The State of Pseudoscience and Skepticism

[ArranUpsideDown]

I think you might need to scroll up to where Andy Lewis (MN's @quackometer123 iirc) answers the original challenge:

crackedscience: Looking for recent pseudoscience trends! Will be on a year-end TV show, talking about 2019 trends in health woo & possible 2020 pseudomedical things to look for. What have you seen?

Andy Lewis: The denial of sex as a material and objective reality - mediated by the infiltration of postmodernist style anti intellectual thinking into academic, medical, legal and social discussions of what it means to be male or female

Worth looking at some of the intervening exchanges (involves Emma Hilton) where leading medics, scientists and skeptics refuse to engage with either Andy or Emma and trade jibes followed by blocking:

twitter.com/Bleedinheart2MD/status/1210938352222031872

And, yes - some of the names in that thread are leading skeptical voices who have been at the forefront of tackling denialism.

What is happening to science, medicine, and the shared understanding of the need to tackle denialism or at least to maintain civil discourse about important topics?

On the interesting topic of why some people are able to apply critical thinking and others aren't, I've just seen this tweet from Dr Margaret McCartney:

twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1211349116669890560

It reads:

"Please let 2020 be the year of critical thinking
Asking hard questions on evidence , what it tells us and what it doesn’t
About who stands to benefit and lose
About whether creating unintended harms
And whether we are more concerned with our popularity than limiting harms."

McCartney has been one of the few to speak out against medicating children with gender dysphoria, and has generally shown herself to be independent-minded (e.g. she doesn't believe the evidence supports mass cervical screening). I think this particular tweet is quite likely referring to the transing of children in particular.

tweet from Dr Margaret McCartney

She's a delight and so eminently level-headed.

It would be a ravens have left the tower moment for me if she ever came out for the 'transing of children at a young age is fine and we need no additional ethics oversight' etc.

And I admire both Cicely Marston and Trisha Greenhalgh so much that it's genuinely distressing that CM is willing to be alongside Helen I (mimmymum of Mermaids) and that TG has reacted like this.

I agree, Arran.

This whole debate has been absolutely fascinating for me in seeing who can think critically and who can't. Who is brave enough to speak out and who isn't. One of the things I've discovered during times of crises that the support doesn't necessarily come from the sources you'd expect - people you thought were your close friends are useless, while casual acquaintances turn out to be stars.

And this is a bit like that. Who'd have thought that, of all the hundreds of men in show business, Graham Linehan would be the one to speak out for women? Who would have guessed that Dr Alice Roberts would be the television personality spouting nonsense analogies about clownfish? Certainly not me.

But then, what makes some people on the left able to step out of the package deal, and say, hang on, something's not right here ?

I think you are right to point to a strong awareness of material reality, but that's tricky isn't it, these skeptics think they have that, it's why they are so strongly attached to empiricism, and an extreme kind of empiricism that's been largely rejected among philosophers as having insurmountable problems. That is maybe notable, as is their real lack of grounding in the epistemology of science itself. They think they know a lot more than they do.

Thinking about this, something I have realised is that I've always been inclined to question the dominant narrative, but also disinclined to dismiss a narrative because it is dominant, or out of fashion. That seems to be down to personality, but now, in middle age, I have a lot of experience in being out of step in one way or another with almost every group, and with people on all sides of the political spectrum thinking I'm wrongheaded in some way. That's helped me personally with all this identity politics bs, because it really has bothered me a lot being considered an outright bigot.

Something which I think may be related that I've noticed in recent years is that there are quite a few people who never really question that they are good. Maybe this has always been the case but I noticed in particularly after having a conversation with an individual where I suggested that introspection to avoid embracing evil or self will was important for everyone, and she was very angry, and told me that neither she nor her children were evil. I was a little surprised and realised I had perhaps always assumed that I and others have a capacity for evil, though of course most people don't embrace that all out in their lives.

I started to pay attention after that and I've come to think that many people assume that their intentions are always good, and that if they do something not good it is always simply error about facts or something like that. And they also seem to have a similarly black and white view of those they think are bad, that they really intend to be bad, that they know that is what they are doing, etc. That good and evil or whatever words people want to use are often mixed up, difficult to differentiate, that our own motives can be self-serving and we can be blind to this - these are not common ideas for many people.

