Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jan 26, 2013 in Critical Thinking, secularism, skepticism | 48 comments

Boosting the skepticism movement’s immune system

The current incarnation of the skeptical/secularist movement is quite young. Like all new movements, or new babies, it was immediately set upon by opportunist pathogens and parasites. For the movement, the pathogens are people or groups which exploit the resources to further their own interests without adding much, if anything, of value.  Like a baby, the young movement is vulnerable and must suffer many infections in order to adapt to the threats that are in the local environment, to build resistance.

Some of the turmoil we see these days is just that sort of development. While the infections can be nasty, the processes are expected and, in a certain sense, healthy. Antigens developed now may serve the movement’s good health for many years to come.

Fighting off the infection is going to take some balls. Like this one, a T-cell.

Identifying pathogens and parasites

Pathogenic elements are endemic to our social environments. They have been able to infect and take root because of the relative vulnerability of the movement which has yet to produce a strong defense system against invader species. Even sophisticated T-cells can have trouble identifying pathogens, at times confusing them with normal body cells. How can pathogen-like elements be detected in our movement? They have some or all of these features:

  • A pathogen’s primary activity is intended to benefit themselves far more than any other entity or purpose
  • They are often deleterious to all surrounding elements not of their specific kind
  • They may produce little to nothing of value to the movement corpus
  • They co-opt and/or disrupt healthy functions. Constructive efforts and discussions may be displaced with needless or pointless selfish versions

Immunoresponse

Fighting movement infection is not pretty. In the human body, a fever is an immunoresponse designed to kill invading pathogens— and it works extremely well. Sometimes we must also turn up the heat to fight off the infections in our movements. It can be very unpleasant, and it can even feel self-destructive.  Fevers can be very dangerous, after all. But if we don’t, then we won’t survive, at least not in any form that we should wish to.

Like the immune system, we must learn from the harmful elements we encounter. We must develop strategies to remove or neutralize them. Subsequently, we must always remember what we have learned and apply it with severe vigilance. There will always, always, always be more parasites trying to get in and live off of the hard work and good will produced by so many in this community. Now, the bloodstream is a battlefield, but the effectiveness of the front-line immune system allows the rest of the body to function properly. In the past year we’ve seen the very core of some of our institutions weaken and crack at the seams. They did not fail us, it is we who have failed them.

All for one

The human immune system is not a small group of heroic cells bravely charging the invader. It is a vast assemblage consisting of several kinds of elements, each important to defense: T-cells, macrophages, antibodies, helper cells, histamines. They have different parts to play, each critical, and they work together united in a common goal. An effective immune system for the skeptico-secular movement similarly can’t succeed when composed merely of a handful of stalwart combatants. We can only succeed by fostering and generating a membership consisting of women and men of conscience. People who will play their part, as their constitution dictates, to stem the infections and resist the parasites and to promote healthy growth and development.  The sort that will do this because they care deeply about the goals of skepticism and secularism and because they understand that that is necessary to secure them. It is the way of all successful social movements. Good people, we must all work together. Not just because that is how all of this can be saved, but because that is how we make sure it continues to be worth saving.

What you can do

  • Think carefully about the list above, and whether or not it applies to those you might have chosen to support, endorse, or listen to.
  • Speak out when you know something happening is wrong, even if it comes from a person or group that is/has been a friend or political ally or that has done some good work in the past.
  •  If you find active participation in conflict unsuitable, focus your efforts on constructive matters & positive, productive discussions while sometimes taking a moment to appreciate those who do engage in necessary unpleasantness.
  •  Pay careful attention to the producers. The people and groups that are doing the work and building the movement rather than merely building their own brand and fanclub: activists, writers, educators, investigators, and leaders. Parcel your respect out accordingly.

  • http://cherryteresa.com/ CherryTeresa

    I was new to the “skeptic movement” when this schism started. When I realized this was going to continue for more than a few weeks, it was enough to make me think that maybe this wasn’t for me. But then I thought similarly to what you have stated (though you stated it better than I have). Skepticism and secularism are very important and the causes are things I still strongly believe in. The disagreements and bad behavior don’t take away from that. I don’t want to leave this because of some bad apples. This is make or break time.

    “Sometimes we must also turn up the heat to fight off the infections in our movements. It can be very unpleasant, and it can even feel self-destructive. Fevers can be very dangerous, after all. But if we don’t, then we won’t survive, at least not in any form that we should wish to.”

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

      Thank you for your comment, Cherry. I have watched as good people left the movement, or departed discourse where their opinion would have been beneficial, out of disgust. I can’t say that I blame them, or that I’ve never thought about doing the same. But there’s so much good to be had here, I can’t walk away and I can’t leave it to the jackals.

      I’m also increasingly optimistic. I think that things are getting better, and that the dreariness and strife of today will diminish over time. There will always be some politics, drama, and flare-ups, but I foresee a stable future where they are tiny features of the seculo-skeptical landscape instead of defining ones.

      • http://cherryteresa.com/ CherryTeresa

        You’re welcome and thank you for posting this. Sometimes I need to see reminders like this from others.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-A-Drescher/1307296112 Barbara A. Drescher

      “I was new to the “skeptic movement” when this schism started.”

      I think it’s more likely that you define the start of a schism as when you noticed it. The community has been, and will always be, rife with disagreements and “schisms”. If you study the history of the movement, you will find plenty. Current disagreements may appear to have started with “elevatorgate”, but that’s not the case, either.

      It is a shame that some turn away from the community as a whole because their entry point is clearly a corner of it that has very little substance and a lot of personal politics, but the bulk of the community is actually doing great work. The internet (and turnover in the community) have a way of magnifying aspects in a way that varies a lot with the individual.

