When Is It OK to Insult an Alternative Idea?

4/10/2013

If you’ve been following my Twitter feed or have been reading the comments on my various blog posts, you’ll know that I’ve recently received a great deal of criticism for being too rude to alternative history speculators. According to several alternative authors and their supporters, it is wrong of me to describe the authors or alternative theories in non-neutral language, an apparent prerequisite for participating in “honest” (read: ineffective) criticism. To be honest, I didn’t think I was particularly rude to alternative theorists given what they routinely say about mainstream scientists, archaeologists and historians, though I do in fact use some non-neutral language from time to time.

I do that because the alternative authors themselves are decidedly non-neutral. Aside from their standard accusations against the evilness of skeptics and academics in general, they also, as a rule, tend to boil over with upset and vitriol whenever their speculations are challenged, no matter how politely. Erich von Däniken, after all, said that alternative speculators were in “a war we have to win” with skeptics and academics, and Graham Hancock claimed that he had no obligation to be fair or neutral and that he could and would use “innuendo and anything else that works” to blast skeptics and academics out of the water.

Against this, these alternative writers want to restrict skeptics like me to levels of polite formality that would inspire guffaws from even Victorian aristocrats. Of course, doing so means that criticism would be ineffective and would also create a false dichotomy whereby alternative ideas are granted prima facie equivalency with science. While they can use innuendo, rhetorical questions, fabrications, and ad hominem attacks, I’m supposed to pretend that they are dispassionate researchers with special access to truth who must be handled like visiting dignitaries.

Well, I don’t pretend. If I occasionally use less than polite language, take a gander what they have said about me; and I am not even among their greatest enemies. I’m not sure you can say my criticisms are any harsher than those offered by alternative writers themselves. I’ve restricted the following collection only to messages from published alternative speculators, or those who have appeared on television, speaking about how much they don’t like me. What they have said about more famous skeptics and scientists is very much worse.

Just the fact that you so desperately attempt to dismantle our theory proves that we are on the right track. Otherwise you would not feel so threatened by our theories! ... I will certainly not forward your questions to Erich [von Däniken], and his secretary has already been informed about your malevolent intentions.
- Giorgio Tsoukalos, July 29, 2003

Your other questions, by the way, are maladroit attempts to sucker me into saying something that you will be able to use for a work quite obviously designed to trash whoever and whatever does not correspond to your foregone conclusions. Sorry. I won’t play.
- John Anthony West, November 14, 2003

What else can I assume is inaccurate in this book [Cult of Alien Gods]? This guy just plain doesn’t do his research.
- David Childress, 2006

Stop talking nonsense. […] it’s merely to make [your] blog entry look longer than it should be. […] thanks – but seriously, I am not thanking you. […] Somehow, I feel I stir something in you that you so hate, that I feel that whatever I do, I cannot change that.
- Philip Coppens, October 2, 2012

I now realize that you and most of your followers are the very same people I have had issues with for years. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but no longer. […] In the past, the strong negative reaction I've received was based on fear and I sense that is part of what is going on here. […] Based on the evidence provided by this blog, I've concluded this [is] a site driven by something closer to religious zealotry rather than truly scientific thinking. Paying lip service to "science" doesn't mean you practice it.
- Scott Wolter, January 27, 2013

Jason, before completing your book, perhaps you should read my book, "Itsapa, the Itza Mayas in North America." You can download for $15 […] I really could care less what you say, except you are misleading people by pretending to be an authority on something that you are not.
- Richard Thornton, March 19, 2013

Nicely snarky comment Jason. Rush Limbaugh would be proud of you. He uses the same technique to accomplish a similar objective. He sells advertising time by stirring up controversy. You're trying to sell your books by stirring up controversy. Limbaugh is a pundit. You're a pundit. Perhaps you could illuminate us with news of any spike in your book sales that your Scott Wolter muck raking has provided. Clearly you've had a traffic spike in visits.
- Steve St. Clair, March 30, 2013