What I wonder now is if this has always been the case? Maybe it is just that the bulk of people tend to take that sort of simple view, they don't really question what the dominant social perspective is. I think this ability could probably be improved somewhat through education, but I think that we have moved instead to a form of education that strengthens those ideas, and perhaps providing that kind of education on a widespread basis is very difficult to maintain.

Anyway, I think it's the million dollar question, why can't some people step out of the box.

Really excellent, interesting thread, thanks all.

I think this ability could probably be improved somewhat through education, but I think that we have moved instead to a form of education that strengthens those ideas, and perhaps providing that kind of education on a widespread basis is very difficult to maintain.

I think our current system of education actively discourages independent thought and critical thinking. A population which is willing to accept received wisdom without question is much easier to control.

We came to a fork in the road with our education. We rejected the sceptical, critical North European model and embraced the high PISA scores of East Asian Confuscian drilled repetition of prevailing orthodoxy. It's great of you want to make iPhones on a production line, but not if you want to design them or write the code that runs on them.

It's great of you want to make iPhones on a production line, but not if you want to design them or write the code that runs on them.

Unfortunately I think things have always been like this.

It's how a country could declare "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" and then somehow accommodate slavery.

It's how universities could clearly see that women were getting first class degree marks in exams, but somehow convince themselves that they shouldn't be awarded degrees.

It's how a theatre can think a urinal is an inclusive piece of sanitary
ware that anyone might use.

Goosefoot really interesting thoughts there, esp about ppl assuming they are always acting from good intention.

I don't do it so much now, but when my kids were first diagnosed with GD, I spent a lot of time questioning myself about what was driving my disagreement with their proposed solutions. I tested it daily there, for a while, trying to identify what was possible bigotry or prejudice against trans people (I have had some poor experiences with transwomen IRL that caused some bias) and what was fear, and what was evidence based etc. It seems odd to me that people would assume that their first instinct is automatically 'good', even if, on reflection, their first instinct is a guide to the position they should eventually take.

There are female urinals with an extended lip. Views differ on whether you straddle facing them or hover with your arse pointing at the porcelain.

I think our current system of education actively discourages independent thought and critical thinking. A population which is willing to accept received wisdom without question is much easier to control.

I agree with this but what I find fascinating is that it claims the opposite. There are educational approaches that openly teach a kind of indoctrination, that's clearly the goal. But teachers today in the US, Canada, and the UK seem to think they are teaching critical thought, and creativity, and problem solving, they talk about it constantly.

And there are the Chinese students, demanding that maps be taken down because they don't like the labelling, reporting back on lecturers and fellow students who say the wrong thing, attacking peaceful demos and tearing up banners, filming HK students to send back for police records, etc.

....the idea was that we would export our liberal values, but instead we are importing their authoritarian intolerance, because it pays.

...and we so love money more than we love freedom. Which is what the Chinese think of us.

Anyway, I think it's the million dollar question, why can't some people step out of the box.

I think in this case the reverse is true. A lot of clever science and skeptic types make it a point of pride to question dominant discourses and think outside of the box. The problem is that many of them currently appear to think that 'sex is a binary' is 'the box', and 'sex is a spectrum' is the sophisticated, nuanced 'outside of the box' perspective (that also benefits from a nice side order of 'be kind').

NotDavidTennant

I think you are totally right about that, and it's true in many aspects of progressive thought. A certain idea is identified as being the orthodoxy, and then whatever questions/disputes it is seen as being the thinking man's position.

But it's just another kind of box, isn't it? There is no logical reason to assume every idea that is held by whatever they think the establishment is is incorrect.

And they often seem to be 20 or more years behind the times on what they think is the dominant position, in reality their own position is in many cases the dominant one, at least as far as social values.

Alice Roberts would be the television personality spouting nonsense analogies about clownfish?

She works in two career sectors that are still structured around people who don't have to take any kind of break to have a baby. In academia and television contracts can be short term and insecure, and there is always somebody waiting in the wings to take your job. The same is true of politics. I think on a personal level there must be huge pressure to minimise the practical impact of being female.

Trans ideology (we all have a gender, nobody has to explain what that means, sex was invented by colonialists) allows you to pay lip service to the concept of inequality without ever analysing the material causes of inequality.