      I think it’s also misleading (talking to Ed now) to call this movement “young”. Young compared to what? Even if you mark the modern movement with the founding of the CSICOP, that was 45 years ago.

      • http://cherryteresa.com/ CherryTeresa

        Good point. It may have seemed to me that it started then, but now that I’m friends with more and more in the skeptic/secular communities and have moved to L.A. and met even more individuals, I’ve been hearing how there were other issues years before I knew these movements existed.

      • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

        re: young
        This incarnation. It has it’s own unique culture, features, and demographics which never existed previously.

        • http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com/ Susan Gerbic

          I love this quote from Lindsay Beyerstein (daughter of Barry Beyerstein) which I collected when writing the Skeptic’s Toolbox Wikipedia page.

          “Lindsay Beyerstein – She started attending the Skeptic’s Toolbox when she was 14; her father Barry Beyerstein
          strongly influenced her involvement in the skeptical movement. “It’s
          sorta funny, the skeptics’ movement is now finally old enough, it’s like
          Scientology, we have second gen!”"

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic%27s_Toolbox

      • An Ardent Skeptic

        Barbara, I appreciate your perspective and your outlook about the movement, but I have to say that I disagree. If we’re talking about the “modern movement” being the founding of CSICOP, I have been a member of that movement since it started. I own every issue of “Skeptical Inquirer” (even when it was called “The Zetetic”) and every issue of “Free Inquiry”. (And, for accuracy, CSICOP was organized on May 1st, 1976. That would make May 1, 2013 the 37th anniversary of its founding.)

        I have been a huge supporter and donor to organizations whose mission is to promote critical thinking based on evidence. I have witnessed the past schisms and never withdrew my support until now.

        I was always concerned about the calls for movements and activism. Movements and activism are generally associated with outspoken personalities who call for action based on what they believe and who expect to be followed without question. They want sheep and, to get a flock, they promote conclusions rather than the process to reach provisional conclusions based on evidence. Promoting conclusions is a far more effective way of gathering a flock because the lambs don’t have to think.

        When we failed to emphasize skeptic methodology but, instead, called for activism based on conclusions, we lost sight of what we are supposed to be about. As a result, we attracted sheep who are amused by loudmouths who fail to uphold the principles we claim to advocate. Worse, our leaders gave a platform to these loudmouths because of their popularity with their flock.

        I can no longer support a movement that has lost sight of it’s underlying principles. Too many loudmouths were given a platform while others, who do great work, were ignored.

        To do good work as a skeptic requires introspection. Introspection brings humility, which generally doesn’t make great skeptics great at self-promotion as well. Our leaders should have sought out those great skeptics who were doing great work, rather than taking the easy path of giving a platform to the loudmouthed, self-promoters who attracted a following of sheep. Now these loudmouthed, self-promoters are making national and international news by trashing the skeptic and freethought communities while claiming to be skeptics and freethinkers. I do not want these loudmouths representing me to the world. It’s an embarrassment!

        When people like me choose to withdraw their support, I can’t be all that hopeful for the future of the “movement” (at least not a movement that is successful at promoting skeptic methodology.)

        • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

          Your sagacity and perspicacity are most welcome. I would ask that you consider guest-posting for me some time.

          • An Ardent Skeptic

            With the latest brouhaha perhaps you should post the following on your site. My husband and I have been discussing the scope problem for years. (I brought my husband into the skeptic community when we got married in 1992.) I think my husband’s take on the matter is brilliantly written and gets to the heart of the “scope” question. I probably won’t write a guest post for you because, based on the stats for our Skepticism and Ethics website, no one really much cares what we have to say. (We even ran a essay contest when we first started the site to generate interest and gave $2600 in prize money and another $400 to the other entrants, $50 to each. )

            People have asked me what my focus is when it comes to skepticism. My response has always been myself and my own thinking. My expectation for someone claiming to be a skeptic is that their actions reflect that application of self-skepticism first and foremost. It has been very disheartening not seeing a whole lot of self-reflection coming from some of our most vocal spokespeople of late.

            The link:

            http://www.skepticismandethics.com/2011/08/skepticism-and-values.html

            My husband was talking about “big tents” long before Jamy Ian Swiss’s speech at TAM 2012. ;-)

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-A-Drescher/1307296112 Barbara A. Drescher

          “I have witnessed the past schisms and never withdrew my support until now.”

          Well, I didn’t say that the disagreements in recent years were not much worse than in the past. I, for example, do not support many of the orgs that I once did because I have also been… “disgusted” is not an inappropriate word to use… at some of the things you mentioned. Quality should never be traded for quantity; the mission is eroded by such things.

          However, I have found that most of the orgs I no longer support are not skeptic organizations. They are atheist and secular orgs. The Skeptic Society has never, imo, strayed from its mission and although the JREF has bobbled a bit with TAM speakers, I think those growing pains are largely a result of trying to balance audience size with the goals of the conference. For the most part, the skeptic movement seems to be on the right track and focused. I can’t say the same for some its allies.

          • An Ardent Skeptic

            I agree with much of what you are saying about secular vs. skeptic focus, but I think there has been a significant error made by skeptic organizations for giving credence and platforms to self-proclaimed skeptics who seem clueless about what skepticism is, and who appear either incapable, or unwilling, to live up to the ideals intrinsic to that claim. We have spent the last year and a half listening to the demands of these “skeptics” while they refuse to engage as skeptics should. If we had exercised due diligence when choosing spokespeople for skepticism, we would not be in this position.

