I should have stuck to ‘interesting’. But sometimes the fingers supersede the brain so to speak. I think what I tried to say was: brilliant idea to engage ‘sceptics’ in dialogue, because if there is no dialogue the gulf between various ‘camps’ or persuasions or whatever you might call it will become ever wider. I also wanted to stress that the use of words like rational or irrational should be a careful use and that these words should not be downgraded to insults or become insults. That again does not help at all in the process of making people’s minds up about where they stand on climate change. As for Goethe and the OED — The OED is normally my sort of gold-standard of meaning, as my background is in historical linguistics and the history of linguistics. So actually saying something ‘bad’ about an entry in the OED felt really strange and disloyal, but in the context of the blog it sort of made sense to me. Yes, and of course we can’t all be Goethes, but again the quotes I used made sense in the context of a blog. If I had written a scholarly article, I would probably have been more careful.
There’s a background to this story in the introduction to the same interview at the sceptic blog HarmlessSky
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=581
where the same article was intended to go up at the same time, with unmoderated commenting. This didn’t happen, leading to the complaints about Corner’s heavy moderating policy at BishopHill and elsewhere, which overwhelmed intelligent debate.
Congratulations on the intelligent comments here, by the way.
One last point on your article. I don’t think I refused the description “denier”. Most sceptics do, of course, since they consider it an insulting reference to Holocaust denial. The noted sceptical climate scientist Richard Lindzen accepted it in a spirit of derision, and so do I, as did Quakers, Tories, Whigs, and Old Contemptibles. But this kind of irony is often lost in the ephemeral world of blogging.
Thanks for this background information, both in terms of the background to the blog and the background to the usage of the word ‘denier’!
[…] about within two projects related to climate change; so I blogged about the weather and climate, scepticism, uncertainty and so on. Then, in May this year, our Making Science Public project started in […]
further explanation why ‘denier is unwise’
The Guardians style guide says it is not helpful..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/climate-change-scepticism-style-guide
which followed from this conversation between Anthony Watts and the Guardian’s James Randerson
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/sea-change-in-climate-journalism-the-guardian-and-the-d-word/
Thank you for this additional information. Very useful!
The main problem with the use of the phrase ‘climate denier’ is in my opinion, NOT the definition (which is multiple and problematic) but the INTENT of the person using it..
The intent is often to signal to the reader or listener, that ‘sceptics’ (note the quotes, as Adam used, not even allowed to be a real sceptic, somehow fake) or denier are somehow to be thought of as beneath the pale, as evil, mad, bad, crazy, anti-scientic, or greedy, as a holocaust denier, or creationist, or flat-earyher, aids denier, 911 conspiracists, etc. which ever linkage best fits the audiences prejudices and preconceptions.
Further more, when it is used the speaker, is perhaps trying to reinforce to its own peer group this definition of ‘denier’ lest they seek to engage, so infact it may be realy intened to speak to th e’tribe’ (so to say) as to the actual public.
Thus, when it is used in that way, it is often very much the language of the political activist.
Dr Tamsin Edwards apologised for using it in the past casually, and stated she has dropped it completely, as amongst her peer group it is just casually used. In her case it was made in all innocence as, though it is sad that the phrase has become used casually amongst scientist..
However, the use of it to close down debate, ie don’t listen to ‘climate denier’ they are the moral eqiavalent or, or as stupid as, is a phenomena that appalls me.. I e Halls of Shame – which includes many UK scientists on actvists websites, with scientists labelled ‘disinformer’ – not just merely wrong.
