A psychobabbler comments

It seems to me woos are increasingly relying on psychobabble – “language characterized by the often inaccurate use of jargon from psychiatry and psychotherapy” – in place of the actual arguments they don’t have. This post is the first where I examine this form of “argument” – this time from someone who left a couple of (off topic) comments to my Astrology Challenge. (A second example will follow in a day or so.) I do so because (1) it amuses me, but also (2) I think it’s instructive to deconstruct these highly manipulative but ultimately fallacious arguments.

The commenter goes by the name of Kaz. He left this comment that I replied to. He then replied with another long comment that I deleted from the Astrology Challenge as being off topic. (Why do people have such a problem understanding what I am asking for in the Astrology Challenge? Oh well.) His comment is repeated below in its entirety, with my analysis and rebuttals. Here goes:

I really just want to write you a note, as one skeptic/atheist to another.

Kaz may be an atheist, but he is no skeptic. On his Simple Horse blog he states “I'm … an acupuncturist/alchemist by night, and am available for consultations at [phone number]”. I don’t know what he means by an alchemist (although it sounds totally woo), but an acupuncturist? If you real my numerous post on acupuncture you would know it’s mostly placebo. Kaz is no skeptic; he just doesn’t believe in astrology. But a skeptic is not someone who just doesn’t believe in a woo subject like astrology. A skeptic is one who arrives at such a position through the application of critical thinking – reason, logic and the scientific method. And, unlike Kaz, a skeptic doesn’t rely on fallacious reasoning:

I was just trying to point out gently that even if astrology is bogus, it has a natural history that consists of many generations of people - astronomers, astrologers, in the not so distant past these were one and the same - trying to make sense of the world. (Since you seem to like books and references, I will refer you to Richard Grossinger's excellent "The Night Sky"). So the rules of astrology weren't "just made up;" they were accumulated over millennia by people trying to impose meaning on a meaningless universe. It's just that at some point after Newton (who was heavily into the esoteric woo-woo stuff), most scientists discarded the obviously outdated baggage and moved on from astrology to astronomy.

This is the fallacy of equivocation that I wrote about before. Astronomy is not the same as astrology, even if they were practiced by the same people centuries ago. It’s completely irrelevant to whether the rules of astrology were made-up or derived.

But I don't think I need to explain that to you, who know so well the human need to try to understand things. You have seized on reason as the weapon that makes you right every time. Others seize on God.

Of course, science doesn’t make anyone “right every time”, it is just the most reliable method we have for explaining how things are. It’s true that with reason and science I will probably be right more often than people who rely on other ways of knowing. But that isn’t what I want to focus on. The point is, it is here that the psychobabble starts. Note the interesting wording: “the weapon that makes you right every time”. Kaz has reversed the order of things. His argument goes that I have decided astrology is bogus, and have a need to be right about this. I have chosen reason as the weapon to back up my pre-conceived belief - to “make me right”. The corollary is I am “making wrong” anyone who disagrees with me – clearly a pejorative action. It is expressed this way so that it appears my “need” to be right is a weakness, and “reason” is my “weapon” to cover up this weakness. But he has it exactly back to front – it was by using reason and science that I determined astrology was nonsense, not the other way round. Of course, I am trying to find out what is “right” – that is the purpose of critical thinking – but it is not to “make [me] right”, it is to arrive at what is right. That is the crucial distinction that Kaz has (ironically) wrong.

The reason I go into this in so much detail is that I have noticed this type of reasoning – skeptics have a need to be right etc - is utilized a lot by woos to put skeptics down and obscure the fact that the woo has nothing to justify his claim. I’m not sure where it comes from, although I suspect it’s an argument used in woo circles that sounds good so is picked up and repeated without much (any) thought. It’s classic psychobabble. It’s certainly highly manipulative and as used here is fallacious.

Speaking of which, I find that you are a little too quick to call your readers' comments "moronic" etc. Your strident tone reminds me of fundamentalist Muslims and others who have "seen the light" and have a very low tolerance for other people's opinions. You mention that you once believed in astrology. Did you have some kind of conversion experience that left you the strident rationalist that you are now?