            IMO, we have always focused way too much on conclusions, and activism about conclusions, rather than on educating people about how one applies critical thinking and the methods of skepticism to reach provisional conclusions. As a result, we have swelled our ranks with people who agree with these provisional conclusions and thus consider themselves skeptics, even if they don’t truly understand what skepticism is.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thaumas-Themelios/100001074236927 Thaumas Themelios

            Good points. I appreciate the distinctions you’ve been making. :-)

    • MosesZD

      As Barbara mentions, this is not the first (nor will the last) schism in the skeptic movement. There are always ideologues and grifters looking for power and control and they will, at times, screw things up as they jockey for power, prestige and/or the almighty dollar.

      I have to say, in its defense, of all the ‘movements’ I’ve been in or watched, this one seems to self-correct the best. I’m not going to say ‘perfectly.’ But compared to lots of other isms… It does pretty well.

      And, FWIW, I’ve been in-and-out of the ‘skeptic movement’ since my college days of the 1980s.

      • http://cherryteresa.com/ CherryTeresa

        I’m interested in what some of these other big disagreements were about. Perhaps we can learn from what happened in the past.

        • http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com/ Susan Gerbic

          Randi and the split with CSICOP because Randi was sued by Uri Geller was a major mess. That one really ripped apart our community.

          • http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com/ Susan Gerbic

            Marcello Truzzi and the split with CSICOP another mess.

            There have been many. All ugly.

          • http://cherryteresa.com/ CherryTeresa

            I wasn’t aware of that. I read that he had been unsuccessfully sued, but wasn’t aware of how it may have affected the community. Thanks for sharing.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-A-Drescher/1307296112 Barbara A. Drescher

          There were also heated arguments about scope. The differences are striking, though, because these arguments mostly occurred between educated people who disagreed on deeply philosophical points and they happened slowly, through exchanges in journals and at meetings.

          Today, the internet allows anyone with a computer to join in. There is no “entrance exam” and the levels of narcissism, anti-intellectualism, and overconfidence in our culture today are much higher than they were back then. So what we have is a struggle for access to an audience (and resources) driven by more by arrogance than real controversy.

          • http://cherryteresa.com/ CherryTeresa

            The internet does make it easier for more to see what’s going on and join in. It also seems to bring in a lot of people who may lack social or people skills. This is not to say that people who spend a great deal of time online are all socially inept, but there may be some who fall under this and would otherwise not participate in anything skeptical/secular if not for the internet. It can be a positive thing, since those who have issues socializing can still be part of a community in some way, or that those with economic and geographic barriers can be involved, but there are also downsides.

            But I think the internet will help grow the skeptic movement overall and has already done so.

        • http://www.facebook.com/brian.curtis.3994 Brian Curtis

          I seem to recall some conflict back in the 80s over whether skepticism should stick to ‘safe’ topics like psychics and UFOs or actually take on the Big Bad elephant in the room, religion.

      • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

        Just out of curiosity, what other movements do you have experience with?

  • Ingemar Oseth

    Interesting, simple and compelling allegory. Certainly easier to grasp than any serious examination of the best example of this dynamic — the history of the early church, circa Edict of Milan.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thaumas-Themelios/100001074236927 Thaumas Themelios

    “For the movement, the pathogens are people or groups”

    I would strongly urge not using this metaphor as about “people or groups”. More accurately, the pathogens are dogmas which, when believed, influence behaviours. The people and groups are the infected hosts (like cells or organs) of the pathogens, not the pathogens themselves. A pathogen is something you want to eliminate; we don’t want to eliminate any person or group in any way, we want to eliminate their believed dogmas, and the resultant harmful behaviours. Much like we don’t want to eliminate the*ists*, we want to eliminate the*ism*. Very different prospects.

    As metaphors go, this is a good one, but it is also a bit dangerous, in that it can easily be misused. One of the things I concern myself with is the dehumanization that’s been going on, and I want no part in it myself. The people we are opposed to are our peers, or at worst, our intellectual/political rivals; they are not our enemies. People deserve some baseline of respect. But ideas and dogmas, on the other hand….

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thaumas-Themelios/100001074236927 Thaumas Themelios

      By the way, thinking about the metaphor in this way actually works better, too. In this way, you can see the anti-gens as counter-ideas and counter-arguments and counter-strategies to the dogma’s weak spots. In this way, one can work directly against the pathogen (dogma) without doing anything more than expressing oneself through free speech (e.g. making a public counter-argument, making a satirical video, etc.), and without harming a single person in the process. This is a crucial thing for me.

      • An Ardent Skeptic

        I appreciate your perspective, Thaumus, and agree that the dehumanization is ugly and unproductive. However, I do not agree that the people who we oppose are always our peers. Those who spew dogma and insist that we take action based on their dogma are not skeptics. Those who refuse to engage in well-reasoned debate in order to seek appropriate solutions to problems but, instead, demand that we must do what they want without question, are not skeptics. Those who show a complete lack of introspection and refuse to acknowledge error are not skeptics.

        When someone exhibits a pattern of behavior which is in direct conflict with the principles and ideals that the claim of being a skeptic entail, they should no longer be promoted as a spokesperson for skepticism and given a place on stage.

        Yes, we should work together to fight infections in the movement, but sometimes we have to face the reality that what ails us isn’t an infection. It’s a cancerous growth that needs to be excised before it metastasizes.

        • Ingemar Oseth

          Brilliant! Bravo!

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thaumas-Themelios/100001074236927 Thaumas Themelios

          “However, I do not agree that the people who we oppose are always our peers.”

          Take note that I left open that possibility: “The people we are opposed to are our peers, or at worst, our intellectual/political *rivals*; they are not our enemies.”

          The major point is that they are not our enemies. Unless you’d consider theists or political opponents your enemies. Which I don’t.

          I agree with the most of the rest of your comment. That’s how I would treat my political rivals. Indeed, that’s how I’m treating the current batch of ideologues. But, again, the better metaphor remains that it is the ideology itself which is the pathogen. If theists can deconvert from fundamentalist religion, many of the current set of ideologues can break out of their dogmas as well. Indeed, that is the main goal which the metaphor supports: A healing and return to health by defeating the pathogen (dogma), without destroying the host(s) (people).

