Pseudo-Skepticism

Philosopher and skeptic Nikil Mukerji explains what happens when idea pathogens infect the brains of otherwise rational thinkers, most notably when the German skeptics organization GWUP went woke

Note from Michael Shermer:

As regular readers of my books and essays dating back to the 1990s know, I have long been interested not just why people believe weird things, but especially why smart people believe weird things. My short answer is that being smart and educated makes one better at rationalizing beliefs one holds for non-smart reasons. That is, many of our beliefs in the realms of religion, politics, economics, ideology and the many culture-war issues that fall out of these ideas bins, are held for personal, emotional, and especially non-rational reasons; but as critical thinkers steeped in the rationality-community known as skepticism, such beliefs must be justified through reason and evidence, even when none are available. This is what happened when the German skeptics organization GWUP (Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften) went woke. An esteemed member of that group—the philosopher Nikil Mukerji—explains here what happened when pseudo-skepticism in the form of woke ideology swept through the organization when its members’ brains were infected by the idea pathogen of far left politics.

Nikil Mukerji is a philosopher based in Munich, Germany. He serves as the scientific director of the German skeptic organization Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) and is also a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI). His research areas include the science/pseudoscience distinction, fake news, and the emerging field of "bullshitology." He is co-author (with Edzard Ernst) of Why Homoeopathy Is Pseudoscience and the author of Experimental Philosophy: A Critical Study.

Skeptics fight “idea pathogens“ to prevent them from infecting people’s minds. These idea pathogens adapt over time to evade skeptical scrutiny. From the perspective of the rationality community in general and the skeptical movement in particular, the most dangerous adaptation is the Trojan Horse Strategy of Pseudo-Skepticism, in which pseudoscience sympathizers disguise themselves as skeptics. This disguise—pseudo-skepticism—can be viewed as a Trojan Horse through which skeptical organizations are infiltrated and sabotaged from within. This is not just a theoretical threat—it has already happened and I was there to witness it first-hand when the German skeptic organization GWUP went woke. This article explains the strategy and how skeptical organizations can protect themselves against it.

The Immune System Analogy

Just as our body has an immune system that detects and neutralizes biological pathogens, our society has an “epistemic immune system” to combat what the behavioral psychologist Gad Saad, in his 2020 book The Parasitic Mind, calls “idea pathogens”—harmful ideas that can be dangerous if acted upon (such as anti-vaccination beliefs or HIV denialism), costly (like psychic readings and alternative medicine), and even counter-productive (as in the case of ideological opposition to nuclear energy).

Scientific skepticism functions as part of society’s adaptive epistemic immune system. Its first task is epistemic vigilance: like B cells—the body’s frontline detectives—skeptics search for emerging idea pathogens. Upon finding one, they proceed to knowledge creation to combat it.

During knowledge creation, skeptics produce epistemic antibodies in the form of arguments. Just as B cells generate diverse antibodies to bind various antigens, skeptics from diverse fields—science, technology, philosophy, medicine, psychology, and the like—address a wide range of pseudoscientific claims. Medical experts may debunk homeopathy, while psychologists tackle precognition. Open debate among skeptics is crucial to refining arguments, ensuring these epistemic antibodies effectively neutralize idea pathogens.

The next step is knowledge dissemination, akin to clonal expansion. B cells multiply upon encountering a pathogen; similarly, skeptics share their knowledge within the community, enabling others to replicate arguments against the idea pathogen. Externally, these epistemic antibodies are shared with the public through media publications.

Finally, skeptics engage in targeted responses, like killer T cells removing infected cells. When skeptics share findings through presentations and publications, some of them may take more decisive actions, such as legal measures or petitions.

How Idea Pathogens Adapt

As biological pathogens adapt to the immune system, idea pathogens adjust to skeptical activities over time. One strategy is latency: a virus lies dormant and reemerges when the immune system is preoccupied. Similarly, during the COVID-19 crisis, old superstitions, esoteric doctrines, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience—dormant in people’s minds—resurfaced and spread rapidly.