Jason should get another job and let us do what we know. […] OK Jason I see I will have to help you on your stupid questions. […] What you say about Scott or the show is one thing but you do not know how to treasure hunt or review anything. […] If you are so good at what you do, then do your homework.
- Dennis Parada, March 31, 2013

You live in a glass house, Jason, so you ought to beware the "rocks" you lob from your Skeptical perch. […] Your research, so far, is no "better" than anyone you excoriate. We are ALL skeptics, Jason. Question is, are you a "Big 'S'" or "Small 's'" skeptic? An rank denialist or a critical thinker.
- Scott A. Roberts, April 7, 2013

And that’s just what the public figures say. Among their readers and viewers, the reaction is so very much worse. I’ve received a couple of death threats and absolutely sick psychosexual craziness. The following example is a pretty standard reaction (one of dozens of examples) from an alternative supporter. I have reason to believe this particular message may even have been sent directly by or on behalf of Sean David Morton shortly after I exposed his fake PhD:

Hey mother fucking Jason asshole... do not criticize other person's ideas & their proficiency. You said about Morton’s education background. […] You sunner da mother fucking asshole, listen to this... any person can gives their ideas about anything , as we seen in Ancient aliens T.V. series.. but mother fuckers like you do only criticize their ideas. Immediately close your website bitch.. and fuck ur MOM…& DAD and rube ur peeeenesss hey hey...
- supporter of Sean David Morton, March 2012

Yup, I’m the one who’s beyond the pale in my outrageous rudeness. But, why limit ourselves to just me? If you’d like to share your favorite ad hominem attack from an alternative theorist, please feel free to do so in the comments. If I get enough of them, I will put together a special page contrasting their rhetoric about dispassionate inquiry with their nasty attacks.

35 Comments

Christopher Randolph

4/10/2013 04:14:18 am

Jason -

I believe you've been entirely too polite!

I have seen actual scientists with unpopular hypotheses treated rather badly by other scientists, and that strikes me as wrong. But when anyone with zero training in the field they write about claims to be better at it than the full compliment of the world's professionals? Let 'em have it.

There are two categories these people fall into: charlatans and people with mental disorders. The former deserve no quarter and while I feel a bit bad for some of the latter, it isn't your responsibility to coddle their ideas in public. In any event people who aren't thinking straight can't be expected to respond to normal social cues that you (or anyone) are/is taking some care to be respectful.

By all means keep up the good work and don't worry overly much about it.

CFC

4/10/2013 04:23:21 am

Ditto!!!

L Bean

4/10/2013 06:15:21 am

Tritto - charlatans and nutters. I feel for the mental cases, but really no rude language is too rude for these types.

Ridicule and mock, lads. Ridicule and mock.

temet

12/29/2014 12:42:55 pm

Quatro! (hehe get it?)

Sticker

4/10/2013 03:17:49 pm

Right on.

Steve St Clair link

4/12/2013 08:23:06 am

Ah, yes Jason. You have a heavy cross to bear. But before you feel too sorry for yourself, remember - it's your website, your words, and your invented controversy.

Jason Colavito link

4/12/2013 09:08:14 am

I was just using messages directed at me as an example. Giorgio Tsoukalos, Graham Hancock, Scott Wolter, and others have said much worse, and more vehemently, about other skeptics. As the instigators of "alternative" history, they are the ones generating "controversy" by claiming that academia is in a conspiracy to suppress the truth, which, for a fee, they will provide.

B L

4/10/2013 04:38:36 am

It would seem that most of these guys put the same amount of study into the English language as they do into actual history and research.

Cathleen Anderson

4/10/2013 06:27:27 am

I had noticed that too.

Mila

4/10/2013 04:50:56 am

Thanks for good laughter .Those quotes are priceless. It reflects how society has been domb down.