          “Yes, we should work together to fight infections in the movement, but
          sometimes we have to face the reality that what ails us isn’t an
          infection. It’s a cancerous growth that needs to be excised before it
          metastasizes.”

          I don’t believe it’s gotten to that point yet. I don’t believe that alternative metaphor is apt. This is not the Taliban or the Nazi party who are using violence to attain their goals. There have been a few unethical actions, skirting legal boundaries (and perhaps crossing them, I don’t know), but for the most part this has been an ideological dispute over a politicized dogma. There have been truth-claims made that have not been backed up by evidence; unfortunately, many of those claims have been false/misleading claims about real people, and that is indeed a real harm. But this is exactly the same kind of thing atheists have been fighting against when theists spread smears about atheists. We don’t fight such things by calling theists a cancer; we fight such things by calling the*ism* a mind virus.

          I do hope you see the distinction and its importance. Much harm has been done throughout history when people have been prematurely labelled as enemies and ‘others’.

          • An Ardent Skeptic

            I do appreciate the distinction between “ists” and “isms”. And, I most certainly appreciate the notion that we shouldn’t be demonizing people as has been happening in the community of late. (Quite frankly, I have never approved of the demonization and insulting rhetoric used by many in the secular community about the religious. As an example, ice cream vendors who make mistakes for which they apologize shouldn’t be “fucked into the ground”.)

            The infection analogy is about ideas. So is the cancer analogy. When someone has proved themselves unwilling to engage with the community with reason and evidence, yet insist on being heard and feel they deserve a place on stage, we need to stop giving them that platform and state unequivocally that this behavior does not represent the principles we claim to advocate.

            I’m not advocating extermination or even expulsion from the community. I am insisting that we stop giving those who cannot uphold the principles we claim to advocate a place on stage or space in our periodicals. I am insisting that we exercise due diligence before embracing someone as a skeptic or freethinker worth listening to until they prove themselves worthy of that status. I am insisting that we accept that we have not exercised this due diligence and correct that error by no longer continuing a debate with “spokespeople” for the community who have proved themselves incapable of engaging with this community as they should.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thaumas-Themelios/100001074236927 Thaumas Themelios

            To be clear, I didn’t actually think you were advocating anything extreme. Metaphors are imperfect, and not to be taken too literally. :-)

            “I’m not advocating extermination or even expulsion from the community. I am insisting that we stop giving those who cannot uphold the principles we claim to advocate a place on stage or space in our periodicals. I am insisting that we exercise due diligence before embracing someone as a skeptic or freethinker worth listening to until they prove themselves worthy of that status. I am insisting that we accept that we have not exercised this due diligence and correct that error by no longer continuing a debate with “spokespeople” for the community who have proved themselves incapable of engaging with this community as they should.”

            I fully agree with this. Apparently our ‘disagreement’ is truly a minor matter of word choice, nothing substantial. Thanks for the dialogue. Cheers! :-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/albert.doyle.58 Albert Cornelius Doyle

    A couple of thoughts. First, the antigen metaphor troubles me. Mostly because I can picture it issuing as a diktat from the other side, in almost identical verbiage. (Of course it already has, the purification and purging efforts of various bloviating proponents of A+ come immediately to mind).

    Secondly, it ducks the issue of symbiosis versus mission drift. Which is a very tricky affair. Were the Panthers strategically unwise in rejecting coordination with the Libbers, wanting to keep the focus on race? Or did the two movements do well in not conflating too many issues in the public’s eye? No easy answer.

    This very moment, for example, there is a monstrous schism forming in the SWP, over a rape cover-up by the Central Committee, and the expulsion of factions who demanded justice for the victim. The CC is insisting that factionalism (in this instance, read: feminism) is a distraction from their chartered ambition to promote labor rights. Now they’ve got a tiger by the tail,and they bloody well deserve the uprising in their ranks. And no, it does not at all mirror Elevatorgate, and is almost an exact inversion of it, in terms of who’s choosing to close ranks with whom.

    Finally, the antigen metaphor tweaks one of my sore points with the better known atheist/skeptic websites and pundits: videlicet, its nauseating solipsism and self-congratulatory insularism.

    There was a poll a few months back on oneof the better-known FTB blogs asking who is the most important woman in atheism. I suggested that Dilma Roussef was actually the atheist/communist leader of the second largest country in the hemisphere, fastest growing economy, biggest oil reserves, and one helluva bio — probably a more realistic choice than their top three finalists, whose names are all synonymous with Elevator and T-shirt and Jewelry and Don’t Be Mean To Me On My Blog Gates. She’s ranked behind Clinton and Merkel as the third most important woman on the planet, but, sadly, she doesn’t spend her time blogging about personal slights at any of the 150 unknown conferences at third-rate universities that she spends all her non-blogging time attending.

