Home > Miscellaneous Articles > On Ridicule

On Ridicule One theme that becomes apparent if you read the so-called ‘sceptical’ literature or web sites, is that certain ideas that don't fit in to the established scientific mould are ridiculed. Anti gravity, aliens, homeopathy even hypnotherapy, the list of techniques that are not approved of by these self-appointed guardians of correct ideas is ever growing. Ridicule is a method favoured by bullies and for a similar reason: bullies pick on those who don't conform. I've mentioned before that in schools that don't have school uniforms, each group has its own ‘uniform’: the ‘Goths’, the ‘geeks’, the ‘hippies’ etc. Those who really don't conform are picked on, as they don't have the support of a peer group. So-called sceptics (who are really debunkers) use the same technique. If you come up with ideas that do not fit in with the established view then you are fair game for ridicule. Often when people outside of the scientific establishment question current orthodoxy, they are ridiculed, but later on the scientific community latches on to the ideas. Sceptics argue that that means the process is working. When the idea is first proposed it has not withstood scientific investigation and then, when it has been tested, it is adopted. This is a misrepresentation of what happens. If the ideas were simply sent back with a notice such as ‘this may be true but needs further study’ and in the interim labeled as ‘not proven’, what they say may be true. In fact what happens is that the ideas are rejected as ridiculous and ‘unscientific', even though they may have passed scientific tests or have never been tested scientifically. Not tested is not the same as unscientific. The world is full of ideas that have been ridiculed by the scientific community and that established scientists would study only at the risk of having their funding cut off. In Alternative Science writer, broadcaster and journalist Richard Milton dissects some of the allegations made by sceptics and shows that their criticisms are often far from scientific. Sceptics stifle non-conformity. Another example of this is a report which explains an anomaly which pendulums show during an eclipse. This was first noticed in 1952 but was rejected by the established scientific community although this issue has been known about for years by alternative scientists. There are still ‘scientists’ who would rather such anomalies were not investigated. I've discussed before (‘Privacy’) how there is a pressure to conform and this conformity stifles individual thought. In one sense, there is a trade off between efficiency and non-conformity. The army for instance, emphasizes efficiency and doesn't encourage individualism, except in certain specific areas. Artists often emphasize what they say is their non-conformity, but often rely on the state for sustenance. A lot of what passes for non-conformity is simply conformity to a different standard. People have their noses pierced in order to identify themselves as individualists, whereas in fact, they wear their piercing as a uniform.