Albert Burneko, Defector:
What is skepticism? In my lifetime as a word-nerd, I have known “skepticism” to refer to a sort of stubborn insistence upon rigor and evidence in place of things like dogma and “common sense.” A skeptic, by those terms, is someone who questions what they are told. Crucially, a skeptic actually questions, as in seeks answers. A person who merely refuses to learn what can be known is not a skeptic, but rather an ignoramus; a person who raises questions but does not seek their answers is not a skeptic, but a bullshitter. A person who rejects empirical knowledge, who refuses the answers that exist while requesting ones more to their liking that flatter their preference for unfounded contrarian gibberish and conspiratorial paranoia, is not a skeptic. They’re the exact opposite of that: a mark. A sucker. A credulous boob.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions, even about well-founded and understood phenomena — but the asker must be honestly willing to accept answers, not using questions as a sly means of discrediting actual knowledge and expertise.
My one complaint with Burneko’s piece can be found in this sentence a little bit later:
[…] At any rate, “vaccine skeptic” certainly is nicer and less contentious than calling Kennedy a motivated bullshitter, a peddler of antiscientific garbage, the type of dogshit-brained imbecile who will stiff-arm all that can be learned from centuries of medical research and practice because he preferred what he learned from a 25-second TikTok video made by a spiral-eyed homeschool casualty who’ll be hospitalized next month with an illness that hasn’t sickened a human being since the Bronze Age. […]
To be clear, it is not this sentence itself I have a problem with. This is phenomenal. Burneko’s essays are among my favourite things I read in any given year.
No, the problem I have is that this sentence sits in the middle of a paragraph about how the New York Times uses words like “skeptic” to launder and, by extension, validate the unhinged claims of people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but it dismisses his knowledge as coming from a “25-second TikTok video”. That is not where he is learning these things. What is offensive is that Kennedy’s view of health and disease comes from a mix of a specific ecosystem pushing these claims, and mainstream media outlets like the Times giving them a modicum of credibility.
It is not just Kennedy; a 2011 article in the Times about Andrew Wakefield is front-loaded with descriptions of the “controversial figure” and his “concerns about the safety of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine”. It takes a couple thousand more words to get to Brian Deer’s brutal debunking, but it is only afforded a small chunk of the article, with the author writing “it would take a book to encompass” the back-and-forth between Deer and Wakefield. To a casual reader, this article would feel like a cautious middle-ground approach even though, at the time it was published, Deer had already released the scathing results of his investigation in a series of Sunday Times articles and a documentary. Luckily, a book is now also available.
Voice-from-nowhere journalism may not be solely responsible for the beliefs of people like Kennedy, but it validates those views all the same. Media should be skeptical, in that it ought to continuously ask questions and articulate the answers and the evidence.