    Naturally I was savaged by the pack. “Dear Muslima” was the common barb, suggesting that looking beyond the walls of these thrice-weekly rich white kid Chicktacon conferences was an insult to all upper middle class American Ph.D. candidates who blog more than study. Even in some of the very well-written comments below, I perceive this insularity. Skeptical schisms originating with Uri Geller or CSICOP or Elevatorgate? And not with Socrates or Democritus or Galileo or Newton or Darwin? C’mon, people, there’s a big wide world out there, with people challenging assumptions and discovering truths in so many big and little ways, every day, that PZ’s jackboot cadres couldn’t aspire to in their wildest blogasms.
    So the antigen metaphor seems to dwell on that one corpus, the A+/FTB/Thunderfoot/Skepticink/Slymepit nexus of junior high-schoolers making fun of the other rich kids who wear white socks or listen to uncool music on older iPods, and ignoring all the exchange students, black students, poor students. It’s the difference between clinical medicine, examining a single patient, and epidemiology, promoting the health of populations. Maybe a public hygiene program is a better analogy to what your (laudable) ambitions represent.
    I live in Mexico, and trust me, you’d be hard pressed to find 12 people out of 120 million who’ve ever heard of A+ or Rebecca Watson…..but there are tens of millions who want the cardinals to shut the fuck up about reproductive rights and gender orientation, and who are sick and tired of brainwashing teenagers to march around a tree stump whose rings resemble the Virigin of Guadelupe’s robe. Then there are tens of millions more for whom the nextmeal for their kids is way more important than whether the Gospels are true. Zack de La Rocha and Subcomandante Marcos speak a lot louder to these people than the “You’re A Troll Until You Take The Pledge” zombies at the various online campus altars of the American skeptosphere. They need economic and social results, not crocodile tears from the latest tiff among post-docs at conferences.
    Take the Church’s lands and redistribute them to the peasants? Now we’re talking Atheism, PLUS!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thaumas-Themelios/100001074236927 Thaumas Themelios

      “So the antigen metaphor seems to dwell on that one corpus, the
      A+/FTB/Thunderfoot/Skepticink/Slymepit nexus of junior high-schoolers
      making fun of the other rich kids who wear white socks or listen to
      uncool music on older iPods, and ignoring all the exchange students,
      black students, poor students. It’s the difference between clinical
      medicine, examining a single patient, and epidemiology, promoting the
      health of populations. Maybe a public hygiene program is a better
      analogy to what your (laudable) ambitions represent.”

      I disagree, and my disagreement stems from my view of pathogens as dogmas and anti-gens as rational responses to those dogmas to dislodge them from belief, or to disable them from being believed in the first place.

      There are two perspectives that work well in this metaphor, IMO. The first is that the organism being protected by the immune system is the atheist/skeptic/whatever-you-want-to-call-it movement. Under this perspective, we are seeking to work toward common goals, and certain invasive dogmas are interfering with the functioning of the movement as a whole, so we confront the dogma, analyze it, break it down, understand it. Then we generate counterarguments and counter-memes to fight back against the invasive ideas. Our counter-arguments, or antigens, are spread from person to person (analogous to how the immune system’s white blood cells exponentially generate better and better antigens to fight off the infection), and hopefully, eventually, we as a collective are able to defend against a dogmatic infection.

      The above perspective is of a collective of individuals each playing their own part in a collective effort. The other perspective is more individual:

      In the individual perspective, a skeptic is taking care to prevent their own mind from being infected by dogma. Again, the antigens are counter-arguments and counter-memes, but from this personal perspective, the goal is not specifically to fight a larger external political battle, but to cultivate a healthy set of beliefs, and to routinely inspect those beliefs to remove false ideas and unsupported dogmas. It is rather like weeding a garden, or the hygienic behaviour you mentioned. However, the counter-memes/antigens are still a major part of this process, and not all of these ideas can be discovered by each person. For example, to fight off some specific dogmas about A+/etc, one would need to have the idea that privilege, such that exists, is something that can only really be measured on a societal scale, and not on an individual level. Using this idea, it’s easy to see why calls to “Check your privilege!” are fundamentally unjustified attempts to silence dissent. Without that idea, it can be much harder to see the problem, and so one will be more prone to being socially coerced into compliance.

      This individual perspective is universal. It is not specific to any particular political fight. Indeed it is something that could easily be promoted completely independently of this or that argument or schism. It’s basically ‘self-skepticism’.

      So, IMO, using this metaphor of infectious pathogens (dogmas) and an immune system response including antigens (shared ideas about how to fight off dogmas), we can take on a ‘big picture’ view of the secular/skeptical movement as a whole, and our little part in it; or we can take on a more intimate, but more humanly universal, view of the self-skeptical philosophy behind skeptical thought itself, and how we practice it ourselves on a daily basis, based on ideas that have been developing as part of an adaptive system for thousands of years (antigens passed on through skeptical philosophy and literature).

      I don’t think the metaphor gets us caught up in specific he-said-she-said drama nonsense. I think it does the opposite. But this depends heavily on keeping the focus on the interpretation that the pathogens are dogmas, not people.

    • Ingemar Oseth

      “I live in Mexico, and trust me, you’d be hard pressed to find 12 people
      out of 120 million who’ve ever heard of A+ or Rebecca Watson…..but
      there are tens of millions who want the cardinals to shut the fuck up
      about reproductive rights and gender orientation, and who are sick and
      tired of brainwashing teenagers to march around a tree stump whose rings
      resemble the Virigin of Guadelupe’s robe. Then there are tens of
      millions more for whom the nextmeal for their kids is way more important
      than whether the Gospels are true. Zack de La Rocha and Subcomandante
      Marcos speak a lot louder to these people than the “You’re A Troll Until
      You Take The Pledge” zombies at the various online campus altars of the
      American skeptosphere. They need economic and social results, not
      crocodile tears from the latest tiff among post-docs at conferences.
      Take the Church’s lands and redistribute them to the peasants? Now we’re talking Atheism, PLUS!!”

      Thank you for putting this into their proper perspective. Viva Juarez !!!!

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

      re: insularity
      I think that you underestimate the scope of the problem. If you believe I was merely writing about the contents of blogs or twitters, then you have mistaken my purpose. Since your bring up feminism, let’s talk about that as a social movement.