Here we have another fallacy - the false analogy. I don’t insist people accept my views on astrology the way that religious fundamentalists insist the world adheres to their religious beliefs. Anyone is welcome to practice astrology to their heart’s content as long as it doesn’t directly affect me (as for example, when a US President consults an astrologer before making decisions). I just post facts about astrology on this blog and ask proponents who visit this site to answer questions and justify their silly beliefs. This is a blog set up to promote critical thinking, so if you’re going to post claims on this blog I am going to ask you to back them up. You can go away and do whatever you want – just don’t expect me to believe in your nonsense.

Finally, re: astrologers vs skeptics, I challenge you to demonstrate why "it matters if it's right or wrong." Or to make it a little easier for you, why you think it's so important, indeed why you even have this website. Will the sky come tumbling down because people believe in astrology? Will an eventual human extinction be avoided because a critical mass of humanity embraced rationality and skepticism a la Skeptico? I severely doubt it. So why does it matter? I think this question gets to the crux of why Skeptico is such an angry and vehement rationalist.

My “moronic” comment was in response to Kaz’s claim “It doesn't matter whether you or the astrologers are right or wrong”. Well, of course it matters. If someone makes decisions based on astrology it matters if astrology is right or not. But it is wider than that. This blog was set up to promote critical thinking – to demonstrate how to apply critical thinking and the scientific method to evaluate claims. If it doesn’t matter if the conclusions of critical thinking are right or wrong then it doesn’t matter if you use critical thinking or not. So for example, it doesn’t matter if an alternative therapy will cure your cancer or not – you may as well take the altie therapy even if in reality you will die without the evidence-based therapy.

Yes, saying it doesn’t matter if something is right or wrong is moronic. And if you disagree then I have a bridge to sell you. Bring your check book.

I am no proponent of astrology, so I will stop here and leave space for those astrologers who wish to enter into verbal fisticuffs with you. But really, why are you so invested in being right? Why the need to lash out at anyone who so much as slightly disagrees with you? I think you should consider the possibility that there are some not-so-rational reasons for your insistent position, and that some psychotherapy, astrological or otherwise, might be in order.

Again note the psychobabble – I am “invested” in being right. “Invested” – an interesting word, implying I have a need to be right – I wouldn’t want to give up an “investment” after all. But as I pointed out earlier, rationality leads me to the right answer, I do not start with an answer that I have “invested” as being right. But the fact that Kaz thinks this is a good argument implies that is the way his mind works – he is invested in this discussion for some reason. So much so he has a need to post a second 400 plus word comment on astrology. Pretty funny for someone who doesn’t believe in it and who claims I have an “insistent position” that might need therapy to sort out. I think he's talking about himself.

Comments

[Big Al]

As for Newton being into alchemy, that's true. He spent more time on alchemy than he did on mainstream science. However, he believed it was a true phenomenon and tried to go about it in a scientific manner, documenting his tests and experiments. He didn't just claim it worked, he tried to test it (without success). That's science.

Astrology, telepathy, dowsing etc.; they're subjects amenable to scientific testing, too, but the woos don't want that.

It's thanks to the scientific method, fathered largely by Galileo and Newton, that we know you can't turn lead into gold by chemical reactions - because we know how those reactions work, and how nuclear transformations work. We didn't in Newton's day, but he laid the groundwork for us.

[Bronze Dog]

Don't know about you, Skeptico, but I'm "invested" in astrology being wrong in the way that if I let go of a hammer, I'm "invested" in it accelerating downwards at a rate of about 32.2 feet per second per second.

[Jokermage]

"And if you disagree then I have a bridge to sell you. Bring your check book."

If you find any takers, tell them that I have a friend in Nigeria who would like to give them $5,200,000. If it makes them feel better, they can think of it as an "investment".

[kath]

I've noticed this when arguing with believers too.

It is in fact a subtle ad hominem argument implying that their opponent is mentally ill and in need of therapy.
Love
Kath

[Big Al]

I could cope with the "you're just closed-minded"s, ad hominems, irrelevancies and screeds of pseudoscientific stuff I can't even understand, despite a decent IQ, a scientific education and a love of the English language.

When one of the believers trots out quantum mechanics as an explanation, I'd really like to be able to pin them down and see what they uderstand of superposition, Planck's constant, the resolution of the untraviolet catastrophe and the photoelectric effect.

For me, a prime indicator of woo-ness is taking scientific terms and using them in the wrong way, e.g. using force, power and energy as interchangeable terms.

