Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Counterknowledge and Criticism

By Gregon

A new skeptical book by Telegraph writer Damian Thompson titled Counterknowledge (Amazon US and UK) has been getting plenty of publicity in the UK lately, mainly through Thompson’s recent articles in the paper in which he rants about various aspects of the alternative genre, from ‘hidden history’ to conspiracies and alternative medicine.

In “Lies, Damn Lies and ‘Counterknowledge’“, and “How Da Vinci Code tapped pseudo-fact hunger“, Thompson goes on the warpath against us credulous and idiotic people interested in fringe topics, as well as publishers and authors who market and profit these apparent falsehoods. Graham Hancock gets his own mention, as do 9/11 conspiracies and Afrocentrism.

As part of my time as ‘Author of the Month’ at Graham Hancock’s website, I put forth my thoughts on Thompson’s views (in which I agree with some of his comments in principle, but take issue with plenty else). Graham himself stopped by as well, to give a response of sorts to his inclusion in one of the Telegraph articles. Graham writes:

As well as being skeptic-in-chief for the Daily Telegraph, it seems that the same Damian Thompson is editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald (see here: http://www.damianthompson.net/). Presumably to be editor of the Catholic Herald one must be a practising Catholic?

In that case then there is at least one large batch of “misinformation packaged to look like fact” that Mr Thompson must be obliged to take on faith — namely Catholic dogma. Or can one be a Catholic without subscribing to any of that?

As far as I can see, skepticism of the kind Mr Thompson promulgates is intended to deny the existence in the Universe of any mystery that “hard” materialist science cannot ultimately explain away. He must suffer from profound feelings of cognitive dissonance promoting this skeptical belief system about the nature of reality while at the same time continuing to function as a practising and believing Catholic.

I’d love to hear from Thompson himself on this. I also challenge him to participate in five Ayahuasca sessions conducted by an experienced Ayahuasquero and see whether his views about the nature of reality remain unshaken after that experience. I address the same challenge to Richard Dawkins. Anyone who admires and respects the scientific method surely cannot refuse to test their own belief system in such a simple and straightforward way.

As I point out in my post, one reason not to take Thompson too seriously is his obnoxious manner and possible lack of research – in a blog post on the Counterknowledge website, he describes Robert Schoch as an “amateur geologist”, and when called on this in his comments section, responded with a glib reply and failed to correct the original post.

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.
Related

8 Comments

  1. Sloppy research
    I find it amazing that a person accusing others of doing sloppy research, is guilty of doing exactly the same thing. For example, Thompson’s treatment of Gerard de Sede is incorrect; he is obviously referring to Philippe de Cherisey there. But, you know, they both speak French, so no doubt Thompson easily confused them.

    Thompson, and other sceptics, have the ability, just like a lot of “us” here, to erroneously cut through a complex argument and simplify it all too easily for the “case against” – whereas the same obviously happens for the “case for”.
    But in this field, I have only ever seen a few instances, where someone seems to have purposefully miscontrued – either through ignorance or a desire to prove his theory. I think this speaks volume for the word “amateur”, i.e. someone who loves the subject he writes about.

    What is beginning to worry me, is that within “our field”, and especially the UK, there is a growing number of “proper journalists” who seem not prone to inform the reader they write for several Christian magazines or newspapers as well. Thompson is not alone in that respect. When they tackle subjects relating to alternative history, science or religion, this is an essential piece of information, especially when these critics are prone to drag everything out the author’s personal life, as if it is relevant to the book.

    PhC

    1. Religious belief
      Normally I’d say a person’s religious belief is irrelevant to the public sphere and a private matter. But I must admit, in politics, and in debunking ‘alternative’ subjects, I do think it has relevance.
      Mindst you, I always offer a wry smile over that cetegory, ‘alternative’. If you place such subjects in the totality of history, you’ll find that the true ‘alternative’ is the material, reductionist view.
      Must put that to Dawkins and co some time. Watch them jump off the desk, their jowls dripping with saliva, and seething as they swing from the chandalier 🙂

      …

      A brilliant idea crawls out of the corpses of a hundred failures

      Anthony North

  2. source of amusment……
    public skeptics are to me a source of amusment. I’m sure if they were not making any money out of it they wouldn’t do it.
    What they may fail to realise is they actually influence people who, for their own reason, don’t wish to study in depth any alternative veiw point.
    But being skeptical is not the same as down right debunking. Which many skeptics seem to be.
    We would not have air planes, motor cars, space flight, electricicty or most other tech wonders of this age if the skeptic/debunkers had their way when these where just an idea of fantasy.
    Without the many who choose to think outside the box, put out there the strange visions, we would still be in the dark ages.
    A true skeptic will have an argument that should stand as much scrutiny as the object of his/hers skepticism.

    I’m skeptical of everything as I know that nothing is garanteed to be what it is. Being this way allows me to be free in a sence. I have no beliefs to stiffle the flow of infomation from all and every sector of reality.

    “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
    LRF.

    1. Valid Point
      Valid point, Floppy, but I think we’re using sceptic in a different light, here. I’m sceptical about most things, yes, but not that things happen, but why they happen. I rarely accept the ‘traditional’, accepted ideas.
      The sceptics we’re speaking of here are those who are reluctant to accept the phenomenon in the first place. Maybe ‘deniers’ is a better term, but that has become a hot political word, so useless. ‘Debunkers’ doesn’t really fit, either, as even ‘believers’ in a subject can rationally debunk parts of it.

      …

      Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

      Anthony North

      1. No time is not relative until one begins at achieve tremendous speeds at which point the phenomena becomes real but not in the day to day lives of people.
        In claiming you don’t accept traditional ideas implies that you have the educational background that allows you to challenge the thousands of scholars in a given field and the existing paradigm. HOW? The gut feeling school of scientific methodology? The internet school of Ancient Aliens Atlantis and Flat Earth Theory?

    2. You seem to confuse innovation with pseudoscientific nonsense. Skeptics are not in this case people who reject research on new treatments for Cancer or alternative energy. These are people who are critical of claims that have NO credible evidence to support them. Being critical of Flat Eath Theory is not to be closed off to a possible alternative to the existing paradigm as some issues are settled science. This piece attempts to legitimize unsupported nonsense that is trying to pass itself off as having met the standards of the scientific method which it does not. Surprise it here rather than in an actual publication of note that would see responses on mass listing why this is nonsense.

    3. Given that the basis for Skepticism is the lack of supporting evidence I’m at a loss in terms of what you want from them in terms of their argument. It’s not up to me to prove that Santa does not exist. Skeptics are critical of pseudoscientific claims that fail to meet the basic standards of the scientific method. Hancock has never come close to being able to defend his claims and in point of fact has now become a skeptic of his own earlier work.
      These are not people who are challenging respected scholarly debate which exists in every field. They are rejecting that which has NO evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny. Ancient Aliens, Big Foot, Flat Earth Theory…..

  3. Typical pseudoscientific response to a real phenomena which has created an epistemological crisis in the world. The internet has given all too many people with no scholarly training or credibility the ability to masquerade as if they were real researchers. Actual research requires data, evidence peer review and must be replicated. These are not alternative theories as that implies that they rise to such a standard. Hancock and Schoch are most commonly cited as pseudoscientific advocates of absurd claims that sell books to a certain class of persons. They have no scientific support and exist entirely outside of the rules that govern credible research thus they are free to claim anything they like. Hancock admits his work of 20 years ago is all but nonsense yet wants people to accept his new work in light of this fact.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal