Editing Scientific skepticism (section)

== Overview ==
Scientific skeptics maintain that empirical investigation of [[reality]] leads to the most reliable empirical [[knowledge]], and suggest that the [[scientific method]] is best suited to verifying results.<ref>{{cite web|last1= Novella|first1= Steven|author-link1=Steven Novella|title= Rethinking the Skeptical Movement|url= http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/rethinking-the-skeptical-movement/|website=Neurologica|access-date=8 August 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160412180401/http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/rethinking-the-skeptical-movement/|archive-date=12 April 2016|date=10 August 2015 | quote = If somehow you thought you'd gained some kind of understanding about the natural world [...], how would you then be able to demonstrate to anyone else that the understanding was valid? Seems like you'd need something like the scientific method to do this, otherwise you're left with all such insights being equal, and no way to distinguish which are valid.}}</ref> Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate [[hypothesis|claims]] based on verifiability and [[falsifiability]]; they discourage accepting claims which rely on [[faith]] or [[anecdotal evidence]].

[[Paul Kurtz]] described scientific skepticism in his 1992 book The ''New Skepticism'', calling it an essential part of scientific inquiry.<ref>{{cite book|last=Kurtz|first=Paul|url=https://archive.org/details/newskepticisminq0000kurt|title=The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge|publisher=[[Prometheus Books|Prometheus]]|year=1992|isbn=978-0-87975-766-3|page=[https://archive.org/details/newskepticisminq0000kurt/page/371 371]|author-link=Paul Kurtz|url-access=registration}}</ref> [[The Skeptics Society]] describes it as "the application of reason to any and all ideas—no [[Sacred cow (idiom)|sacred cows]] allowed."<ref>{{cite web|title=About Us – A Brief Introduction|url=http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140601130116/http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/|archive-date=2014-06-01|publisher=The Skeptics Society}}</ref> [[Robert K. Merton]] introduced [[Mertonian norms]], which assert that all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny.<ref name="Merton" /> [[Kendrick Frazier]] said that scientific skeptics have a commitment to science, reason, evidence, and the quest for truth.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Frazier|first1=Kendrick|date=2019|title=You Can't fit What We Skeptics Do into a Neat Box|journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]]|volume=43|issue=2|pages=22–23|authorlink=Kendrick Frazier}}</ref> [[Carl Sagan]] emphasized the importance of being able to ask skeptical questions, recognizing fallacious or fraudulent arguments, and considering the validity of an argument rather than simply whether we like the conclusion.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Sagan|first1=Carl|author-link1=Carl Sagan|title=Carl Sagan > Quotes > Quotable Quote|url=https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/962093-science-is-more-than-a-body-of-knowledge-it-is|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170830161340/https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/962093-science-is-more-than-a-body-of-knowledge-it-is|archive-date=30 August 2017|access-date=30 August 2017|website=Goodreads.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Sagan|first=Carl|author-link=Carl Sagan|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/32855551|title=The demon-haunted world : science as a candle in the dark|date=1995|publisher=Random House|isbn=0-394-53512-X|edition=1st|location=New York|oclc=32855551}}</ref> Similarly, [[Steven Novella]] described skepticism as selecting "beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient" and as the study of "pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves".<ref>{{cite web|title=Skepticblog|url=http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/17/skeptic-the-name-thing-again/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140425110706/http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/11/17/skeptic-the-name-thing-again/|archive-date=2014-04-25|work=skepticblog.org}}</ref> [[Brian Dunning (author)|Brian Dunning]] called skepticism "the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.<nowiki>''</nowiki><ref>{{cite web|title=Skeptoid|url=https://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php|work=skeptoid.com}}</ref>

