About this video

• Video Title: When Skeptics Disagree: God, GMOs, and Gender | Steve Novella
• Channel: Center for Inquiry
• Speakers: Steve Novella
• Duration: 00:36:15

Overview

This video features Steve Novella discussing why skeptics sometimes disagree amongst themselves, exploring the nuances behind these disagreements which often go beyond simple factual disputes. He examines various topics where internal skepticism has arisen, including debates about God, GMOs, gender, and global warming, highlighting the roles of philosophy, ideology, expertise, and semantics in these disagreements.

Key takeaways

• Disagreements Reveal Underlying Issues: Disagreements, especially among fellow skeptics, are valuable because they highlight that one or more parties may be incorrect, offering opportunities for learning and deeper understanding.
• Causes of Skeptic Disagreement: Disagreements often stem from philosophical differences, ideological biases (particularly political ones), lack of specific topic expertise, and semantic ambiguities rather than straightforward factual disputes.
• Case Studies in Skeptic Disagreement: The video examines several areas where skeptics have diverged, including:
  • God: Debates on whether skeptical organizations should actively "debunk" religious faith, touching on philosophical vs. methodological naturalism.
  • Mental Illness Denial: The historical presence of the idea that mental illness is a form of oppression or not real, often associated with fringe groups.
  • Global Warming Denial: Initially prevalent among libertarian skeptics due to ideological alignment with anti-regulation sentiments, though this has largely subsided.
  • Pseudo-science in Medicine: Tolerance for practices like homeopathy within the skeptical community, often justified by "what's the harm" arguments.
  • GMOs: A shift from widespread skepticism, driven by misinformation campaigns, towards a more evidence-based understanding, largely resolved by facts.
  • Nuclear Power: Disagreements often fall along political lines, with liberals being more hesitant and conservatives more supportive.
  • Biological Sex and Gender Identity: A current, highly contentious topic where definitions, categorization, and the role of neurobiology are debated, with Novella arguing it's a complex neurological trait, not simply a matter of anatomy or a psychological phenomenon.
• Categorization and Definitions: Many disagreements arise from how concepts are defined and categorized, similar to how Pluto was reclassified or the varying definitions of continents. The debate around biological sex often hinges on which specific criteria (chromosomes, gametes, hormones, etc.) are prioritized.
• The Importance of Internal Housekeeping: Novella emphasizes that skeptical communities should prioritize discussing and resolving their internal disagreements to maintain intellectual honesty and credibility.

Steve Novella believes that disagreements among skeptics rarely stem from a straightforward dispute about facts, as those are typically easily resolved by looking up information. Instead, he identifies several key reasons for these disagreements:

• Philosophy: Differing philosophical viewpoints, particularly when individuals engage in philosophy without realizing it, can lead to disagreements.
• Ideology: Political and ideological biases significantly influence how skeptics interpret scientific information and factual claims, causing divisions along partisan lines.
• Lack of Topic Expertise: Skeptics, especially science communicators, may speak on topics outside their specific area of expertise, leading to errors and disagreements when they overstep their knowledge.
• Semantics and Definitions: Disagreements can arise when people are talking past each other due to different definitions, categorizations, or criteria for understanding concepts.
• Future Predictions and Risk Tolerance: For topics involving future predictions (like climate change), differing views on risk tolerance, cost, and the certainty of outcomes can fuel disagreement.