BTW, it sounds that fake credentials become a new game as I have recently have found out more impostors.
No in alternative history but in alternative healing though. Should we say alternative means a fraud? LOL!

Paul Cargile

4/10/2013 04:53:39 am

Don't you just love the self-supporting affirmations of "if you hate our ideas, we're on to something"? What we skeptics dislike is the usurpation of legitimate science in favor of myth.

And I doubt that Steven St. Clair has ever listened to a single Rush Limbaugh show.

I guess, Jason, the line about heat and kitchens is applicable.

The Other J.

4/10/2013 06:57:53 am

"Just the fact that you so desperately attempt to dismantle our theory proves that we are on the right track."

Yeah, because a negative opinion toward an idea is proof of its validity. Cf. bloodletting for fevers, trepination for epilepsy, preparing your own fugu sushi, showering in DDT to avoid mosquitoes, checking if someone's a witch by testing their ability to breathe under water.

I just listened to your interview on the Ancient Aliens Debunked podcast, and noticed a trend: Von Daniken recylced the ideas of Pawles and Bergier as truth, and now Tsoukolos is recycling the ideas of Von Daniken as truth. I suppose Tsoukolos isn't hiding the fact that they're Von Daniken's ideas, but it usually takes an active nod in Von Daniken's direction, like a special, for that to be made clear. Otherwise it seems as if the ideas are pouring out of his own unruly-haired head. (And I say that as someone with decidedly unruly hair.)

4/10/2013 07:08:38 am

The other day I said in a comment that ridicule of bad alternative ideas might be better done through satire.

The Onion's already on it:
http://www.theonion.com/video/popular-childrens-book-author-reveals-the-spooky-t,31937/

Frankie M.

4/10/2013 09:24:52 am

The hypocrisy of alternative theorists criticizing you for utilizing allegedly non-neutral comments is simply humorous; just look at the tone Walter takes in AU and how much he curses when speaking of mainstream scientists and academics, hardly that of a respectful professional. Regardless, if people like you didn't take such an aggressive stance against alternate theorists (who are equally aggressive, and more often than not much more so), kids are going to grow up simply assuming the veracity of absurd ideas like there being 'giants in Minnesota'...

4/10/2013 09:51:32 am

Jason,
Your reviews compared to these programs and alternative theorists ideas is a question of values. You value a careful, thoughtful scientific approach to research and investigation and you believe programming should be held to a set of standards. What they all seem to have in common is they value: ratings, self promotion and their commercial interests. It's not that you don't value entertainment, but what you consistently expect is that it must be done correctly and not misinform people.

When I read comments like these programs help people have an "open mind" or "question what they've been taught", I can agree that it is good to be a critical thinker and expand your horizons, but these programs don't accomplish it in an honest and productive way. Good programming is like fine wine or a great meal. It takes time and there is a lot of preparation to make it just right. Scientific investigation requires patience and struggle. These programs make a mockery of good, careful research. It pains me to watch them so the ideas others have expressed about making fun of these programs appeals to me...like America Unhinged and the Unicorns.

I read and share your reviews with my friends and colleagues, because they appreciate what you do as a service to young people and the general public. Your reviews bring life to values that seek truth!!!

Please, keep it up!!!

John McKay link

4/10/2013 03:53:54 pm

When Is It OK to Insult an Alternative Idea?

Whacking them in the face with facts is not insulting them. How gently or abruptly you want to do that is really nothing more than a stylistic choice.

Summer Seale link

4/10/2013 08:54:39 pm

I'll proudly say what I think: those "alternative" people are bloody morons; fakes; charlatans; liars; cheats; disreputable thieves and worse. I loathe them, I hate them, I despise them utterly for what they are doing and what they have done. They disseminate countless "repackaged" anti-semitic lies, anti-scientific lies, anti-historical and anti-factual lies. They dumb down the entire population day after day with their miserable bullshit. And to reiterate what Hitchens said about Falwell: if you gave them an enema, you could bury them in a matchbox.

