Skepticism & Cynicism

SCI Home Page - Last revised:09/02/06

The following is a short excerpt from Marcia Angell's book Science on Trial.  In it she talks about skepticism and cynicism as general perspectives and as they relate to issues of science.  Come to class prepared to discuss this article.  

If Americans responded to medical news stories more critically, we would not be as vulnerable as we are to recurrent, often baseless, health scares. How should we respond? With a large dose of skepticism – which is not the same as cynicism. If, for example, there is a report that some food or habit or device is dangerous, people should ask themselves whether the news comes from a usually reliable source, whether it comes from one source or many, whether the alleged danger is large or small, and whether it is consistent with everything else we know about the subject.  Then, unless the evidence is over whelming or the problem urgent, we should defer a final judgment. The information can be stored away on a mental shelf until further information is forthcoming. Not all Americans are knowledgeable enough to perform such a preliminary analysis, at least not in all cases, but in my view most could do much better than they do. Why don’t they?

One possible reason lies in the entertainment value of scientific scares. Recent books (The Hot Zone, for example) and movies (Outbreak) about runaway viruses are ample evidence of this, adding variations on the venerable Frankenstein staples. As the line between fiction and nonfiction is increasingly blurred in the media, news of medical dangers takes on some of this entertainment value. Reports that cellular phones may cause brain cancer or that the nearby nuclear power plant is unsafe intrigue us and give us lively topics for conversation with friends. Recall that Connie Chung was the person who alerted us to be the putative dangers of breast implants and the conspiracy to hide them.  Her forum was one of an increasingly popular genre of television magazine shows that are hybrids of entertainment and news. Yes, we really do want to learn what will keep us healthy and what is a threat to our lives, but that is not the only motivation in embracing news of health risks. We also want to be entertained. Charges of a conspiracy by big business to unleash dangerous products on the public often with the alleged complicity of government agencies, add to the inherent interest of the story and therefore to its entertainment value. Righteous indignation is a strong stimulant and it can be a tight social bond among like-minded people.

Cynicism is much easier than skepticism, because it requires no distinctions.  We needn’t distinguish between reliable evidence and unreliable evidence, between big dangers and small ones, between likely effects and unlikely ones, between the reasonable and the bizarre. Yielding to cynicism over skepticism is therefore an easy way out.  It also dovetails with our increasingly paranoid interpretation of all sorts of events. Blanket cynicism gives the illusion of understanding and even certainty in an increasing unpredictable world.  It offers a consistent worldview.  Any health scare can be interpreted by the cynic as the “establishment” once more neglecting the interests of the public in favor of big business or some other light.  There are no uncertainties.  In addition, if we are cynical enough, we don’t have to think too much about the substance of each health scare.  Being absolved from thinking about science can be a great relief to people who find the prospect daunting.  Many people willingly abandon whatever scientific skepticism they might muster in favor of political cynicism.

But the opposite side of the coin of cynicism is gullibility.  If there are no distinctions to be made, then everything is equally likely.  Imagining white cells gobbling up malignant cells is as likely to cure cancer as surgery.  So are coffee enemas and macrobiotic diets. Acupuncturists, herbalists and homeopaths are as effective in treating heart disease as cardiologists.  And new diseases that are impossible to define are accepted wholesale every generation, with very little evidence, usually to account for fatigue and malaise – inevitable accompaniments of human existence since the beginning of time.  Early in this century these symptoms were attributed to something called neurasthenia.  Later, chronic mononucleosis was the favored diagnosis, until it was supplanted by chronic fatigue syndrome.  More recently, a group of self-styled experts known as clinical ecologists have introduced the diagnosis of total body allergy or total chemical sensitivity for the same sort of nonspecific complaints.  Each incarnation has been embraced by a large section of the public, who prefer the modish diagnosis to interpreting the symptoms as overwork or depression or simple chalking them up to an unknown disorder.

Cynicism and gullibility together produce a penchant for magical thinking and the suspension of logic.  Cynicism produces disdain for the traditional methods and sources of information; gullibility leads us to embrace idiosyncratic ones instead. Charlatans and opportunists have been quick to take advantage of these traits.  Bookstores are filled with self-help books that imply that sickness and death are optional or character flaws.  Their authors tell us that we can overcome even the most deadly diseases.  If readers will only follow the author’s regimen, which usually has to do with exercising the authority of the mind over the body, they are assured a long, healthy life.  Some authors, of course, proudly claim that their regiments are resisted or suppressed by the “medical establishment,” therefore tapping into the cynicism that is so important in promoting these books.  In addition of course, the whole notion that each of us can somehow ward off disease is enormously appealing to our wish for more control in our lives.