I got an interesting email, undoubtedly prompted by one of my recent anti-Trump posts. Here's the salient part:
People like you calling yourself skeptics make me laugh. One look at what you write and anyone can see you're biased. You're constantly going on about left-wing liberal crap, and calling ideas you don't like words like nonsense and stupid and ridiculous. You don't even give the opposite side a fair hearing. You dismiss stuff without even giving it good consideration, and call it "skepticism." At least you could be honest enough to admit you're not fair and unbiased.
Okay, there's a lot to unpack here, so let's start with the easy stuff first.
I'm not unbiased, and have never claimed I am, for the very good reason that everyone is biased. No exceptions.
Skepticism doesn't mean eliminating all biases -- that's almost certainly impossible. As British science historian James Burke points out, in his mindblowing series The Day the Universe Changed, the whole enterprise of knowledge is biased right down to its roots, because your preconceived notions about how the world works will determine what tools you use to study it, how you will analyze the data once you've got it, and even what you consider to be reliable evidence.
So sure, as skeptics we should try to expunge all the biases we can, and for the rest, keep them well in mind. A bias can't hurt you if it's right in front of your eyes. As an example, my post yesterday -- about a claim that Breakthrough Listen has found incontrovertible evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence -- revealed my clear bias to doubt the person who made the claim. However, the important thing is that (1) I stated it up front, and (2) at the end of the post, I admitted explicitly that I could be wrong. (And in this case, would be thrilled if I were.) In the end, the evidence decides the outcome. If the aliens have been talking to us, I'll have no choice but to admit that my bias led me astray, and to change my mind.
What the guy who emailed me seems to want, though, is always to have some sort of "fair hearing" for the talking points of the other side(s). Which in some cases is a reasonable request, I suppose, but we need to make sure we understand what "fair and balanced" means. In the realm of science, it's not "fair and balanced" to have a geology textbook give equal time to plate tectonics and the claim of somebody who thinks the mantle of the Earth is filled with banana pudding. There are some ideas that can be dismissed out of hand, based on the available evidence; young-Earth creationism, alchemy, homeopathy, and the geocentric model are obvious examples.
There's more to it than this, though, because he touched on the subject of politics, which for a lot of people skates out over very thin ice. And sure, here as well I have my biases, but I'm perfectly open about them. I do lean left; no question about it. I hope I don't do so thoughtlessly, and with no chance of having my mind changed if I'm wrong, but I've been a liberal all my life and probably always will be.
But my attempting to be fair doesn't mean I'm any more required to give credence to absurd or dangerous ideas in politics than I am in any other realm. "Balance" doesn't mean pretending that people promoting democracy and those promoting fascism are morally equivalent. It doesn't mean we should give equal weight to >99.5% of climatologists and to the <0.5% who think that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening. It doesn't mean we have to give the same respect to those campaigning for equal rights and those who think that people of other races are inferior or that queer people should be lined up and shot.
So okay, we should listen to both sides. And then give our support to the one that is moral, just, and in line with the facts and evidence.
In summary, I'm obligated to treat all humans with equal respect, but that doesn't mean all ideas are worthy of equal respect. You may not like it, but sometimes the fair, balanced, appropriate, and -- dare I say it -- skeptical response is to say, "That idea is wrong/immoral/dangerous/flat-out idiotic."
In any case, I'm not going to apologize for my biases, although I will try to keep my eyes on them at all times. And if knowing that I'm (1) liberal, (2) understand and trust science, (3) support democracy and human rights, and (4) champion LGBTQ+ people ('cuz I am one) bothers you, you're not going to have much fun while visiting my blog.
But after all this -- well, if you really do get your jollies from reading stuff that pisses you off, then knock yourself out.
![]() |
No comments:
Post a Comment