Sorry, believers, either use the terms as they're generally understood to us simple-minded techies (who did, after all, coin them in the first place), or invent your own language.

Instead of "A flux of quantum energy fills the continuum, creating eddies of superimposed probabilistic states," you could have "A flux of fleem fills the shibubble, creating eddies of superimposed galumbic states."

But if you want to use our language, please look up what the terms actually mean first.

[Ron Zeno]

I don't have such patience with the woos. Taking a lesson from psychology, I find, "Project much?" is usually a sufficient response to all they say.

[Infophile]

It seems more and more woos are resorting to the "I'm not really an advocate of [blah], but you're just way out of line here..." tactic.

Take a hint, guys, we can see through it.

[Bronze Dog]

Doggerel is still doggerel, even if you're using it on behalf of someone else.

[valhar2000]

Yes, I remember a time when the argument "I used to be a skeptical, and I thought it was all rubbish, but then I saw a ghost in my house..." carried some strength. Later on I became more cynical, and that has helped me immeasurably.

Now I can "see through it" just as well as Infophile does. Psycobabble does nto convince me of anything, of course, but I still find it extremely bothersome.

[Bronze Dog]

Meant to do this entry a long time ago, but this guy helped inspire it, since it reminded me of similar arguments:

Doggerel #31: "Looks Like I've Touched a Nerve!"

[Ebonmuse]

It puzzles me that someone would think it a pejorative term to say that a skeptic is "invested" in being right. What's the alternative, not caring whether you're right or not? Shouldn't we all be invested in being right? This reminds me of a passage from one of Carl Sagan's books where he mentioned a true believer who criticized James Randi for being "obsessed with reality".

[BronzeDog]

What else is there to be obsessed about? ;)

[BlackSun]

Skeptico, I feel your pain. I just had an encounter with a relativist/astrologer over the weekend. Same old shit, different day.

I have banned and deleted similar comments from my blog in the past. Once it's clear to me it's all woo, they're gone. I want to focus on real debates, real verifiable information.

Kaz' accusations fall flat. This is not about you. Hell, you're a lot more patient than I am.

[Infophile]

It puzzles me that someone would think it a pejorative term to say that a skeptic is "invested" in being right. What's the alternative, not caring whether you're right or not? Shouldn't we all be invested in being right? This reminds me of a passage from one of Carl Sagan's books where he mentioned a true believer who criticized James Randi for being "obsessed with reality".

The difference (which they often fail to see) is that we're invested in making sure we come to the right answer in the end. They're the ones who are generally invested in their first answer being right.

[Big Al]

Kaz has gone suspiciously quiet. I hope he didn't burst his brain with that huge non-informational infoburst.

I'd like to challenge all woos who shrug and mutter "It's quantum, ain't it?" to state without equivocation what they actually understand of that discipline, if anything.

Like I say, if they were forbidden by law to misuse scientific terms they couldn't define, they'd either be dumbstruck or sound like idiots.

[Bronze Dog]

Like I say, if they were forbidden by law to misuse scientific terms they couldn't define, they'd either be dumbstruck or sound like idiots.

More likely, the prisons would be overcrowded.

[Kaz]

Actually, Al, I went strangely silent only after sending Skeptico a nice email thanking him for his response and making peace with the futility of having a decent conversation with you guys. But there you go Al, dragging me back in, challenging my silence... For the record, my position is simply that the human mind seems to come hardwired to be ritualistic/artistic/symbolic/mystical, as well as rational. And while I prize reason as the best response to trying to solve problems and figure things out, it seems to me that people who ignore or diminish the artistic/symbolic etc. in their lives and are obsessively rational all the time might end up with a diminished existence. I am not arguing that astrology's rules were derived by naturalist-sages who figured out the precise mathematical ways that the planets affect human behaviour. As I've said before, I truly think astrology is a load of bull. I'm just trying to point out that in spite of its non-validity as a predictive system, it appears to hold value for many people precisely because it engages their symbolic and ritualistic faculties in a way that they rate as being useful in some way. Of course, not everyone has to practice astrology to achieve this. You might prefer to read a good novel or play music instead, or find great meaning in the pattern that your turd makes when you take a crap in the morning. Mostly what bothers me is the tone that many of the commentators here take, that as soon as someone dares to veer from the party line, he has become "one of them." Also, just for the record, not once have I resorted to "quantum" explanations of anything. I happen to agree 100% with Skeptico's critique of "What the Bleep...," truly an asinine if unintentionally funny movie if there ever was one. Please don't dismiss me as a "woo" without considering what I am actually saying. There is a place for magic, imagination, ritual, indeed for superstition in the human landscape. Reason is very important, but it's not the only thing. If what I'm trying to say is psychobabble, then I am guilty as charged: a psychobabbler. As accused, I am an acupuncturist as well, which I know is tantamount to being a witch doctor among you guys. Hey, I'm mighty proud of my placebo delivery skills. But that is another argument for another time.

