Time for another Why I’m Doing This entry!  Hopefully my entries demonstrate that there’s a lot going on behind the scenes of some very simple statements.  A blithe assertion or association might easily require some serious investigation to sort out.  I’ve actually lamented this point in a few entries, especially while discussing the Gish Gallop (Entry 15).  That wasn’t prudent of me, for a variety of reasons.  Feel free to rap me with a rolled-up newspaper and say “bad skeptic.”

In my defense, the necessity of inquiry can definitely be troublesome.  If you’re debating with someone whose position is not bound by logic and reason and evidence, then you’re obviously at a huge disadvantage.  They get to just make shit up willy-nilly and/or use shoddy (yet superficially compelling) lines of reasoning.  You need a deep breadth of knowledge on the topic to ensure that you’ll catch them in any outright lies, and you need to be pretty versed in debate so that you won’t succumb to fallacious arguments.  It’s a tall order.

Outside of public debates, such arguments become open to inquiry.  You can sit down and dissect what is actually being said.  Factual claims can be checked, and background information can be gathered.  Positions can be clarified, and heat-of-the-moment emotion can (ideally) be put aside.  The structure of the argument can be analyzed, and logical fallacies can be flagged.

This sort of inquiry is the bread and butter of skepticism.  (One of the leading publications of the skeptical movement is even called the Skeptical Inquirer.)  After all, it’s really the only way to get to the bottom of something.  Just accepting everything that’s told to you without question is an absurd proposition, and nobody actually does that during their day-to-day life.  Skeptics merely set their bars for buying arguments a bit higher than most people, and such standards often require some digging and thinking on their part.

This inquiry can also be viewed at the first step of the scientific method.  In a way, it’s the background research you have to do before you make your hypothesis.  In practice, most people often end up stopping there.  This makes your inquiry essentially a reflection upon past hypotheses, which is certainly fine because science doesn’t mandate that we retest stuff every time someone brings them up.  Researching past results is key to understanding the state of the field; you have to ensure that you aren’t beating a dead horse or proposing ridiculous ideas.

Some lucky skeptics get to continue on down the scientific method checklist; Joe Nickell springs immediately to mind.  While some of us have to stop our inquiry at reading (due to, say, money and jobs), his job is to go out and actually investigate the paranormal.  He’s written books on lake monsters, sideshow tricks, religious relics, alien abductions, haunted houses, psychics, and many other paranormal topics.  He’s a treasure trove of skepticism, and a huge asset to the movement.

Joe seems like a great guy, but listening to his interviews can get frustrating because he often disparages the sort of inquiry I’m talking about as “armchair skepticism.”  It’s a fair point as far as it goes, but I disagree with the premise that you always have to go out into the field and poke the pseudoscience to make sure it’s not real.  Over-applying this idea ignores the progressive nature of science; we shouldn’t be expected to send field researchers to the garage workshop of some guy who advocates phlogiston theory.  Moreover, I really just didn’t have the scratch to travel to the southern hemisphere for my entry about the direction that toilets flush (Entry 21).  Sorry, Joe, but we all don’t get to be “real” skeptical investigators.   

This sort of inquiry isn’t just a tool for the skeptic.  It’s a great way to learn about new and interesting things.  Before you scoff and dismiss me as a nerd (assuming you haven’t yet), think about what you actually spend your time doing online.  If you’ve managed to find your way to my blog, I’m going to assume that you spend quite a bit of time on the internet.  The web surfing you do on a daily basis is essentially learning about things you like.  Maybe you’re reading a news article and see something that strikes your fancy, so you highlight it and right-click to search Google for it.  (Who’s the nerd now?)  Most skeptics’ inquiry is very much targeted web surfing taken with a large grain of salt.

Lastly, skeptical inquiry is a good way to learn about logic and formal arguments.  Philosophy and logic can be painfully dry, and the thought of sitting down and studying formal logic on the internet would probably drive anyone outside into the sunlight and fresh air.  But, seeing woo-pushers raise the same poor arguments over and over again slowly but surely teaches you about logic.  When I first was getting into skepticism, I remember being overwhelmed by other skeptics’ ability to effortlessly dissect crappy arguments and pinpoint logical fallacies.  I even thought to myself: there’s no way I’m getting this without studying, and the hell I’m doing that!  But, now it just comes naturally when I’m having a discussion with somebody.  Calling out crummy logic has gradually become part of the way I argue, without any conscious effort on my part.

So, there you go: another reason I’m doing this blog is to emphasize the importance of inquiry.  It’s something that you do countless times every day; every time you hear a new piece of information, you perform a little inquiry inside your head without even being cognizant of it.  Pending your semiconscious examination, you accept or reject the tidbit of information.  If you want to avoid accepting crummy ideas, you have to make this process a little less passive.  You’ll have to check some facts, analyze some arguments, and avoid some cognitive biases.  This is certainly not trivial or easy, but the alternative is believing in utter bullshit.

It’s all fun and games until you’re one of the people the headline People Increasingly Turning To Psychics For Financial Advice refers to.  Think about it.  [Gah!  The damn psychics didn’t see the financial crisis coming, so how are they going to scrye you out of it!  Are they serious?!]  Okay, I’m going to stop thinking about it … feel free to continue on your own.