      For the last two decades at least, people who have agreed with the stated goals of feminism largely refuse to call themselves feminists. The reason for this is that second and third wave feminism developed an overbearing radical faction which poisoned the term, and in some part the movement itself. This didn’t just change the terminology that people are comfortable with, it actively pushed many would-be supporters out of the movement. It caused a loss of average, non-radical people.. just the people you need to make real change. In short, the radicalism, even with incomplete dominance, caused serious and long-lasting damage to the cause of gender equality. Many today say that the very word “feminism” is poisoned and that pro-equality people of reason must abandon it.

      Now I say to you that it did not *have* to go down like that. Like that movement, skepticism (and atheism) are vulnerable to being seriously damaged by a vocal, virulent minority. Even if that hasn’t happened yet, it will if we don’t contain the elements which doggedly hold and shout anti-skeptical and non-rational agendas.

      • http://www.facebook.com/albert.doyle.58 Albert Cornelius Doyle

        Well, they said the same about Malcolm X and Stokeley Carmichael, even MLK — too strident, too rushed, too alienating, too militant, damaging the larger effort. But they shifted the Overton Window, much the way the modern Right is doing with regard to guns, reproductive rights, unions, etc. Ann Coulter gives one side of the story, Mitch McConnell gives the other, the Fourth Estate proclaims the best path is in between those two “extremes”. The Left has no such leeway. We never see a Sunday morning talk show where John Kerry presents one side and Noam Chomsky the other. My point is that for progressives to triumph, there probably need to be radicals shouting from the cheap seats, so that the progressive stance is the new mainstream. You can paint Andrea Dworkin is corrosive, but there’s no Blue State woman alive who would tolerate “hey babycakes” from her boss anymore. That’s progress.
        My point was more about the mission drift, writ small and large. And I find well known “annoying” or “radical” atheists (such as Dawkins) to be quite necessary, while petty teenage drama and insular thinking strikes me as a much bigger threat to cohesion among the rank and file. PZ’s is the most read science blog in America (or was), and yet a huge percentage of his fellow bloggers and their commentariat are more concerned over whether Justin Vacula can attend a little third-rate conference, rather than public education being gutted to support theocratic charter schools, science being hamstrung across the public sector, and Dominionists running the Pentagon.
        So Rebecca Watson trashed Evo Psych in front of a few people. It matters little — she’s no radical, not even a progressive, nor certainly any sort of expert, nor even a good orator. She could have been talking about poor women’s access to abortion in Red State theocracies. She didn’t, a factional dust-up arose, and the real issues of atheism/secularism/skepticism were ignored for a couple of weeks. It’s not radicalism that damages the movement so much as relinquishing its ambitons to mouthy pampered easily-offended preening adolescents who really seem unaware of a larger world beyond their tiny corner of the blogosphere.

        • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

          This isn’t about diplomats versus firebrands. This is about people who are in it for themselves and add little or nothing of value. I share your desire for us to focus on more important issues. The question is to how. Many people tried your advice of “ignore it, it doesn’t matter”. That didn’t work. Things got steadily worse, and at larger scales than mere blogs.

          Maybe you think all of this is too small and does not matter. Alright. I think that it does. You’re not required to agree or participate.

          • http://www.facebook.com/albert.doyle.58 Albert Cornelius Doyle

            Sorry Ed, I must not have been clear. I do think it matters. Your colleague Mr. Vacula has a post up today explicitly lamenting that the in-fighting has turned our eyes from the prize. It’s a genuine problem, agreed. I’ll just circle back to my original point about discomfort with the antigen metaphor. Dehumanizing those we disagree with — even those we would prefer to see removed from positions of influence and authority — as “infections” or “viruses”, gives me the creeps. I’m in total concordance with your goal, I just cringe at how closely the verbiage of purging the pestilence resembles that of unpleasant movements throughout history.
            Best, enjoy your stuff, keep it up,
            acd

          • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

            I am in agreement with you re: dehumanizing and I don’t think that I’ve wandered close to doing that. The metaphor relates specifically to the impact a person can have on the organization, not to their worth as a person. I intend the metaphor to help contextualize the need for occasional unpleasantness as a matter of ordinary policing of the sort that goes on within many successful, civil groups.

            If you systematically, regularly, and deliberately work against the goals and values of a system, then the statement that you are doing so is criticism, not dehumanization. The desire to remove you from doing so is an impulse to protect the system and other people in it. That is to say, it is an effort to defend, protect, preserve and grow.., not to attack.

            You find the metaphor too toothy, well I reckon I can understand that. However, if it helps people understand some of the things that are going on better, I think that it is helpful. I have personally lobbied against things I do find dehumanizing from both “sides”, and I will do so here if the pathogen metaphor is abused to that end.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thaumas-Themelios/100001074236927 Thaumas Themelios

            “The desire to remove you from doing so is an impulse to protect the
            system and other people in it. That is to say, it is an effort to
            defend, protect, preserve and grow.., not to attack.”

            Ah, I’m getting a clearer picture of what you were intending. May I suggest a useful word I picked up somewhere which serves the purpose: Aside from distinguishing people from ideas, and people from their behaviours, another very helpful distinction is between a person and the *roles* they may or may not be enacting. For example, the ‘president of such and such’ is actually usually referring to a person acting *in the role of* ‘president’ for ‘such and such’, not actually the person themself (though in some/many cases, this distinction is often very blurred in practice). For example, David Silverman is the current acting president of American Atheists, but a) this is temporary and subject to change, b) this doesn’t refer to every aspect of David, only what he does in *connection* to that role that he has formally taken on. For example, if he eats spaghetti for dinner tonight, his being the AA president has nothing to do with that, so it makes sense to say that the human named David Silverman who just so happens to be the current president of AA had spaghetti for dinner. But it would be pointless/irrelevant/whatever to say that The President of American Atheists had spaghetti for dinner. (Of course, in the US, where the president is akin to royalty, ya never know, maybe such a headline would actually get published; I seem to recall some food-related escapades from Bush’s days.) But, on the other hand, if David Silverman *also* happens to be a Double-Agent of the Church of the FSM (Pasta Be Upon Him), infiltrating American Atheists, then his regular habit of secret spaghetti dinners might be highly relevant, and may even point to a clear example of conflict of interest. (Although, secretly, I would be rooting for him in his *role* as Double-Agent of the CotFSM, publicly I would have to scorn him for his irresponsible shenanigans as the President of American Atheists.)

