Sound Skepticism vs. Motivated Reasoning

Science skeptic Steven Novella writing at Neurologica blog comments on a common thinking flaw that self-professed skeptics apply when they reject mainstream science. Novella uses Bill Maher as his example of skeptical thinking gone sour. Maher isn't the only one, but he is a very well-known example.

Novella writes:

I see Maher as a cautionary tale – clearly there is something wrong with his process, and since he is trying to be skeptical but also clearly failing, we should perhaps try to figure out what that is.

So what is Maher’s major malfunction? Again – based on the evidence in the public domain – what I have observed is that Maher does not really follow a process of logic, science, and critical thinking. He apparently takes positions for other reasons, based on ideology with a huge helping of arrogance. He then defends his positions with logic and critical thinking as much as he can. So when his positions happen to be reasonable, he sounds like a champion of critical thinking. When he defends the scientific consensus, like on global warming, or when he takes on religion-based anti-science, he champions skepticism. But then he pivots to positions that are not based on the scientific consensus, and he engages in willful motivated reasoning, untempered by humility. 

That, I think, is the cautionary tale. Just because you are right, in line with science, and can defend yourself with good principles of skepticism on some issues, that does not make you right on every issue. You have to approach each issue with humility and the acknowledgement that you may be wrong. You should be very concerned when your views do not conform to legitimate experts. The chances are overwhelming that the reason for the disconnect is because you are not an expert, and not because you are smarter than all the experts. (emphasis added)

The context is Maher’s commentary on anti-vaccine quackery. Novella characterizes Maher as trying to portray himself as reasonable, but spouts nonsense. Novella argues that Maher is wrong to argue that a doctor who relies on their own experience and subjective feelings trump expert-reviewed evidence and the standard of care. That kind of thinking makes a doctor a bad doctor because the doctor is always wrong with very few or no exceptions in modern times.

Novella also points out a straw-man fallacy that Maher bases on that “he is smarter and has a more thoughtful approach to medicine than the world’s medical experts who have dedicated their lives to thinking carefully about medicine.” In essence, the non-expert Maher insults real experts. Novella points out “further evidence of Maher’s guru-like medical insight, [when he counters] the mountain of scientific evidence he admits to with, ‘It seems more realistic to me…’ Sure, there may be many scientific studies showing no correlation between vaccines and autism – there is simply no signal in the data – but on the other hands we have these anecdotal reports.”

No signal in the data, but there are anecdotal reports.

Anecdotal reports are not scientific evidence. They are just anecdotal reports, nothing more. That is the same thinking that climate science deniers assert to support their beliefs while rejecting nearly all real experts and the overwhelming evidence they base their conclusions on.

Other commentary on Maher’s mental implosion:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/shame-on-hbo-bill-maher-interviews-dr-jay-gordon-and-the-antivaccine-misinformation-flows/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bill-mahers-show-has-gone-completely-off-the-rails
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninashapiro/2019/11/03/bill-maher-supports-vaccine-autism-connection/#7177154a723d