Why skepticism?

   The question has been posed: why skepticism? The practice of doubting every claim one comes across until presented with compelling evidence seems, to many, to be a cynical point of view. Isn't it much better to give people the benefit of the doubt? Many would opine so. Allow me to attempt to explain my position on the subject.
   First, skepticism isn't really the automatic doubting of every claim one hears. Rather, it is simply a knowledge that there are those claims out there that are not backed up by fact, and a reticence to blindly accept something without it being supported by good evidence. It is the practice of thinking critically about all information one encounters, and attempting to evaluate that information based on the strength of the available evidence.

   In the Saturday edition of the National Post newspaper this past weekend there was an article headlined:

Handwriting Can Reform Problem Child, Analyst Says

It began thusly:

OTTAWA - Parents of difficult children can take some solace in the latest theory circulating in education circles that the key to changing negative behaviour could be as simple as changing the children's handwriting.
   Handwriting analyst Simon Zelcovitch has begun working with families to help transform selfish children into more giving ones, domineering children into collegial ones, and closed-minded or secretive children into more open, personable people - all by identifying revealing aspects of their handwriting and changing their writing patterns accordingly.
   "By altering their handwriting, the person will change their behaviour. There's absolutely a connection," said Mr. Zelcovitch, who is based in Toronto.

   That all sounds fascinating, except for one, minor, inconvenient fact. Graphology, the practice of discerning personality traits via a study of one's handwriting, is absolute bunk. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association conducted some properly controlled, blind studies and discovered that Graphologists were able to match up handwriting samples with the proper personality profiles of their owners no more often than chance would allow.
   Unfortunately, not everyone is aware that these studies have been done, and many people are open to accepting the claims made by Handwriting Analysts, like Simon Zelcovitch. In fact, the article in question states that the president of the association of Educators of the Gifted of Ontario says that he is sold on the idea. Here is someone who we trust to teach our children prepared to base some of his education policies on unproven - nay, disproven - theories.

   OK, so I had an advantage in that I was already aware of the research that had been done. How is someone, like, for example, the president of the Educators of the Gifted of Ontario, to approach these claims? Open, unquestioning acceptance turns out, in this case, to be a mistake. Yet, expressing doubt as a default position, as stated above, is somewhat cynical.
   Here is where the practice of skepticism comes into its own. Not as an expression of instant doubt, but as a desire to examine each and every claim one comes across in a critical manner that can lead one to either acceptance or doubt.
   In the article mentioned above there are several clues that might alert one to be cautious in evaluating the given claims. For example, in the section already quoted, the handwriting analyst makes his claim: "by altering their handwriting, the person will change their behaviour," and immediately follows it up with a strong statement of conviction: "there's absolutely a connection."  That need of the claimant to establish the legitimacy of their claim in such strong language should immediately register on the radar of a critical thinker. 
   In the article, Mr. Zelcovitch goes on to list at least four very specific characteristics of handwriting, and what personality traits he claims they display. This is another hint that his practice may be more pseudoscientific than scientific. A common tactic of purveyors of pseudoscience is a layering on of copious amounts of specific detail in an effort to convince their listeners a lot of study has gone into their claims.
  In explaining how his ideas might translate into improvements in one's child's behaviour, Mr. Zelcovitch says:

"The whole thing boils down to common sense. The child understands the negatives and positives. You say, 'Now look, here you have some negatives, and you can improve on those on your own.' They grab at that, and away they go."

   Common sense. Now there's a buzzword for the critical thinker to grab hold of. Instead of offering actual evidence to support his claim, the pseudoscientist implies that if you don't agree, there is something wrong with you, because, of course, it is "common sense."
   Finally, the very last line of this article offers the following observation:

Mr. Zelcovitch said many minds need to be opened well beyond the confines of the classroom. In Europe, for example, there's no shame in companies using handwriting analysis as part of a hiring process.

The accusation that one's detractors are "closed minded" is a classic argument offered by pseudoscientists of all stripes. Again, he has offered no support for his argument, rather he has attempted to undermine that of his critics by resorting to an ad hominem attack.
   Now, none of these things, taken on their own, are enough to call into question the claims of Mr. Zelcovitch. Even all together, they do not prove that his claims have no merit. But, to a critical thinker, they should be enough to give one pause; to send one in search of more information. And that search can very easily turn up the actual hard evidence upon which one can confidently form an opinion.
   At last, we come to the question everyone eventually asks: why should we care? Why should I, a meek and meagre blogger, go to the trouble to criticise Mr. Zelcovitch, and others like him? That answer is the easiest to explain. Mr. Zelcovitch, or Sylvia Browne, or your local astrologer, all have one thing in common. They are asking for your money in support of their pseudoscientific theories and claims. In many cases, you are paying them indirectly when they sell their ideasto government agencies. I know I don't want my money going to pay Mr. Zelcovitch's speaking engagement fees so that he can poison the minds of the people who teach my children.

   Why skepticism? That's why skepticism!

Wanna practice some critical thinking? Here, give this Skeptico article a read: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/10/limbo_mumbo_jum.html

tags: Skepticism