            More useful bits about roles: people can have many roles; the same role can be played by many different people, even simultaneously; a person can gain or lose a role with no real harm or benefit from it (the harms/benefits come from how the person interacts with the group/public *in* that role, but the role *itself* is just a social convention, imagined for convenience, like how a ‘friend’ on Facebook doesn’t actually have to be a friend of any real kind to you). It’s not like gaining or losing an arm, or one’s wallet, or identity theft, or some intellectual property (such as copyrighted material or a patent). I could ‘unfriend’ everyone on FB right now and no one would notice until they checked FB to see if I’m still ‘friends’.

            But roles *do* have real impact on the world, because of their relation to the group/org/public, and the responsibilities and affordances associated with the role. So it really does make sense to say that we are not against a person as a person, but we may be specifically against supporting them in a *role* that they play, e.g. being a speaker at a conference, etc. Even ‘public figure’ is a role that usually one pretty much has to go through some hoops to attain, and which actually has legal recognition (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure with relevant reference to ‘limited public figure’).

            The language I would use in this case is along the lines of: I choose not to support so-and-so in their role as such-and-such for the Whosits of The World Unite! campaign. Or: I don’t think that’s ethical behaviour for a member of the admin team of the this-n-that forums, according to the site guidelines. Etc.

  • ThePrussian

    Good post. Well done.

  • Pingback: A-News Podcast: Episode 30 – Block The People | A-News by Apartment J EntertainmentA-News by Apartment J Entertainment

  • Ingemar Oseth

    This is not the first time someone has used disease allegory to dehumanize their enemies. Hitler used the same tactic to dehumanize the Jews.

    http://home.earthlink.net/~libraryofsocialscience/logic.htm

    The past is prologue.

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

      Please don’t Godwin on my site.

      • Ingemar Oseth

        Sorry, but a valid historical comparison is….. valid. In this case your polemic is almost certainly a well-intentioned effort that unfortunately stumbled unwittingly into some very questionable territory.

        Had you known more about Holocaust History, you would have almost certainly avoided this particular approach, unless you really meant to compare your protagonists to mere pathogens. I think you were innocently attempting to make an argument that would stir your fellows to take action, and simply chose the wrong path.

        If history teaches us anything dehumanizing your enemies is always a mistake.

        • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

          So your position is that my post here is like Nazis who wanted to exterminate a race of people? Similar to a call for genocide?

          This comparison, apart from being rhetorically cliche and bad form, is unpardonably insulting and in violation of the discussion policy of this site.

          • Ingemar Oseth

            Now comes the hyperbolic, vitriolic, irrational indignation and condemnation. It does not bother me one whit.

            As a military historian who has published a little on the subject, I would be happy to take you by the hand and help you learn more about how Hitler and his goons compared Jews and other minorities to blights and diseases. Hopefully you will come away with a better appreciation of how a small idea or approach can develop into somethings quite heinous, and for this reason curb your enthusiasm to the extent that you refrain from such things in the future.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thaumas-Themelios/100001074236927 Thaumas Themelios

            Indeed. After writing my last comment and proof-reading it, I had an ‘ah ha!’ that I think is highly relevant, and is in fact sharply relevant on more than one level (that’s how you know a metaphor is *really* good ;-) ).

            What we have here is a situation rather like what Florence Nightingale was facing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Nightingale, highly recommended if you’re not familiar with her story). Super-ironically, this Victorian-era pre-feminist battled an *actual* patriarchy of male doctors — but this time using reason and science, rather than today’s more common hot-air rhetoric — to change the way doctors and other medial staff managed their hygiene (especially the washing of hands between surgeries), while the standard of the day was decidedly messy and led to …dun dun dunnnn! … needless and preventable harm and waste, including outbreaks of fever and inflammation. No, not feverish and inflammatory pre-internet flame wars. Literal transmission of harmful pathogens due to sloppy medical hygiene. The founder of modern nursing. Saved countless lives with her work and, even more importantly, with her championing of *good ideas*, and her tireless campaigning against *bad ideas*.

            This is my new #1 hero (been a top hero since I’ve known about her; bout time she took in the #1 spot). Beat that, A+ feminists! ;-) A real symbol for *rational* activism, self-skepticism, and pragmatic feminism that actually brings real improvement to the world. I honestly can’t think of a better figure to highlight the current situation. And a Unitarian, to boot. Can’t get much closer to atheist than that, in those days. A tried-and-true female skeptic, not a ‘skepchick’.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thaumas-Themelios/100001074236927 Thaumas Themelios

            I agree with Ingemar’s sentiment, though it could itself have been phrased more carefully. I don’t think it’s a Godwin; I do think it is valid to bring up the topic of how language can be used to dehumanize and — especially since we are talking about disastrously dangerous ideas that should be opposed with an ‘aggressive’-sounding metaphor of disease and immune system — I think it is very valid to bring up extreme examples of this. This is *not* to equate the above post as being equivalent to calls for genocide; it is to demonstrate that bad ideas have a way of running amok, out of our control, against even our best intentions.

            I would bring up the example of Karl Marx as well, as I think of his example as something extremely tragic and telling of our own (myself included, as always) failures of foresight. I do not think that Karl Marx had in mind *anything* resembling Communist Russia.