PS - I will go strangely silent for another two weeks, since I will be on vacation.

[Bronze Dog]

Try typing in paragraphs, sometime.

And while I prize reason as the best response to trying to solve problems and figure things out, it seems to me that people who ignore or diminish the artistic/symbolic etc. in their lives and are obsessively rational all the time might end up with a diminished existence.

Nice straw man, there. Why don't you try NOT making stuff up about Skeptico?

As I've said before, I truly think astrology is a load of bull. I'm just trying to point out that in spite of its non-validity as a predictive system, it appears to hold value for many people precisely because it engages their symbolic and ritualistic faculties in a way that they rate as being useful in some way.

That comes out my translator as: "It's useful because it's fun."

Yeah, that's real redeeming, especially since people make life decisions based on astrology. Some people even make life decisions for other people based on astrology, like a particular President of the United States.

If astrology was labelled as harmless fun, I wouldn't bother. But a lot of people claim that it can make predictions. That's not true, therefore we oppose it.

You might prefer to read a good novel or play music instead, or find great meaning in the pattern that your turd makes when you take a crap in the morning.

Nice way to change the subject and move the goalposts. Evade much?

Mostly what bothers me is the tone that many of the commentators here take, that as soon as someone dares to veer from the party line, he has become "one of them."

Because if you're not telling the truth, you're not telling the truth. If you are telling the truth, you should be able to show us how you proved it true. That's all we ask.

If you're excusing people from that obligation, that's even worse.

There is a place for magic, imagination, ritual, indeed for superstition in the human landscape.

True. Places like Final Fantasy and The Lord of the Rings.

Reason is very important, but it's not the only thing.

True. You have to have often irrational innovation to come up with potentially useful ideas. You have to have reason to kill the bad ideas.

As accused, I am an acupuncturist as well, which I know is tantamount to being a witch doctor among you guys.

It doesn't work, therefore it is tantamount to being a witch doctor. If you want to argue otherwise, prove that it works.

If what I'm trying to say is psychobabble, then I am guilty as charged: a psychobabbler.

I think you've moved into sophistry here: You've moved the goal posts and made stuff up about us.

[Big Al]

Kaz,

You wrote "For the record, my position is simply that the human mind seems to come hardwired to be ritualistic/artistic/symbolic/mystical, as well as rational."

I agree with you up to a point, but I don't believe that the human brain is hardwired to be rational. Many optical illusions and statistical facts stun us because our brains are hardwired to be simplistic.

The modern world with its jet aircraft, mobile phones and computers has come about as a triumph of education over indoctrination. We are no longer poor, frightened creatures scavenging in the African veldt and wondering where our next meal has come from.

I deny my hardwiring! Education has freed me from its shackles.

However, I do recognise the lure of horoscopes, religious ceremony, etc. Many people do feel lost in a confusing world, and they seek solace from some higher power - someone powerful to hold their hands. I don't decry that, and I'm not some skeptical crusader looking to crush the infidel, even though I don't share their views.

I do regard believers who post on an avowed skeptical blog as wishing to engage in debate. If they want to post proof or evidence of their claims, I'll read it.

However, if they are seeking to convert me, then I expect a little more than rhetoric and unverifiable anecdotes. OK, I can't deny that the odd frustrated ad hominem does escape my fingers, and I have to apologise for that.

[Jurjen Smies]

"And if you disagree then I have a bridge to sell you. Bring your check book."

On second thoughts, bring cash. I'm not going to take your word on how much there is in your bank account.

[Big Al]

You're too late, Jurien. I've already bought the bridge, so there!

It's mine, mine, I tell you!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!