Guerrilla Skeptics

I happened across this piece in my internet meanderings today.

The Wall of Silence Around Lawrence Krauss

I don't want to partake in any kind of witch hunt involving Krauss (much as I regard him as an arrogant AH anyway) but my attention was caught by this little mention of those guardians of the skeptical faith, the self-styled Guerrilla Skeptics. 

For all that we in the secular community like to excoriate the churches for covering up for predators, I have to question if we’re that much better. When serious allegations of sexual assault were made against Michael Shermer, several high-profile atheist individuals and groups circled the wagons around him and tried to build a wall of silence – either dismissing the accusations as unimportant, outright refusing to mention them, or trying to dissuade others from doing so. To this day, Shermer hasn’t faced any personal or career consequences that I’m aware of.

Now I wonder if we’re seeing the same thing all over again with regard to Lawrence Krauss.

There’s a group of people calling themselves Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, whose original mission was to inject an appropriately balanced and skeptical viewpoint into articles on supernatural and paranormal topics. That’s a mission I’d be all in favor of. However, as Hayley Stevens points out, they’ve apparently adopted a new purpose: making sure the allegations against Krauss are kept off his biography page on Wikipedia.

Now, as the laughable comment about their "appropriately balanced" original mission shows, this is not some religious or Psi-friendly hatchet piece but a caution from within the skeptical ranks. For me, this speaks to the partisan tribalism of the Wikipedia censorship group from the outset.

I should add that the article has since been updated to show that the allegations against Krauss now appear in his Wikipedia biography. One wonders whether the GS will strike another blow for the cause and edit the page again.

The above mentioned Hayley Stevens had this to say about the group in question and their leader in particular.

Nothing is ever going to change because Skepticism has several large problems that it will fail to ever address effectively:

1. the movement often allows irrational people to be elevated to positions of power from which they’re almost untouchable when it comes to criticism
2. the skeptic movement is full of creepy men who don’t know how to behave appropriately around other people and they won’t go away.
3. the skeptic movement is full of the kind of people who support these bad people unquestioningly.
4. the skeptic movement is full of echo-chambers in which specific versions of truth are created and from which any information that counters this is shot down and, sometimes, even censored.

That final point is why I started this article by mentioning Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia – the self-appointed information masters of Wikipedia who operate from within a private internet forum and seem to focus on two things:

1. working exhaustively to edit paranormal/supernatural related articles
2. working exhaustively to edit the Wikipedia profiles of Skeptic celebrities, including people who are terrible people and criminals.

It is my opinion that their brand of skepticism is not the good kind. Recently, the Centre for Inquiry (CFI) appointed the head of the ‘Guerrilla Skepticism’ group, Susan Gerbic, as a Fellow which shocked me for a number of reasons. Firstly, because I don’t think Gerbic and her team of editors are very good champions of the skeptic movement. Secondly, when Dr Karen Stollznow spoke out about her experiences of harassment at the hands of a colleague at CFI, Gerbic’s son wore a t-shirt which stated he was on the “team” of the accused, to a lecture that Stollznow was delivering at an event.

Finally, I should add that I was at a loss as to which sub-forum I should select to post the above links. Despite the label of this one, I don't believe this is a "Skeptic vs Proponent" issue but more a social commentary. People who are dogmatic can be blind to other viewpoints and it should be a caution to us all.

There has recently been talk of YouTube redirecting viewers of conspiracy theory videos to sites such as Wikipedia or other such "trusted" sources. Bad, bad, bad! We should be trusted to make up our own minds regardless of the fact that there are those who will believe whatever is put in front of them, especially if it confirms their personal biases. I am steadfastly against someone deciding for me what I should accept as the truth.

There has recently been talk of YouTube redirecting viewers of conspiracy theory videos to sites such as Wikipedia or other such "trusted" sources. Bad, bad, bad! We should be trusted to make up our own minds regardless of the fact that there are those who will believe whatever is put in front of them, especially if it confirms their personal biases. I am steadfastly against someone deciding for me what I should accept as the truth.

To be fair, this sounds like a way of reducing the pressure on YouTube to remove more material altogether, and they say it is just a way of providing the viewer with additional information. The problem is that in some areas Wikipedia is "not a reliable source", to use a phrase beloved of some sceptics.

 The problem is that in some areas Wikipedia is "not a reliable source", to use a phrase beloved of some sceptics.

Exactly.

Sounds like the skeptic movement is a lot like other groups.

~~ Paul

Not surprised to see some materialist evangelicals as dedicated to protecting their own priests as some of the Catholic Church did for child molesters.

Extremists of any faith will circle wagons rather than see their reputations as carriers of morality sullied.

Though that brings to mind the moral impropriety of Richard Carrier, another materialist evangelical with charges of sexual misconduct against him...