Cassandra – Or Why Being A Teacher Is The Worst Thing A Skeptic Could Be

In Greek mythology, Cassandra… was the daughter of King Priam and Queen Hecuba of Troy. Her beauty caused Apollo to grant her the gift of prophecy. However, when she did not return his love, Apollo placed a curse on her so that no one would ever believe her predictions. Wikipedia.

The irony seems to escape certain people. None more so than for me, right now.

We have a growing number of skeptical groups, who are starting to recognise the value of parenting and raising kids to ‘think skeptically and critically’.

Yet, they’ve always been around, I believed. It’s just that the advent of the internet, a growing number of opportunities to present at informal and formal skeptical gatherings and the opportunities we have to socially network and point out that a ‘pub isn’t always the most accessible place’ have perhaps made it more obvious. Times have not changed that much – just the milieu is magnified.

So why do I feel like being a teacher is the worst thing a skeptic could be? That we’re an embarrassment, a bore, a non-entity in skepticism?

At the last Dragon*Con, the final panel discussion at the end of the day asked the audience for things they’d like to see. Some of the ideas touted by the audience included a ‘magic show for kids / show them how to do it’. The opportunity to talk about communicating to the younger years. To perhaps learn some tricks, some skills, to know how to network better with their schools and have a say in policies that influence education. The historical precedence and continuing struggle with creationism in schools and abstinence-only education appears to be a relevant concern to skeptics, doesn’t it?

Dr Phil Plait stood on the stage and lauded those groups who interacted with the younger years. He did so again at the recent Gnomedex conference:

Phil will talk about science communication online, and how the new (now teenaged, in more ways than one) media has affected it.

As an audience member at Dragon*Con last year, listening to this, I felt heartened. I promptly put forward that the Mystery Investigators show should be a part of Dragon*Con 2009. I again asked that educators be represented on panels and that was granted. I was the one who contacted Derek Colanduno about this and fretted about the possibility that panels might have to be combined or taken away due to scheduling issues. No one has been more supportive than Derek Colanduno, I must add – both he and Swoopy were the first two people to encourage myself and Michael McRae, back at TAM5.

As a member of the Skeptic Zone podcast, we’ve had emails from people talking about how they want advice on how to communicate skepticism to young people. In one case, it was someone who was volunteering at a home for abused children. Another, a scientist who was a part of the very same ‘Scientists in Schools’ program that Prof Leonie Rennie talks about in episode #42 of the Skeptic Zone.

In the last few episodes of the Skeptic Zone podcast, you may have noticed Eran Segev – not only in his Grain of Salt segment, but in his interview of Adam Savage – brings up the point that he’s a parent. He’s interested in how skeptics raise children, gives his own advice. At Dragon*Con this year, Heidi Anderson will present as a skeptical parent, the same presentation she made at the Atlanta Skeptics, with more parents joining her for discussion.

Episode #36 has Theo Clark of the Hunting Humbug Podcast, also an educator, talking about the possibility of skeptics having a say in the new science courses for National Curriculum in Australia. The Perth Skeptics in the Pub have already raised the idea of ‘let’s talk about education in this state and can we be a part of helping out’. It’s certainly something that comes up in Atheist groups on forum boards, when religious education overlapping with paranormal or pseudoscientific beliefs are promoted in the classroom. Yet it’s not limited to atheist skeptics, I’m sure.

****

I have contributed a total of fourteen interviews to the Skeptic Zone podcast. Only six have been with educators / science communicators. Even the ones with people like Dr Karl can barely be said to be about ‘education’. I’ve presented at the Amazing Meeting 5 and at Dragon*Con. I ended up joining the Critical Thinking Education Group, and was recognised by the Australian Skeptics for the work I did with my school at the time. I contribute to programming for Philosophy and Ethics in my state and have worked at teacher training professional development classes for a number of years, on including skeptically-themed materials. It’s in a number of my blog-posts. I must be doing something, somehow, that has an impact… or am I?

Education matters have, as you might have noticed, been the focus of a few recent podcasts, not just the Skeptic Zone. Speaking Skeptically, with their discussion with Daniel Loxton. Point of Inquiry has always been interested in that regard, interviews with the coordinators / creators of Camp Inquiry on a few shows and even talk of books like Dale McGowan’s ‘Raising Freethinkers’. It’s been raised again and again when conferences are discussed, not just Dragon*Con – teachers made an effort this year at the Amazing Meeting to network. They’ll do so again at this year’s Dragon*Con, with representation on several panels.