They're literally full of shit.

And that's just me waking up with my coffee. So I feel that you are absolutely more than polite, Jason, and keep up the good fight. =)

4/10/2013 08:56:37 pm

Alright, maybe not literally. It was poetic license. =)

Tara Jordan

4/10/2013 11:38:26 pm

Kafkaesque situation, Jason. I have been critical of you for being too nice,It is actually pretty hilarious to witness the snake oil peddlers, the New Agers & the related cohort of intellectual midgets,accusing you of being vitriolic.We should send all these charlatans & their supporters into reeducation camps.

4/11/2013 12:49:53 am

I always wanted to see Deepak Chopra, or some of his followers, getting brutally mugged. Then, I'd remind them that they "made their own reality" with their "quantum thinking", so why should they complain? =D

I'm evil that way.

4/11/2013 02:28:01 am

haha!

If they get mugged, it was your quantum thinking that made their reality.

What an entangled quantum web we weave.

4/11/2013 05:35:25 am

“Then, I'd remind them that they "made their own reality" with their "quantum thinking",”

I would add New Age brainwashing - “and think positively” lol

4/11/2013 04:08:18 am

I would say that as soon as whoever is proposing the idea stops actually investigating their idea and starts acting like the non critical thinking....it's ok to start ridiculing the idea.

4/12/2013 05:18:52 am

A great point Cathleen.

Scott Wolter is a prime example of that. There is credible information and new discoveries that counter and/or create serious doubt about claims in his self published books and he just ignores them and never responds to this information in a professional manner.

A common characteristic is that these alternative theorists have decided to create a story and stick to it no matter what and if you challenge them it’s taken as a personal attack.

Science is not a personal matter and real scientists welcome the challenge and keep looking for answers.

Varika

4/11/2013 10:22:16 am

Do threats to the destination of my purportedly immortal soul count? I've gotten RIDICULOUS numbers of those for correcting the inaccuracies in street preachers' messages. ESPECIALLY those where they're misquoting parts of the Bible and I correct 'em, for some reason.

Gunn

4/11/2013 12:46:37 pm

Nobody likes to be "fronted off," but sometimes it needs to be done for the simple truth, if nothing else, when actual harm is being done.

(And I guess there are different ways of tormenting someone.)

charlie bear

4/11/2013 04:53:44 pm

Jason,
I agree that you are very polite and civil towards those folks. At times, maybe overly so, but you have every right to be critical of garbage. They repeat the same old stuff over and over. My wife likes the "Ancient Aliens" programs, while I watch with her at times, I comment on the shows and I am not always so polite as you are.
I admit as a 19 year old Marine in Vietnam in 1970-71 I read the von Daniken book; "Chariots of the gods". Hey, I was staved for reading material at the time. I thought, well, that was interesting, but didn't "buy" into it.
The new(er) crop of his side kicks, Giorgio and Childress for example are even worse.
I had noticed a development that may help explain their increasing nastiness in how they now respond to any critical comments directed at them, recently, not the current season, the whole series seemed to me to have taken on a religious tone. The "ancient aliens" theory (and theorists) are almost (maybe actually) treating their "theories" as an actual religion and they intend to be the highest of the high priests of said "religion". Any "philosophy" (dare I call this such?) that cannot stand up to any criticism should fail and fail spectacularly. Just the opinion of an old guy who loves to keep learning. Thank you for your web site, blog, and all that you do to educate and inform. NO, I am not trying to "suck up" or "score points", just giving an honest opinion.

John Hoopes link

4/14/2013 01:55:38 am

It was these kinds of comments that recently shut down this discussion on the TED website one week early.

Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license.
http://www.ted.com/conversations/17348/discuss_the_note_to_the_ted_co.html

Julia link

4/14/2013 02:33:22 am

I help admin an Egyptology group on Facebook. We took in a person who then started on about 'alternative' pyramid-building theories (as does happen on a regular basis!).