[[File:Pixie Turner at QED 2019.jpg|thumb|Nutritionist Pixie Turner talking about nutrition-related pseudoscience in 2019]]
Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on [[A priori and a posteriori|''a priori'']] grounds—rather they argue that one should critically examine claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.<ref name="NeurologicaNovella10Aug2015">{{cite web|last1=Novella|first1=Steven|author-link1=Steven Novella|title=Rethinking the Skeptical Movement|url=http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/rethinking-the-skeptical-movement/|website=Neurologica|access-date=8 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160412180401/http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/rethinking-the-skeptical-movement/|archive-date=12 April 2016|date=10 August 2015}}</ref> From a scientific point of view, skeptics judge ideas on many criteria, including falsifiability,<ref>{{cite web|last1= Novella|first1= Steven|author-link1=Steven Novella|title= Rethinking the Skeptical Movement |url= http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/rethinking-the-skeptical-movement/|website= Neurologica |access-date= 8 August 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160412180401/http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/rethinking-the-skeptical-movement/|archive-date=12 April 2016|date=10 August 2015 | quote = It's a little nuanced, but ultimately it comes down to the idea that science can only really falsify a hypothesis. Tests are often constructed to prove the hypothesis false.}}</ref> [[Occam's Razor]],<ref name="HowStuffWorksClark">{{cite web|last1= Clark|first1=Josh|title=How Occam's Razor Works |url= http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/occams-razor3.htm|website=How Stuff Works|access-date=8 August 2016|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160729093039/http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/occams-razor3.htm|archive-date=29 July 2016|date=2007-10-04}}</ref> [[Morgan's Canon]]<ref name="Morgan">{{cite book|author= Morgan, C.L.|year=1903|title=An Introduction to Comparative Psychology|url= https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.174177|edition=2|publisher=W. Scott|location= London|page=[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.174177/page/n70 59]}}</ref> and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their [[prediction]]s match [[experiment]]al results.<ref name="NeurologicaNovella10Aug2015" />{{qn|date=June 2021}}

Skepticism in general may be deemed part of the [[scientific method]]; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.<ref>{{cite web | last = Wudka | first = Jose | title = What is the scientific method? | year = 1998 | url = http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000 | access-date = 2007-05-27 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070601225205/http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000 | archive-date = 2007-06-01 | quote = A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable.}}</ref>

The Sci.Skeptic FAQ characterizes the skeptic spectrum as divided into "wet" and "dry" skeptics,{{efn|Direct URL has been blacklisted as a source: faqs.org/faqs/skeptic-faq/}}<ref>
{{cite book| last1 = Hammer| first1 = Olav| author-link1 = Olav Hammer | chapter = New Age religion and the sceptics | editor1-last = Kemp| editor1-first = Daren | editor2-last = Lewis| editor2-first = James R. | editor2-link = James R. Lewis (scholar) | title = Handbook of New Age | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Bm-7DH2bZ8QC| series = Volume 1 of Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion | year = 2007| location = Leiden | publisher = Brill | publication-date = 2007| page = 389| isbn = 9789004153554| access-date = 20 June 2021 | quote = Within the discourse of anti-New Age, anti-paranormal, sceptical writers, there are personal differences. The most visible is that between the oddly-named 'dry' and 'wet' sceptics.}}</ref> primarily based on the level of engagement with those promoting claims that appear to be pseudoscience; the dry skeptics preferring to debunk and ridicule, in order to avoid giving attention and thus credence to the promoters, and the "wet" skeptics, preferring slower and more considered engagement, in order to avoid appearing sloppy and ill-considered and thus similar to the groups all skeptics opposed.<ref name=Hammer/>{{rp|389}}

[[Ronald A. Lindsay|Ron Lindsay]] has argued that while some non-scientific claims appear to be harmless or "soft targets", it is important to continue to address them and the underlying habits of thought that lead to them so that we do not "have a lot more people believing that 9/11 was an inside job, that climate change is a hoax, that our government is controlled by aliens, and so forth—and those beliefs are far from harmless".<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Lindsay |first1=Ronald A. |author-link1=Ronald A. Lindsay |title=Why Skepticism?: Sasquatch, Broken Windows, and Public Policy |journal= [[Skeptical Inquirer]] |date=2017 |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=46–50 |url=https://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_skepticism1 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20181104151605/https://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_skepticism1 |url-status=dead |archive-date= 2018-11-04 |access-date=4 November 2018}}</ref>