            And that is *exactly* the point that I believe Ingemar is trying to make — and if not, then I’ll try to make it myself.

            If ideas are can be pathogens — as I’m proposing the metaphor should be focused on — then do not we, as ‘pathologists’, take on a greater burden of care in our handling of them? Shouldn’t we hold ourselves to higher standards of hygiene and safety and risk managemenxt? If a particular idea is commonly associated with social disease, shouldn’t we be very careful to use extra caution before spreading that idea around in public? Surely, we must study it. It is not ‘off topic’ or ‘taboo’. Surely we should pay attention to the past history associated with the idea, its ‘epidemiology’, so to speak. Studying ideas as ‘pathogens’ like this does not entail blaming people for mistaken ideas; it does not entail that we associate anything negative onto people at all. Just like we don’t (or shouldn’t) make negative associations on people for having the flu or cancer or even leprosy or an STD. Instead, we just focus on the *real* culprit, the pathogen itself, and how we can prevent, treat, and/or cure it.

            *This* is how this metaphor can shed light on this subject without allowing ourselves to become unwitting *vectors* for an *unforeseen* and surely *undesired* outbreak of contagious social/cultural disease. We do not treat the diseased folks as ‘others’ or ‘unclean’ or what have you. *They* themselves are not a pathological condition. It is the pathogen itself, the ideas that they may be host to, that is leading to disease. We can talk about humans as humans and ideas as ideas, without any danger of mixing up the two decidedly different categories.

            And the idea of *this* particular metaphor (thinking of things we are opposed to as disease to be cured or eliminated) just so happens to be one of those potentially harmful pathogens. When it is used in an atmosphere of hubris and lack of caution, it can ‘mutate’ easily and begin a new epidemic, entirely out of our conscious intention. It is *dangerous* in that way. It is a *risk* that we must account for, take precautions for, be well-prepared for, and these are things that we must certainly openly discuss like we would any other idea under observation. How can we meet our requirements of due diligence if we cannot face the truths of reality, take accurate measure of the situation on the ground, and make our decisions backed by the full understanding of this prior evidence?

            “So your position is that my post here is like Nazis who wanted to
            exterminate a race of people? Similar to a call for genocide?

            This comparison, apart from being rhetorically cliche and bad form,
            is unpardonably insulting and in violation of the discussion policy of
            this site.”

            I would suggest that reactions such as this one are signs that are often associated with negative social outcomes, when studying the epidemiology of ideas.

            This is an example of ‘mind reading’ and a failure of the principle of charity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity). Just the opposite interpretation is readily evident in the previously posted comment: Ingemar clearly does not think your post is ‘similar to a call for genocide’; that is not the purpose of his/her reference to genocidal history. This is evident from the following quote:

            “Sorry, but a valid historical comparison is….. valid. In this case your polemic is almost certainly a well-intentioned effort that unfortunately stumbled unwittingly into some very questionable territory.

            … I think you were innocently attempting to make an argument that would stir your fellows to take action, and simply chose the wrong path.”

            Karl Marx did not intend his Communism to mutate into what it eventually mutated into. But he carelessly embedded questionable (wrong in hindsight, but questionable even in his day) assumptions and even violent rhetoric into his writings. This violent rhetoric, codified as the dogma of ‘revolutionary change’ was used by *later* people to enact not only violent revolution, but also extensive authoritarian oppression of Marx’s championed ‘working class’ by a system utterly the opposite of what Marx was trying to propose.

            And I’m no Marxist either. To be honest, I actually know quite little about him and his writings. I read enough to spot his dogmas (particularly his historical materialism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism and Note Bene that it has an entire *section* of the article sub-titled “Warnings against misuse”, which is the spirit which I believe Ingemar’s comments were in; it is certainly the context from which I’m operating); I consider all dogmas to be dangerous ideas including Marx’s.

            The point is, it doesn’t matter what he intended; he took too few precautions, and the *practical* result was disastrous. Yet Marx remains one of those haunting figures from history whom I often think of. I do not think it would be fair/charitable to say that my mentioning of him means that I think your post above is a call for violent revolution; that would be absurdly false. In the same way, I do not think your response to Ingemar’s mention of Nazi propaganda techniques related to dehumanization of people via language is fair/charitable, especially in a post specifically *about* using metaphor to inspire us to think differently about the world. Discussion of misuse of metaphor seems to me to be entirely appropriate. (To be clear: Generally, I am pro-metaphor, and pro-free-expression/free-speech. I hope this comment is not over-read as being against it. My stance is that it is ‘useful but sometimes/often risky’, like *soooo* many other things in life.)

            We should *learn* from these historical disasters, not take offence at having them clumsily referenced by one of our *peers*, or *at worst*, intellectual/political *rivals*.

            It is of course your site to run as you see fit. Personally, I do not think your analysis is valid: The comment is not “unpardonably insulting”, unless one is determined to be insulted. Whether it is “in violation of the discussion policy of this site” remains, tellingly, to be seen. Personally, I would like to see what part of the policy this is referring to.

          • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

            “This is an example of ‘mind reading’ and a failure of the principle of charity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…. Just the opposite interpretation is readily evident in the previously posted comments.”

            You’re mistaken. You are claiming that I assumed an uncharitable position was being taken. I was not. Nor do I need you to point out the “correct” one. Instead, I was pointing out why such rhetorical comparisons are problematic and should be avoided.

            What I have seen here has been hyperbole and predictions as hysterical as they are unfounded. I’ve seen no cogent argument anyone is in danger of “dehumanization” (because I’ve not referred to people, but to behaviors). It was a Godwin, by definition, and I am afraid that falls outside of the parameters of this network. If any point is worth making, it can be made without comparisons to Nazis.