Viruses may also change surface proteins to evade detection, rendering existing antibodies ineffective. Likewise, idea pathogens may change to avoid criticism. For example, creationism evolved into “intelligent design” (ID) theory through a few superficial changes in language (Shermer, 1997). Skeptics’ epistemic antibodies could not “bind” as well to the mutated concepts of ID theory, possibly allowing it to infect more minds.

Idea Pathogens Going on the Offensive

Beyond reactive strategies, idea pathogens can aggressively sabotage the immune system’s function. Homeopathy proponents, for instance, try to interfere with knowledge dissemination by spreading conspiracy theories. They accuse skeptics of being paid shills, asserting that “behind them, like some eminence gris [sic], is the financial reach of the globalized pharmaceutical industry” (Milgrom, 2008, p. 590). The aim is to discredit skeptics so the public rejects their arguments.

While this strategy seeks to attack skepticism, it remains reactive and doesn’t interfere with skeptics’ research, internal debates, or external communication. A more aggressive method targets these activities directly. Recently, pseudoscience sympathizers, disguising themselves as skeptics, have done just that. They infiltrated a skeptical organization—GWUP—through a metaphorical Trojan Horse and seized control.

The Trojan Horse Strategy

In a surprisingly candid piece, two Women’s Studies researchers, Breanne Fahs and Michael Karger (2016), describe a blueprint for this strategy. They propose viewing Women’s Studies as a virus that “attaches to the ‘host’ bodies of other disciplines and disrupts and infects them” and “directs it to a new purpose” (p. 945). This is the Trojan Horse Strategy in a nutshell.

This strategy succeeds where deception meets trust, as the Odyssean myth illustrates. The Greeks presented their wooden horse as a gift, pretending it was an offering to Athena, signaling the end of the war. Trusting this, the Trojans brought the horse into their city. Greek soldiers emerged at night, opened the gates, and allowed their army to enter.

Similarly, pseudoscientists and their sympathizers can infiltrate skeptical organizations by disguising themselves as skeptics. Homeopaths haven’t managed this because their beliefs are too overtly unscientific to avoid detection. However, with a crucial adaptation, other pseudoscientists can employ the Trojan Horse Strategy.

Pseudo-Skepticism as a Trojan Horse

Pseudo-skepticism is that adaptation. Just as some viruses use molecular mimicry to evade the immune system, pseudoscientific ideas and their proponents can present themselves as skeptical and scientific, thus avoiding detection.

A skeptic strives to rigorously apply critical thinking methods for “baloney detection” (Sagan, 1987) and follows rational arguments wherever they lead. However, it may be hard to ascertain if someone genuinely possesses this “skeptical DNA.” A quick way is to check if they reject pseudoscientific nonsense like astrology or homeopathy, because genuine skeptics reliably oppose these ideas (because of their lack of evidence and not out of ideology or bias).

However, skeptical views can be parroted without genuine critical thinking. Pseudo-skeptics try to walk and talk like skeptics by adopting standard skeptical views. This allows them to enter skeptics’ organizations unnoticed. Once they have the numbers, they can occupy positions of power and redirect the organization, as Fahs and Karger put it, “to a new purpose.”

How Pseudo-Skeptics Seized Control of GWUP

The Trojan Horse Strategy is not just theoretical. In 2023, pseudo-skeptics used it to gain temporary control of the German skeptical organization Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP).

Over a few years, they infiltrated GWUP. Although they rejected the rigorous and impartial application of critical thinking—embracing woke ideology instead—they disguised themselves as skeptics. They adopted skeptical views on topics like astrology and homeopathy, participated in debunking pseudoscientific claims, expressed support for scientific inquiry, and made friends in the community, thus avoiding detection.