some examples of where it came from (and it seems to have sunk into activist psyche)
2005, Johann Hari: The Independant
“The climate-change deniers are rapidly ending up with as much intellectual credibility as creationists and Flat Earthers. Indeed, given that 25,000 people died in Europe in the 2003 heatwave caused by anthropogenic climate change, given that the genocide unfolding in Darfur has been exacerbated by the stresses of climate change, given that Bangladesh may disappear beneath the rising seas in the next century, they are nudging close to having the moral credibility of Holocaust deniers. They are denying the reality of a force that – unless we change the way we live pretty fast – will kill millions.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-shame-of-the-climatechange-deniers-6147534.html
2006, George Monbiot – The Guardian
“Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/21/comment.georgemonbiot
this later article I think shames the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/mar/09/climate-change-deniers-monbiot-cards
2006: Mark Lynas
“I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put this in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it”.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080512154243/http://www.marklynas.org/2006/5/19/climate-denial-ads-to-air-on-us-national-television
2007: fed Ellen Goodman : “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070214041353/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
Then there are others saying ‘climate treason’, and others saying ‘Nuremburg trial’ for climate – and I’m sure very many other USA, examples could be found (in the main stream media (Hari, Independent, Monbiot – Guardian) very politicized and a huge deterrent to speak up at all.
2008 – Grist Climate Nuremburg (quoting monbiot)
http://grist.org/article/the-denial-industry/
2008: Hansen -Crime Against humanity:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
2009: Krugman – Guilty of treason
http://www.alternet.org/story/141204/are_climate-change_deniers_guilty_of_treason
20011- Chris Huhne – UK Minsiter Enrrgy & Climate Change– “Defying climate deal like appeasing Hitler-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/enivronment-britain-huhne-idAFL6E7IL0MF20110721?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
These are all influential people, especially Hari, Lynas, Monbiot, Marshallin the media and amongst environmentalists. the examples are just a handful, of this type of rhetoric.
Looking back at wayback machine Mark Lynas and George Marshall blogs (Rising Tide – Hall of Shame creator), for example was on the Realclimate (Mann’s baby) blog roll, right from the very start, where perhaps an unhealthy combination of activist rhetoric crossed over into the scientist vocabulary
Lynas has since stated that Deniers – Halls of Shame – are shameful, and stepped down from Marshall/Monbiots – Campaign Against Climate Change – advisory board which has one.
Those that are interested n sociology should be all too aware of this type of ‘political rhetoric’ when used against critics or opponents
This, again,is really useful. I can understand Tamsin, as I have, I believe fallen into the same linguistic trap myself. It is indeed really useful to reflect on how words can, and are sometimes used strategically, to open up or to close down debates, and this is especially important in the context of climate change. When I started to look at the language used in this context, around 2008, I was still quite naive, as I had not dealt with climate change language before (I had looked more at biotechnology issues etc.). Since then it has been a long learning curve, and I am still learning!
So in context of the Talking Climate blog, can you understand the sceptics reaction to Corner(especially Marshall, jointly behind it), when his own personal activism was made apparent (not by me, I might add, I knew about it, but had kept silent, as I was pleased about some engagement)
Talking Climate is also described as run by Richard Hawkins another PIRC director(who has been arrested on coal demos, even chained to a JCB with George Monbiot)
Remember Adam had stood up a a public debate and told the public, Peter Lilley MP, Bennty Peiser, Lord Lawson that: ” I am a Researcher, NOT a campaigner”
(yet Adam is a former Green Party parliamentary candidate, Friends of earth campaigner, etc,etc and Director of PIRC, and Policy Advisor to COIN, both lobbying activist groups.)
Would the public just think he was lying? (let alone the sceptics..)
perceptions matter.
as the talk was about motivated reasoning and ideology of the ‘right’ politically with respect to climate change. I think it entirely appropriate that we question Adams (and others) own motivated reasoning and ideologies… Adam just thinks I’m trying to smear him (with facts?)
Baring in mind that Adam is Policy adviser to COIN, whose founder created and still supports – Halls of Shame – for deniers, and calls those i it ‘dis informers’ – – political activist rhetoric, why should I treat him as anything but an activist misusing academics clothing, except that I think he has some huge blindspots, that he can’t address.
Those people in the audience trusted Adam’s statement about him being a researcher, that took him at face value, as an academic.. I asked.. Benny Peisier just laughed, he had taken him as just a researcher, when I told him( I just google gwpf contact details, rang it up, Benny answered)
Academics do not need the public and politicians laughing at their own inconsistencies.
my concern is activist scientists (hansen a less close to home example) whose objectivity I believe has been lost, because it is an emotive subject for them.
