It seems to me that, if one really wanted to focus on beneficial skeptical inquiry for some reason (and I don't believe that's necessarily a bad thing, for the same reason that I don't believe geek feminism needs to stop and wait for poverty to be solved, but in practice actual skepticism is indeed a lot of sneering at folks) it would be on a few things. One is non-evidence based providers attempting to displace somewhat-more-evidence-based primary care (as apparently some chiropractic practitioners are attempting in the US?), another is where non-evidence based care is actually very invasive and painful (as some late stage allegedly-curative cancer treatments are, involving, eg, ozone infusions and whatnot), another is where evidence-based care is being systemically subverted at a high level (as Ben Goldacre documented in South African approaches to HIV treatment) and another is where there is evidence of harm (as, apparently, there is with routine vitamin E supplementation?) Unsurprisingly, these often coincide with very powerful actors, including pharma companies, on the side of alternative medicine.
I do see some of this among some skeptical activists I follow, but selection bias is involved, because I don't enjoy sneeryness.
It would probably behoove many skeptics to regard themselves as activists and to make a statement of principles. Are they attempting to improve individual health? Public health? Save people money? What political beliefs and evidence do they have that make them thing that other people need their activism? What unique insights do they bring to the table? (I tend to be more sympathetic to working scientists or doctors than random computer geeks opining on medical skepticism, for example.) What other causes (eg health care funding reform) do they regard themselves as aligned with or supportive of?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-02-06 12:38 am (UTC)I do see some of this among some skeptical activists I follow, but selection bias is involved, because I don't enjoy sneeryness.
It would probably behoove many skeptics to regard themselves as activists and to make a statement of principles. Are they attempting to improve individual health? Public health? Save people money? What political beliefs and evidence do they have that make them thing that other people need their activism? What unique insights do they bring to the table? (I tend to be more sympathetic to working scientists or doctors than random computer geeks opining on medical skepticism, for example.) What other causes (eg health care funding reform) do they regard themselves as aligned with or supportive of?