Like the Greek soldiers stealthily hiding in the Trojan horse, they “opened the gates,” recruiting more ideologically aligned pseudo-skeptics as GWUP members. In May 2023, they eventually gained control of the board and redirected GWUP “to a new purpose.” Using tactics of cancel culture (see Rauch, 2021; Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023), they systematically sabotaged skepticism’s epistemic immune response from within, as Zeller (2024) has documented.

They declared gender studies, postcolonial studies, queer studies, and similar fields “off-topic,” aiming to shut down GWUP’s epistemic vigilance regarding these areas. They interfered with the knowledge creation process by disrupting internal debate through ad hominem attacks on anyone who discussed forbidden topics (“misogynist!” “homophobe!” “transphobe!” “colonialist!”).

Physicist Holm Hümmler, chairman at the pleasure of the pseudo-skeptic board majority, declared topics like biological sex and Indigenous knowledge (Mātauranga Māori) no-go areas for skeptics. He also accused GWUP members interested in discussing wokeness of pandering to the alt-right (Hümmler, 2023).

Pseudo-skeptics also impaired knowledge dissemination by canceling and denouncing speakers with politically incorrect views and restricting access to GWUP’s communication channels for specific members.

Furthermore, they tried to sabotage targeted responses, defaming GWUP members for founding Skeptische Gesellschaft, a think tank discussing woke idea pathogens and other informational threats to society. They also threatened to take legal measures against one member of GWUP’s scientific counsel who had tried to resist cancelation by communicating with GWUP members through an external website.

In short, then, pseudo-skeptics at GWUP sought to shut down all skeptical activities regarding woke ideology.

Pseudo-Skepticism Is Deadly

As Fahs and Karger (2016) clarify, they “do not advocate the killing of the host” (p. 935). However, death is always an unintended consequence of a pathogen’s interference with vital processes. In the case of woke pseudo-skepticism, death would have been the inevitable outcome for GWUP.

Arguing that skeptics could still do important work in other areas, even if wokeness were off the table, ignores that wokeness invades all discourses, including the sciences (Coyne & Maroja, 2023). If skeptics cannot discuss wokeness, they are effectively shut out of these debates.

Moreover, pseudoscientists can immunize themselves against critique by linking their ideas to woke themes, as seen with queer astrology (Bedell, 2019) or postcolonial astrology (Kat, 2021). If skeptics could not criticize these because this is forbidden for ideological reasons, public trust would erode, and skepticism would de facto die.

How Skeptical Organizations Can Protect Themselves Against Trojan Horses

The Trojan Horse Strategy poses a real threat to skeptical organizations, as the infiltration of GWUP demonstrates. To safeguard against such internal sabotage, skeptics worldwide should take proactive steps to preserve the integrity and mission of their organizations. Here are some suggestions:

1. Clearly Define and Uphold Core Principles

Be explicit about your organization’s principles and values, and make new members declare their support for them. Signal, credibly, that you will enforce them if need be. At GWUP, we have introduced behavioral guidelines prohibiting actions like calling for cancellations based on ideological grounds, engaging in ad hominem attacks, or using bullying tactics. By clearly communicating these standards and requiring members to commit to them, you ensure everyone is aligned with the organization’s mission from the outset. You also ensure that those who do not accept the rules are discouraged from joining.

2. Strengthen Epistemic Vigilance

Encourage other skeptics to identify pseudo-skepticism early. They can do this by consistently using critical thinking across all topics, particularly when it comes to politically charged debates. This will make it easier to recognize thinking patterns that merely mimic skepticism but lack a genuine commitment to impartial inquiry when this conflicts with ideology.

3. Foster a Culture of Open and Honest Debate

Rationality is a collaborative enterprise in which reasoners try to spot each other’s mistakes (Pinker, 2021). So, make sure everybody gets to speak openly and honestly without fear of personal attacks. Don’t declare any topics off-limits, and prevent suppression of discussions through censorship.

