Skeptics are people who apply reason and critical thinking to evaluate claims and who advocate to rely on sound evidence, while resisting pseudoscience, superstition, and misinformation. Some of the outstanding qualities of a skeptic include:
- Critical thinking → Actively questioning claims, arguments, and evidence.
- Scientific mindset → Using the scientific method as the most appropriate tool for finding reliable knowledge.
- Provisional belief → Accepting claims only in proportion to the evidence, and being willing to change when better evidence emerges.
- Advocacy → Educating the public, promoting scientific literacy, and encouraging rational decision-making.
Surely, these are laudable and attractive qualities. I am even tempted to say that all rational people should be skeptics. Why then is it that skeptics and their work/organisations are not much more popular? When I attend meetings of skeptics, I am often dismayed by their disappointing size and their lack of impact outside their narrow circle of like-minded people. Why are those events not subjects of articles in local newpapers? Why is the press generally bored by or even adverse towards skeptics? Why have skeptics not managed to amass much more influence?
I have often wondered:
- Is it the lack emotional pull? While belief systems, conspiracy theories, spirituality etc. can offer comfort, meaning, or community, skepticism emphasizes uncomfortable doubt and correction.
- Does the perception of elitist put people off? Skeptics can come across as dismissive, overly intellectual, or simple nerds which might alienate average audiences.
- Could it be a lack “fun”? Debunking myths is unfortunately often far less exciting than believing in them.
Whatever the reason, we need to ask: what could be done about the lack of common appeal?
I wish I knew!
When I talk to ‘the common man or women’ about the subject, three themes crop up fairly regularly:
- Many consumers have no real idea what skeptics are and even relate them to the exact opposite, e.g. “climate skeptic” or “vaccine skeptic”. If I am right, then even the term “skeptic” might be problematic (several national skeptic organisations do not use the word in the name of their organisations!). In any case, it would be helpful to run repeated public campaigns in order to inform the public about the difference between skepticism and denialism.
- Those who roughly get the idea what a skeptic stands for often associate it with something negative – being AGAINST this or that or being cynical or sarcastic. If that is true, it would be helpful to continuously stress that skepticism is IN FAVOUR of sound evidence in all spheres; and surely this can only be a good thing.
- Those who know a bit more about what skeptics do often fail to see the relevance of the subjects they tackle. I too find ghost busting and several other topics that skeptics occasionally thrive on rather obscure, irrelevant, daft or even childish. In any case, whatever the subject might be, I think it is always necessary to point out the general relevance of it. Why does it matter to the man or woman in the street to investigate it?
I am sure skepticism has an important role to play in our societies – and because I am convinced of this, I feel that skepticism urgently needs to improve its public image.
8 Responses to Why are SKEPTICS not more popular, and what could be done about it?
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I agree with your post. In Germany I see the additional problem that some “leading” members of the Skeptik organisation GWUP publicly promote their personal culture-political (maybe philosophical?) views, instead of focussing on topics that are science-based. This politization of the organization and resulting continuous in-fighting is very detrimental imo.
I hope that Skeptiks organizations in other coutries do not make the same mistake and let political views interfere with science-based sceptical education.
I see no way out of this. Skeptics attack motivated reasoning, but people accept the results of motivated reasoning because they want to (by definition), so you are asking people to do something that they don’t want to do
I think your paragraphs 1 and 2 correctly identify the problem.
The solution is simple – change the name!
Why waste time and resources running public campaigns to explain, and waste the first half of every media interview explaining – probably in perpetuity – when the whole issue can be avoided with a better name.
My 2 cents:
In skepticism, the emphasis lies on criticizing people who propagate all sorts of attractive but wrong ideas, such as healing with ‘natural’ and ‘holistic’ and ‘mild’ methods, or the idea that global warming isn’t really a problem. Or even ideas that are interesting because they’re so outlandish, e.g. about aliens or spirits, or that you can live without eating or drinking.
Skeptics are seen as encroaching on those beliefs and ruining the party by telling the people who fervently believe in these things that they’re wrong – a bit like that pedantic uncle who ruined Christmas for the little ones by telling them that Santa Claus doesn’t really exist.
Of course we (skeptics) know that we are not so much criticizing people as the ideas that they convey, but this notion is very hard to get across. Criticism on homeopathy is first and foremost seen as an attack on homeopaths and their customers – people who are trying very hard to Do Good.
The big difference with scientists is that criticism plays a far less prominent role in science (at least this is the perception). Scientists are seen as explorers who come up with new, interesting insights, and the part where they prove other people wrong is usually ignored. I think this is why people have a far more favourable view of scientists compared to skeptics – even if they are often the same person.
I think cognitive dissonance is “normal” for humans, perhaps even part of our wetware. Critical thinking does not come naturally, it takes lots of effort to learn and perfect that skill.
Back in the good old days, most people seemed willing to defer to experts on important topics they acknowledged they did not understand, and fringe ideas remained fringe. They avoided the discomfort of CD by not thinking seriously about certain topics; let the experts decide and leave me alone to enjoy life and provide for my family.
Now, with a steady diet of misinformation, fringe ideas that have become mainstream in social media, and a voting public that has a poor understanding of science, a majority of people appear to avoid CD by taking sides.
Simple lies are much more comforting than complex truths to those who don’t see the value in rational skepticism and are not willing to put the effort into developing critical thinking skills. In my experience, that is most people.
P.S. I don’t think we should abandon “skepticism”, but I do favor adding “rational” to that term to distinguish it from the JAQing off variety of skepticism.
In this 21st century, it is absurd to be a skeptic on topics such as homeopathic 12C+ ‘remedies’, reiki, chiropractic vitalism, telekinesis.
For exactly the same reason it is absurd to be a skeptic on topics such as 2+2=5 and π=3 (Bible literalists).
Here’s a dozen apposite quotes from Robert L Park. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. 2000:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_L._Park
See also its linked Wikipedia page
QUOTE
Park uses the term voodoo science … as covering four categories which evolve from self-delusion to fraud:
• pathological science, wherein genuine scientists deceive themselves
• junk science, speculative theorizing which bamboozles rather than enlightens
• pseudoscience proper, work falsely claiming to have a scientific basis, which may be dependent on supernatural explanations
• fraudulent science, exploiting bad science for the purposes of fraud
Park criticizes junk science as the creature of “scientists, many of whom have impressive credentials, who craft arguments deliberately intended to deceive or confuse.”
END of QUOTE
Well, one thing many self-proclaimed skeptics could do is stop ring-fencing the harmful and scientifically unsupported nonsense that is gender ideology from skeptical inquiry.