=== Skeptical movement ===

With regard to the skeptical social movement, [[Daniel Loxton]] refers to other movements already promoting "humanism, [[atheism]], rationalism, science education and even critical thinking" beforehand.<ref>
{{cite web|last=Loxton|first=Daniel|author-link=Daniel Loxton|year=2013|title=Why Is There a Skeptical Movement?|url=https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/Why-Is-There-a-Skeptical-Movement.pdf|access-date=18 August 2019|page=31|quote=If other movements already promoted humanism, atheism, rationalism, science education and even critical thinking, what possible need could there be for organizing an additional, new movement—a movement of people called 'skeptics'?}}
</ref>
He saw the demand for the new movement—a movement of people called "skeptics"—as based on a lack of interest by the scientific community to address paranormal and fringe-science claims. In line with [[Kendrick Frazier]], he describes the movement as a surrogate in that area for institutional science.<ref>
{{cite web|last=Loxton|first=Daniel|author-link=Daniel Loxton|year=2013|title=Why Is There a Skeptical Movement?|url=https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/Why-Is-There-a-Skeptical-Movement.pdf|access-date=18 August 2019|page=32|quote=CSICOP{{snd}}and with it the global network of likeminded organizations that CSICOP inspired, such as the JREF and the Skeptics Society—was created with the specific yet ambitious goal of filling a very large gap in scholarship. The skeptical movement sought to bring organized critical focus to the same ancient problem that isolated, outnumbered, independent voices had been struggling to address for centuries: a virtually endless number of unexamined, potentially harmful paranormal or pseudoscientific claims ignored or neglected by mainstream scientists and scholars. [...] '[...] We are in effect a surrogate in that area for institutional science.'}}
</ref>
The movement set up a distinct field of study, and provided an organizational structure, while "the long-standing genre of individual skeptical writing" lacked such a community and background.<ref>
{{cite web|last=Loxton|first=Daniel|author-link=Daniel Loxton|year=2013|title=Why Is There a Skeptical Movement?|url=https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/Why-Is-There-a-Skeptical-Movement.pdf|access-date=18 August 2019|page=29|quote=The difference is between the long-standing genre of individual skeptical writing, and the recognition that this scholarship collectively comprised a distinct field of study.}}
</ref>
Skeptical organizations typically tend to have science education and promotion among their goals.<ref>{{cite web|title=About the Swedish Skeptics Association|url=http://www.vof.se/about|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161113025227/http://www.vof.se/about/|archive-date=13 November 2016|access-date=14 November 2017|website=Vetenskap och Folkbildning}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web|title=About NYC Skeptics|url=http://nycskeptics.org/about|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115143504/http://nycskeptics.org/about|archive-date=15 November 2017|access-date=14 November 2017|website=NYC Skeptics}}
</ref>

The skeptical movement has had issues with allegations of sexism. [[Mary Coulman]] identified a disparity between women and men in the movement in a 1985 skeptic newsletter.<ref name=Hess/>{{rp|112}} The skeptic movement has generally been made up of men; at a 1987 conference the members there discussed the fact that the attendees were predominantly older white men and a 1991 listing of 50 CSICOP fellows included four women.<ref name=Hess>{{Cite book|title= Science in the New Age: The Paranormal, Its Defenders and Debunkers, and American Culture|last=Hess|first=David J.|year=1993|publisher= Univ of Wisconsin Press|isbn=978-0299138202|language=en}}</ref>{{rp|109}} Following a 2011 conference, [[Rebecca Watson]], a prominent skeptic,<ref name=Rinallo2013>{{Cite book|title=Consumption and Spirituality|last1= Rinallo|first1= Diego|last2= Scott|first2= Linda M.|last3=Maclaran|first3=Pauline|year=2013|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0415889117|language=en}}</ref>{{rp|57}} raised issues of the way female skeptics are targeted with [[Cybercrime#Harassment|online harassment]] including threats of sexual violence by opponents of the movement, and also raised issues of sexism within the movement itself. While she received some support in response to her discussion of sexism within the movement, she later became a target of virulent online harassment, even from fellow skeptics, after posting an online video that discussed her discomfort with being propositioned in a confined space. This became known as "[[Elevatorgate]]", based on Watson's discussion about being propositioned in a hotel elevator in the early morning after a skeptic event.<ref>{{cite news|last1= Watson|first1=Rebecca| authorlink = Rebecca Watson | title=It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too|url= http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.html|work=Slate|date=24 October 2012|url-status=live|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160424094011/http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.html|archive-date=24 April 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web|last=Reagle|first=Joseph M.|pages=114–117|year=2015|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0262028936|language=en}}</ref><ref>
De Waal, Mandy De (September 2, 2011) [http://mg.co.za/article/2011-09-02-dawkins-watson-and-the-elevator-ride/ "Dawkins, Watson and the elevator ride"] {{webarchive|url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110908060753/http://mg.co.za/article/2011-09-02-dawkins-watson-and-the-elevator-ride |date=September 8, 2011 }} ''[[Mail & Guardian]]''</ref>