Mind, at the last Dragon*Con, I personally went up to the one person, just one, who spoke out. A female podcaster/vodcaster, who discussed Penn Jillette’s condemnation of the US public school system at the Amazing Meeting (yes, where he said ‘better to be not educated than be educated by your government’) on their vodcast show with ‘Really Penn? REALLY?’ – and personally thanked them for challenging Jillette’s libertarian views. I asked if as Penn finished his sentence and while audience clapped their approval of his statements, if they recorded my friend screaming ‘BOOOO!!‘ from that same crowd.

I can’t recall anyone else making a similar statement in response at the time. Are skeptics so unfussed about education? If I stood on the stage and said ‘Better to be sick than to trust your government to supply you with medical aid‘, would I get the same aplomb?

Is that a fair comparison? Who would stand up with me if that was done? Or would I be the lone ‘Booo!‘ in the cheering crowd?

****

One thing that has got me concerned when people start touting how they want ‘kids to be critical thinkers’ is how they confuse terms. Defining ’skepticism’ as different to ‘critical thinking’ isn’t made clear by many people and is often assumed to be one and the same thing.

First of all, critical thinking is not the equivalent of ‘just good thinking‘. It is not the same as skepticism, either. It is simply the process of evaluating information for its worthiness against a set of standards. While philosophically, skepticism is essentially the epistemology that says ‘we can’t be absolutely certain of any information we receive being true, demanding a reservation of doubt in anticipation of further evidence’, today skepticism has become perceived as more of a position one takes against certain socially accepted beliefs – psychics, dowsing, et al. It therefore pays to describe precisely what one means by ’skepticism’.

There are also inherent problems with the word ’skeptic’. There are several interpreted meanings to the term, depending on the community you’re communicating with. Absolutely, ‘doubt’ lies at the core of all meanings of the term. Yet the placement of this doubt depends on the context of the term. Most people in the community tend to associate the word ’skeptic’ with an opposition to an otherwise accepted belief. In other words, it’s always a negative thing that conflicts with a perceived truth. Take ‘climate change skeptic‘ for an example.

Yet in broader communities such as the ones I’m discussing, to be ‘a skeptic’ is associated not with any one particular stance or context, but rather with an overall philosophy. This contrast makes it difficult to communicate the core goals of critical thinking. People will readily associate the word ’skeptic’ with an adopted position before they will with an epistemology. Personally, even though I share this philosophy, in my line of work I avoid nominating myself primarily as ‘a skeptic’, for this very reason.

Critical thinking has, to me, far more potential for creating a healthy discourse in society which can reduce the impact of unsupported (and potentially dangerous) beliefs. However it is by far the only piece of the puzzle, and to think it is ‘the answer‘ is ridiculous.

Again in my experience, a large number of influential skeptics within their communities have little idea of how education works or what role it plays in making people think skeptically about social beliefs. They mark success against obscure yard sticks which are adhered to inspite of their lack of scientific rigor and feel education should be doing more to inspire critical thinking. How many have appealed to education professionals or to departments to ascertain just how much is being done already?

I’ve tried to argue ‘okay, education is not just about X’ approach, and never got very far. I’ve also tried to explain ‘education is more than just communication’, and again, got the equivalent of blank stares. The short of it is that pedagogy (the profession of teaching) isn’t something people tend to recognise as important when it comes to skepticism. Sad, but true.

Sure, there are suggestions of a ‘good skeptical education’ meaning having people not believe in psychic powers or not believe in ghosts, however these statements need to be broken down further. On the surface they are relatively broad, impossible notions which have no relevance to the real world. Until that happens, success cannot be measured.

I think it approaches dangerous territory when a group that label themselves as ‘educational’ are promoting thinking skills and a philosophy are emphatically representing a conclusion. It then becomes a matter of telling people that conclusion X is wrong, rather than educating people in how to evaluate their thinking, and hopefully understand on their own that X is wrong. We shut down lines of communication, limit our range and even promote prejudice rather than truly having ‘education for all’.

To leave education, formalised or the discussion of how to do it well and effectively, out of the considerations of skeptical ventures like podcasts, sites, conferences and materials produced – is to do everyone a disservice.

It saddens me that in my personal experience – that people want to do that very thing. Particularly amongst those who I thought understood and supported.

Tagged as: Amazing Meeting, Australia, communication, conferences, Daniel Loxton, Dragon*con, JREF, Links Elsewhere, news, podcasts, Point of Inquiry, Science communication, skeptic education, skeptic zone, skeptical education, skeptical parenting, skeptics in the pub, Soccergirl