At TAM 8, Phil Plait (AKA The Bad Astronomer), gave a speech which has since been called the “Don’t be a Dick” speech.
Phil Plait – Don’t Be A Dick from JREF on Vimeo.
I have to be honest: I think Phil has said something quite well that the skeptical community on the whole has yet to confront.
It’s very easy to get lost in an emotional response when you are confronted with someone else responding irrationally, and especially when you’re getting frustrated by their response. This is why it is absolutely critical for skeptics to refrain from the kind of emotional, ad hominem attacks that come so naturally in these situations.
On his blog, Phil has posted up a number of posts, showcasing his speech, the response to it, and his response to the response. Of note, he brings up the cases of two of his friends who are generally skeptic, but who happen to believe in a higher power. This resonates with me, because I have a particular friend who, for some time, has said that while she doesn’t hold with any particular mythos, she still feels like there is some sort of higher power or destiny or somesuch thing like that.
Now, I could get on my soapbox and evangelize atheism at her until I’m blue in the face, but what’s that going to do for me? If you don’t have time for the video, Phil breaks it down into two main points. First: What is the goal? Before you engage in any sort of confrontation with someone, make sure that you have your goal in the front of your mind, and ask yourself if what you are about to do is going to help. Are you going to be able to keep your cool? Just because you’re discussed this a thousand times on the internet doesn’t mean that you’ll necessarily be able to keep it together in a face-to-face discussion.
Personally, I don’t like to engage with these sorts of discussions without being prepared ahead of time, just so that I can be in the right mindset for a debate. Certainly I read and think about these things and try to be prepared to talk about these things at any time. However, like many skeptics, I like to have my reference material handy when I do these discussions so that I can point to the sources, or at least have the arguments and possible counter arguments fresh in my head.
The second point, the one that has become the name of the speech, is don’t be a dick. Phil asks the crowd how many of them previously believed in something irrational, and then asked how many of them changed their beliefs because someone got in their face and called them names. The first question got many, if not most or all of the audience to raise their hands. The second, got a smattering of people, likely many of whom were joking.
Skepticism is a process which can be applied to any claim, it is a single word to describe an adherence to logic when evaluating evidentiary claims. We, who are skeptics, have the advantage of having learned (at least partially) how to be skeptical. Most people have not. When you start talking about what makes a source authoritative, or how some logical connection is fallacious, people’s eyes glaze over and they stop listening because it sounds like you’re lecturing in the classroom. If we really want to convince people that what they’re thinking is irrational and possibly harmful, we have to be calm and collected, and be willing to stand firm in the face of resistance. We also have to pick our battles. Is a friend taking homeopathic medicine really hurting himself? Not really, just his wallet. However, if you forcibly voice your opinion to them, they’ll want to avoid conversations like that with you. If, on the other hand, you voice your opinion politely but leave the choice up to them, then you have a contrast for those times that what they’re doing will really hurt them like avoiding vaccinations for their kids, or visiting the chiropractor for neck manipulation.
I’ve only seen a couple articles ever which dealt with this topic but, like Phil, I think it’s long overdue for a conversation to help people understand just what is worth fighting over, and what you should just leave alone.
