Pages

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Sceptical Activism and the Prime Directive

In a recent episode of the Geologic Podcast, George was asked a question about how he felt about sceptical activism in contrast to respect for cultural diversity. He immediately equated it to the Prime Directive, and discussed his initial thoughts on it.

This is a thought that has occurred to me as well. I was recently asked to participate in a panel discussion at an SFSA convention on the Prime Directive, so its intricacies are still relatively fresh in my mind.

The Prime Directive is a fictional law in Star Trek that prohibits Starfleet personnel from interfering in any way with members of other cultures. The assumption is that any interference, even if benevolent in intent, could have unforeseeable consequences that could potentially be disastrous.

The motivation for it stems from one of the underlying philosophical tenets that Starfleet adheres to: IDIC - Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Federation citizens are not permitted to assume that just because their technology is more advanced than other cultures, that they are superior to them in an way. And therefore may not impose their own values upon other cultures, but must rather allow them to develop on their own, in the hope that someday they might greet them as technological equals, and possibly as allies.

While this law makes sense in the context of a world where interstellar travel is easy, and where primitive cultures can exist in effective isolation until they are able to master Warp Drive, how applicable is it to 21st century Earth? And particularly to those of us who wish to advocate and propagate what we think is a superior technology: critical thinking?

In short: do I have the right to try and help a true believer by exposing them to critical thinking? If the believer asks for help, that would be one thing. But that almost never happens... in the vast majority of cases, the believer is happy in their delusions, and doesn't want my "help".

James Randi makes an analogy that sceptical activism is like running into a burning building and carrying some poor resident out over your shoulder. That certainly seems like the right thing to do. But what if that resident doesn't want to be saved? What if they like it in there, and are blindly willing to accept the consequences of remaining inside?

It seems silly that that might be the case, but it does appear to be. True believers seem content to sit comfortably in the blazing inferno, blissfully unaware of the danger they're in. And unwilling to listen to anyone tell them otherwise.

Conversely, a Christian might see my atheism as similarly sitting in the fire of eternal damnation. They're probably wrong, but they don't know that.

I see blogging as something of a compromise. I put content into the ether, and people can find it if they're looking. It's a pretty milquetoast medium though, because it's so passive. I would much rather have a soap-box in the mainstream media - television or radio, where I could actively get my message to a far larger audience. But do I have a right to do that?

Yes, I know that the woo faction don't hesitate to use the media to propagate their nonsense... and to substantial effect. Just as in Star Trek, races that don't adhere to the Prime Directive see no harm in exlploiting technologically less advanced people wherever they find them. But that doesn't make it right. Fighting fire with fire isn't necessarily the ethical choice.

So I find myself in something of a quandry. What do you think?

3 comments:

  1. The habits of mind we call “critical thinking” are extremely empowering. One need only look at what benefits science, which is just critical thinking formalised, has achieved for humanity. Nor does this advancement show any signs of flagging. One could argue forever, as some people do, the toss about whether science is good or bad, but the fact remains that without it, average life expectancy would be down significantly, and this planet would not be able to sustain nearly as many people at the standard of living many of them enjoy as it currently does.

    In this view of critical thinking’s status as empowerer and/or enabler, it would be immoral from the vantage of the very many disadvantaged in the world who aspire to a better life, even if they themselves don’t directly know it to be unethical, to withhold the promotion of this skill from others simply because others still don’t want to hear about it. Nobody ever said it would be easy, though. Furthermore, you have the inalienable right to voice your views and, quite apart from the obvious fact that the world needs to hear many more voices such as yours, those who feel offended are not obliged to listen. When last did you encounter an evangelist or promoter of woo who felt such qualms as you express, let alone one who was sufficiently self-critical to classify themself as some kind of imposition on others?

    Concerning the “Prime Directive” analogy, there’s a non-obvious assumption inherent in it that may not actually apply. It assumes that all civilisations will follow comparable development trajectories and at some point cross a critical threshold called “Warp Drive,” which is used as a marker for sufficient complexity. While I have no hard statistics to back this up, I harbour a suspicion that the populations of countries that are technologically advanced today have a lower relative rate of numeracy and scientific literacy than they did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Science and technology have made it easier to avoid pursuing those areas of study because it has raised average wealth levels, which in turn has enabled more people to pursue other careers, specifically in the arts and soft sciences.

    These factors, in my view, combine to present us with a strong case for even more strident promotion of the value of critical thinking because societies will become ever more polarised without it, until one day – maybe – the unthinking majority decides that the minority of us is no longer required. Doomsaying? Perhaps, but we need to guard against it. History, even recent history, is replete with destructive examples of anti-intellectualism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You make a very good case, but you raise one point in particular that I hadn't previously considered: that of democracy.

    I'm not a great fan of democracy, but it's the reality that the world we live in seems to see democracy as a desirable objective, and is moving that in that direction.

    In a society where the will of the majority is law, it's not a situation where I can have my values, you can have yours, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Rather whichever of us is in the majority will be able to decide the fate of the other.

    With that in mind, the propagation of my way of thinking is no longer a matter of interference, but rather of self preservation. If I want to ensure that I do not form part of an oppressed minority, I must do whatever I can to promote my way of thinking.

    So regardless of the benefits of critical thinking that you mentioned, it is my imperative to propagate it as far as possible, if for no other reason that to ensure my own capacity to employ it in my own life.

    So I must agree that when it comes to dealing with individuals within my own country (or social system) that may have different perspectives than my own, the Prime Directive doesn't seem to apply. It is inevitable that any conflicting perspectives must come into conflict, and that conflict must be actively resolved, rather than avoided.

    Thanks for putting some perspective on it for me!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Always a pleasure, 01, though nothing to thank me for.

    It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” — Winston Churchill

    Given the paucity of benevolent dictatorships, this seems about right to me.

    ReplyDelete