- I hate preaching to the converted. If you were Buddhists, I’d bash Buddhism. But you’re skeptics, so I have to bash skepticism.
Edit: As ThatFanficGuy pointed out, this quote doesn't do a great job introducing the article. The author isn't really against skepticism as a whole. He just points out a few examples of what he considers hypocrisy in the skeptic community.
Ramsey Dukes argues that people are going to engage in magical thinking regardless of how often we shake our fingers at them, so attacking the openly irrational just drives them to become pseudoscientists instead. We're better off with astrologers who are obviously not doing science so if you seek them out you know what you're getting than homeopaths who are only obviously not doing science if you know some chemistry and take the time to look into how they claim their water works. Dukes is an occultist and not a skeptic, but I become more sympathetic to his point of view the more arguments I get in with singularity kooks. The world really would be a better place with more Alan Moores and fewer Eliezer Yudkowskys.
I didn't get that from the article. What gave you that impression?
The author bashes Skepticism (the capital-S kind) towards certain ideas, while being skeptical (the lowercase-S kind) himself. He doesn't criticise the method but the culture that's been developed in the popular mind about it. This ought to make the description of the article a bit more clear.But you’re skeptics, so I have to bash skepticism.
You know how people say Batman is a fascist because he uses his vast fortune to beat up poor people and the mentally ill in defense of the status quo rather than doing anything about the conditions that oblige poor people to become criminals? Being able to wield the tools of science, or sometimes just the language, comes with power over what ideas get accepted, and so if you're going to use that power to undermine ideas choosing which ideas to undermine is a political act.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/john-horgan-is-skeptical-of-skeptics/Unfortunately the talk, which he has now published on Scientific American’s website (which means it’s fair game), was more than a bit disappointing – not because he was critical, but because he does not seem to get skepticism with a small or a big “S.” The result was a string of cherry picked strawmen.