Critique of Pure Skepticism

Brian Doherty from the November 1997 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

As a Humean, Shermer often likes to emphasize the inherent uncertainty in the search for knowledge. He often grapples with biblical fundamentalist thinking, countering it with an emphasis on the open-ended nature of science. In a chapter attacking the cult of personality that arose around Ayn Rand, he pinpoints the main flaw in Objectivism as the belief in reason's ability to discern absolute truths about reality and morality, which makes "the final results of inquiry become more important than the process of inquiry." His critique of Rand conflates the always small cult of personality around her with her larger audience, and thus declares a premature obituary on her philosophy: "Its absolutism was the biggest flaw in Ayn Rand's Objectivism, the unlikeliest cult in history," he writes. "The historical development and ultimate destruction of her group and philosophy is the empirical evidence that documents this assertion." (He doesn't attack every aspect of Rand's conclusions, merely her way of reaching them.)

But Shermer doesn't always follow the dictates of liberal epistemological skepticism implied in his attack on Rand. The professional debunker tends to be cocksure, often shutting off "process[es] of inquiry" because he thinks results are certain. For example, Shermer writes, "Shouldn't we know by now that the laws of science prove that ghosts cannot exist?" Maybe Shermer wouldn't have written that if he'd thought about it twice. In a similar slip, he quotes approvingly a weird paragraph from anthropologist Marvin Harris regarding witch hunts in olden times, which embodies reflexive anti-clericism more than rationality: "Did your roof leak, your cow abort, your oats wither, your wine go sour, your head ache, your baby die? It was the work of the witches. Preoccupied with the fantastic activities of these demons, the distraught, alienated, pauperized masses blamed the rampant Devil instead of the corrupt clergy and the rapacious nobility." So it was priests and princes who were making your head ache, your oats wither, and your cow abort?

Shermer exhibits the typical debunker's bland certainty that belies their stance as constant skeptics, and so maddens both opponents and some sympathizers. He lets slip lines like "Science became my belief system, and evolution my doctrine" (that's just how creationists accuse evolutionists of thinking) and "It is our job...to investigate and refute bogus claims." Not, "investigate claims to discover if they are bogus," but investigate and refute bogus claims. This may seem like a minor linguistic quibble, but it exactly describes the typical debunker's approach. They always know their conclusion going in--the phenomenon in question is a fraud--and are merely looking for supporting evidence.

Shermer's visit to an ESP testing lab exhibits this sometimes unpleasant attitude. It's the typical ESP routine, where people try to guess which of five simple shapes on a card is being displayed somewhere they can't see. By pure chance, one would expect five correct responses out of 25. Of course, sometimes people do better or worse than five correct. Shermer tries, of course, to dissuade his fellow test takers from believing that any results above chance indicate ESP by explaining bell-curve probability distributions.

One woman, weakening in her support for ESP, proffers the phenomenon of a friend calling just as she thought of calling the friend. How would Shermer explain that, she challenges. Shermer makes her realize that, as many times as that might happen, there were plenty of other times when she thought of her friend and her friend didn't call, or her friend called without being thought of.

Ah, maybe it was just selective perception, not ESP, the woman begins to think. Shermer is elated. A new convert to pure materialism! But the woman confounds poor Shermer by making the perfectly reasonable--given just the evidence at hand--deduction that sometimes ESP works, and sometimes it doesn't, for reasons we don't yet know enough to understand. Shermer, dedicated to a larger principle that ESP can't exist (based on plenty of evidence, to be sure, that's not on the table in that discussion), considers the woman's conclusion dimwitted.

That kind of uncharitable reaction, while understandable in the face of rampant, virulent credulousness, does no credit to the cause of skepticism, which should rely as rigorously as possible on evidence and reason, not holding stubbornly on to preconceptions. Still, despite his occasional flaws, Shermer makes clear that virulent credulousness is more on the march in our world than virulent skepticism, and shows that his chosen profession is a valuable one.