The issue of boundaries/overlaps between academia, activism and advocacy is very contentious and multifaceted, and I would not want to comment on this before having undertaken some serious research. This could be a whole social science, including history of science, project, but not one I have the expertise to undertake, I am afraid.
At Bishop Hill Adam’s contributions were welcome as engagemnet initially (see the comments) until the readers came across some information.
As I mentioned, the exact same thing happened when Dr Tamsin Edwards initially made a comment at Bishop Hill, interested comments. Then someone found a interview of hers where she spoke about deniers ( and it was in ‘quotes’)
http://highheelsinthelab.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/real-deal-tamsin-edwards-climate_17.html
Tamsin actaully tweeted me, to come to her rescue (and Andrew, as we had been chatting away from the blog comments and we knew – unlike the readers – her, and that she was sincere)
my comments on page three.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/11/whats-all-this-then.html?currentPage=3#comments
Tamsin is now a semi regular and welcome contributor, whereas Bishop Hill has experienced a number of drive by’s by climate scientists and socioloigists, that really do not want to engage.
Because so many sceptics are used to being called all sorts of names by activists, many saw no problem with the phrase ‘watermelons’ used to describe many environmenatl activists…
I had a huge problem with it as I explain in the comment (ending up with a fight’ with James Delingpole abouut it (ie the title of his book!)
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/28/dellers-on-reason.html
on this occasion I asked Tamsin to come to my rescue! (explaining why this was offensive to scientists) (Ben PIle and Geoff Chambers were with me on this issue)
Dr Tamsin Edwards (extract)
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/28/dellers-on-reason.html?currentPage=3
“I haven’t read Watermelons or watched the clip. A few thoughts….
Shub, I am an example of a consensusist who has stopped using denier directly because of Barry, Bish and this forum.
Name calling is ever so counterproductive. Today I was defending you lot to (particle physics) friends, yesterday to climate/stats friends, saying that denier offends and there is a spectrum of opinions anyway.
Scientists usually end up saying denier because they only really hear about those denying CO2 is a GHG and that the earth is warming, and they don’t like skeptic (because they are themselves skeptical) and other terms haven’t stuck. Some soften it with “denialist”. They really don’t intend it to echo Holocaust denier I don’t think. They think of it more as equivalent to creationism.
But this is only because of an important reason…
Most. Scientists. Don’t. Know. You. Exist.
Really! They are not aware that a significant part of people trying to prod science for weak spots actually are fine with AGW but not sure of magnitude/timing/impacts/policy. When I explain this they say “oh, that sounds perfectably reasonable!”. After all we argue about the first two or three in conferences and the literature ourselves! They agree Mann analysis was wrong, and would agree on lots of other things like “All models are wrong” (“but some are useful” 🙂 )
So give them a chance. Barry has won me over to you with respect, goodwill, and true listening. Please follow his example if you want to engage with climate scientists. Bish’s too.
I am a modeller. My personal hygiene is not too questionable and I’m proud to be called one 🙂 But not watermelon.
Name calling is a surefire way to homogenise and depersonalise a group.”
———————————–
Later on last year Dr Tamsin Edwards give Dr Peter Gleick a piece of her mind about his methods of communication:
“I would personally be infuriated if I was dismissed on account of the behaviour of a group of people I talk with. Every single person I talk with has a different viewpoint, and I learn a lot about how better to communicate climate science by listening to them. If we dismiss swathes of people by association then our attempts at communication become futile: we end up only ‘preaching to the converted from an ‘ivory tower’, as it were”.
Of course, if communication of climate science is not your aim, then it is your choice if you prefer to communicate with nobody! – Tamsin Edwards
Some backstory with this, as Peter had called me ‘incredibly offensive’ and I was quite upset about it..
http://unsettledclimate.org/2012/02/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/
due to his intervention about why Dr Tamsin Edwards should NOT call her blogs – All Models are Wrong.
http://allmodelsarewrong.com/all-blog-names-are-wrong/
Tamsin wants to communicate… Adam and George want to shut the sceptics down… at least that is my perception.. obviously I prefer Tamsins approach as would the majority of scientists I know.
[…] Scepticism […]