4. Implement Transparent, Fair, and Rigorous Procedures

Like the Greek soldiers, pseudo-skeptics like to operate in the dark. They use bullying tactics and moral pressure behind closed doors and avoid transparent, fair, and equal voting mechanisms as well as rigorous decision-making processes. Make sure you have those firmly in place (Pincourt, 2021).

5. Protect Knowledge Dissemination Processes

Ensure communication channels remain open and accessible. Share findings widely within the community and with the public. Resist efforts to restrict access or cancel speakers due to ideological disagreements. Transparency allows for collective vigilance.

6. Encourage Diversity of Thought and Viewpoint

Cultivate an environment where a variety of perspectives is valued. Diversity in backgrounds and viewpoints enhances the organization’s ability to detect and challenge idea pathogens, reducing the risk of groupthink.

7. Raise Awareness About Infiltration Tactics to Protect Skepticism Worldwide

Inform fellow skeptics about the Trojan Horse and other strategies (see Pincourt, 2021) so they can recognize early signs of infiltration. Encourage critical evaluation of ideas and behaviors that may indicate hidden agendas contrary to the organization’s mission. Also, share knowledge across borders and support international skeptics. They may encounter similar issues in their organizations and benefit from advice.

8. Stay Alert to Emerging Threats

Remain vigilant for new forms of infiltration and ideological influence. The recent challenges posed by specific ideological movements are just one example; similar attacks could soon come from different parts of the political spectrum or entirely new ideologies. Recognize that any rigid ideology—whether from the left, right, or elsewhere—that suppresses open inquiry and critical thinking can undermine skepticism.

Vigilant Skepticism

By implementing these measures, skeptical organizations can fortify themselves against internal threats. As the immune system relies on multiple defenses, skepticism must employ various strategies to protect its role in society’s epistemic immune system. Clearly defining principles and requiring members to uphold them ensures everyone is committed to the organization’s ethos. Vigilance, open inquiry, and unwavering dedication to critical thinking are the best safeguards against Trojan Horses seeking to undermine the skeptical movement from within.

References

Bedell, C. (2019). Queer Cosmos – The Astrology of Queer Identities & Relationships. Jersey City: Cleis Press.

Blancke, S.; Boudry, M.; Pigliucci, M. (2017). Why Do Irrational Beliefs Mimic Science? The Cultural Evolution of Pseudoscience. Theoria 83(1), pp. 78-97.

Coyne, J. & Maroja, L. S. (2023). The Ideological Subversion of Biology. Skeptical Inquirer 47(4), pp. 34-47.

Fahs,B., & Karger, M. (2016). Women’s Studies as Virus: Institutional Feminism and the Projection of Danger. Multidisciplinary Journal of Gender Studies 5(1), pp. 929-957.

Kat, A. S. (2021). Postcolonial Astrology: Reading the Planets Through Capital, Power, and Labor. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.

Lukianoff, G. & Schlott, R. (2023). The Cancelling of The American Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Hümmler, H. G. (2023). Tweet Thread (30 October 2023). Available at: https://x.com/hummler/status/1719114920250265733.

Milgrom, S. (2008). Homeopathy and the New Fundamentalism: A Critique of the Critics. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 14(5), pp. 589–594.

Pincourt, C. (2021). Counter Wokecraft. Orlando: New Discourses.

Pinker, S. (2021). Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters. New York: Viking.

Rauch, J. (2021). The Constitution of Knowledge. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Saad, G. (2020). The Parasitic Mind – How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. Regnery Publishing.

Sagan, C. (1987). The Burden of Skepticism. Skeptical Inquirer 12(1), pp. 38–46.

Shermer, M. (1997). Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: Holt & Co.

Zeller, J. (2024). The German Dilemma Continues: Skepticism in the Face of Ideological Conflict. Skeptical Inquirer Online (Special Articles). Available at: https://shorturl.at/VoDub