This article in the Guardian today talks about artificial wombs "That could free up women for whom pregnancy – and its related physical and psychological toll, as well as the financial hit they take when taking time out from their careers" without ever considering how much an artificial womb would cost or who would pay for it.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/dec/31/family-2050-artificial-wombs-robot-carers-single-fathers

(To be fair, some of the more batshit conclusions: "by 2050, we may be relying on artificial wombs to grow our babies" are not direct quotes from any of the academics interviewed. "Inherited advantage will entrench the privilege of some families at the expense of everyone else", but don't worry we'll all have loads of money to spend on non-essential medical care.)

There was a discussion today on Twitter about a woman called Candace Owens who was due to appear on Jameela Jamil's podcast. Apparently Candace had tweeted that only women can give birth, and Jamil revoked the invitation because "nothing is worth my friends and coworkers feeling unsafe".

Someone called Wildwomanwriting club has retweeted Candace's tweet about Jamil's comment with her own comment:

'“Nothing is worth my friend and co-workers feeling unsafe”...because a booked guest said only women have babies? How fragile & delusional can you get?"'

The reason this is mildly interesting is that Professor Maureen Baker, who is an expert in patient safety and a former chair of the Royal College of GPs, has liked Wildwomanwriting's tweet. So that suggests we have someone there in the NHS who is gender-critical. Or at least not fully on board with the TRA agenda.

I take my encouragement where I can find it these days.

There are many reasons to object to Candace Owen’s views:

www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/youtube-tested-trump-approved-how-candace-owens-suddenly-became-loudest-n885166

The Christchurch gunman described her as his biggest inspiration.

However Jameela Jamil can apparently cope with all of her views except that only women can give birth.

howonearthdidwegethere I attended the Prof. William Naphy event! I'm surprised I managed to get a seat as I think they had to spread it across two rooms. I found it pretty interesting as this was way before I knew anything about the modern transgender and queer movement. I remember a few woke folk having their feathers ruffled by his talk because he mentioned how these genders are socially constructed (so not innate) and the genders came with specific social roles and responsibilities and criteria (for example, not being allowed to get pregnant or to impregnate, taking on a spiritual role in the community etc). These are restrictive societal roles and people aren't allowed to step outside of them. It's not the same as the Western idea of gender as some form of liberating act or personal choice. He stressed that having multiple genders in a society doesn't necessarily make that society more progressive.

Nothing he said sounded particularly controversial to me, but I guess he might have also been sympathetic to trans people in general, I can't remember. However, I suspect that today, his mild mannered analysis would spark outrage and cries of transphobia for daring to suggest that the existence of multiple genders doesn't necessarily indicate some sort of open, liberal and progressive society the way woke folk fawn over other cultures and their genders.

I think you are totally right about that, and it's true in many aspects of progressive thought. A certain idea is identified as being the orthodoxy, and then whatever questions/disputes it is seen as being the thinking man's position.

But it's just another kind of box, isn't it? There is no logical reason to assume every idea that is held by whatever they think the establishment is is incorrect.

They seem to have misunderstood what independent thought is. It's not necessarily going against any sort of orthodoxy, it's about thinking for yourself and deciding which position you think is right.

It's not assuming that all received wisdom is wrong, it's about thinking about that received wisdom and deciding for yourself what merits it has and whether to accept it.

Anyone who goes along with any sort of groupthink is not applying their own critical thought processes to the issue in question.

I wonder - do people give in to groupthink because they don't feel capable of making their own assessment? Or maybe because they aren't capable?

In the early days of gender ideology I was much more sympathetic to it, in large part because it's claims weren't so well defined and the science seemed less clear to me. It seemed possible that it reflected some biological reality in some way.
I eventually came to the conclusion that whatever was biological was being misrepresented to further a totally different ideology, and also that there were real medical issues with the recommendations to deal with the biological element.

But I wonder, what if I hadnt been able to get there?

The penalty from straying from the notional friendship or collegial bonds can be deep. Kathleen Stock put together that horrifying list of academics who've been threatened. Maya Forstater's experience is well known.

And there are women here and elsewhere who are experiencing problems with friends and family for their GC perspectives. (I was horrified reading about the hate directed at the young mother and her baby.)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3781111-Price-of-Silence-is-Higher-Than-Speaking-Out