A Skeptics’ Skeptic

Description

I’ve been writing about “skepticism” (meaning, taking a skeptical stance on pseudo-science, pseudo-philosophy, pseudo-politics, and a few other “pseudos”) since as far back as 1997, when I began organizing Darwin Day events at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. From time to time, over the intervening 16 or so years, I found myself turning my gadfly-sh keyboard toward other skeptics, usually famous ones. The reason is that it seems to me that a community — such as the skeptic / atheist / humanist (S/A/H, for short) one — that prides itself in its intellectualism and openness to reason and evidence, ought to critically examine its own tenets and positions, especially when espoused by prominent members of said community. Indeed, one of the gratifying things about being a skeptic is precisely that, by and large, we don’t act like a church. We recoil from dogmas, and we don’t ostracize dissenting members of our community, immediately rushing to build a new church down the street. Or do we? Well, okay, the recent history of the S/A/H community actually does sometimes eerily recall religious schisms and doctrinal disputes. Still, at least we don’t burn people at the stakes, or launch fatwas against them! The gentle reader will notice that several of the essays included in the Skeptics’ Skeptic collection are, ahem, quite ironic, even sarcastic at times, certainly more so than the typical Rationally Speaking post. There are reasons for that. To begin with, the people targeted here are Big Boys who can definitely take the heat (many are academics, and academics are selected for having a thick skin). Moreover, rest assured that they can (and have, in several cases!) fight back with equal or larger force. But the most important explanation for my above-average forcefulness here is that I take public intellectualism seriously, and these people are somewhat major public intellectuals. They influence countless others, and they therefore bear the responsibility of writing rigorously as well as clearly. When they don’t (in my opinion, of course) I call them out. It should go without saying, but I’ll say it any way: contra persistent insinuations to the contrary (by, say, The Discovery Institute, the inane “think tank” that promotes Intelligent Design creationism), these and other writings by yours truly do not signal the beginning of a move away from my philosophical naturalism, support for science, or defense of reason. They are simply cases in which I deploy precisely those tools to engage the best minds of the S/A/H, so that we as a broader movement can keep Carl Sagan’s famous “candle in the dark” alit against the always numerous and always powerful forces of obscurantism and repression. Massimo Pigliucci is the K.D. Irani Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York. His scholarly interests are in the philosophy of science and the nature of pseudoscience. He studies and practices modern Stoicism. Pigliucci is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He has written for Skeptical Inquirer, Philosophy Now, and The Philosophers' Magazine, among others. His op-eds have appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and other major outlets. He publishes essays on Stoicism and other practical philosophies at patreon.com/PlatoFootnotes and produces the almost daily Stoic Meditations podcast at https://anchor.fm/stoicmeditations Copyright About the Author: Other books and collections by Massimo Pigliucci: Introduction: A Skeptics’ Skeptic Part I. The Skeptics Dear Penn and Teller: Bullshit! James Randi, global warming and the meaning of skepticism About Sam Harris’ claim that science can answer moral questions Science and the Is/ Ought Problem Genuinely puzzled: what exactly is Blackford saying about Harris? Michael Shermer’s libertarianism Michael Shermer on morality Toward a science of morality. An annotated response to Michael Shermer Science, morality, and genital mutilation Part II. The Biologists Beyond selfish genes The trouble with memetics Is Dawkins deluded? When scientists talk about religion Is Richard Dawkins really that naive? Jerry Coyne, then and now Jerry Coyne on free will PZ Myers is a witless wanker who peddles pablum PZ Myers quits skeptic movement, should we care? Part III. The Physicist Lawrence Krauss: another physicist with an anti-philosophy complex Krauss does it again, so soon! Part IV. The Nut job Ray Kurzweil and the Singularity: visionary genius or pseudoscientific crank?