When we asked him to stop he accused us of being close-minded. We bounced backwards and forwards for a while until all the admins decided we'd had enough. We kicked him from the group, so he set up a second Facebook account which he used to get into the group and posted the following rant (names removed for obvious reasons!):

"TO THE ******** GROUP.
What a bunch of self-satisfied sanctimonious prigs you are.
Most in your group have little or no qualifications. One says she is a “Domestic Goddess.” Another is a Wiccan, who posts about origins of Santa Claus or Father Xmas on your “Egyptology” site One member decorates the Sphinx with a Santa Hat.
One has property to rent….
I have been reading your groups posts for a while now. Mostly boring and self-serving.
To anything interesting or original, you object. There was someone called ***, who tried to use the Socratic Method in asking questions. For instance, he asked, “How was The Great Pyramid built?” The answers he got were ridiculous. One said “with precision.” No one could really answer… and that is probably because no one really knows who or how it was constructed.
He created a buzz, enlivening the dreary posts usually placed by your members, which are simply plagiarized from other sites. He no longer posts…
Someone called ***, I see, was kicked out, if I remember…”as he did not play nicely with the other children.” Exactly…you, the administrators are the other children. You behavior is juvenile in the extreme…
There are at least 100 other sites on Facebook devoted to Egyptology, most better than yours…Do keep your silly, cozy, armchair group going…patting each other on the back… .
I dare you to keep this, my post, running….if you have the courage to do so…but you probably won’t…."

The person he referred to as being kicked out is himself. He kinda gave the game away about this second account as he posted the same rant THREE TIMES on his own wall, posted publicly. He also posted it on the walls of a few mutual friends (and lordy knows how many more!). So, second booting from the group and so far, nothing else heard from him (fingers crossed).

BTW, the bits about Santas etc came from arguments he'd actually instigated himself in the group after some members had posted pictures of the Sphinx with a Santa hat as a bit of a fun festive greeting to other members. The other person he was referring to was another previously banned member who started trying to argue the levitation theory for the Giza pyramids.

We all had a good larf at that one ;-)

Terry Mott

4/14/2013 03:06:30 am

Funny how someone has no capacity to "think" if they don't have a list of degrees in a certain field. Fortunately, with my little untrained brain, I still have the ability to click the button and "change the channel." Bye bye history channel.

Gary J

4/14/2013 10:55:26 pm

I really like the last communication you quoted ... the one about Sean David Morton. Problem is ... it's hard to figure out what he's saying, other than just trying his best to be vulgar. Does the guy not speak English.

The only time I recall you being "rude" was when you called Linda Howe an idiot. I suppose that would be non-neutral ....

Personally, the only reason I watch programs like Ancient Aliens and America Unearthed is for entertainment. They often pose interesting questions, but the conclusions they reach are really a stretch. Just because moving huge stones seems impossible given the technology and tools available at the time doesn't mean that extraterrestrials had a hand in things. It just means that we really don't know how they did it, only that they did.

And just because Meriweather Lewis's Masonic apron had someone else's blood on it doesn't mean he was murdered ... it just means it had other blood on it, and it could have been there well before his death (even though Scott says a Mason would never allow his apron to be anything but pristine. Really? How does he know?). Regardless, I find the method of his death somewhat interesting.

J Douglas

4/15/2013 03:51:40 am

Note to Scott Wolter: I have been in the sciences for 40 years, and in my case, I listen to theories with an open mind. Fear and religion have never crossed my mind until you brought it up. What I do have a problem with is your interpretationGood Scientific Practice.

Matt Mc

4/16/2013 09:22:42 am

Here is an interesting article I came across

http://world.time.com/2013/01/29/a-feud-between-biblical-archaeologists-goes-to-court/

it is about how Simcha Jacobovici is suing a critic (Joe Zias) of his for libel . The article says "Jacobovici claims that Zias’ criticisms are libelous and have cost him television contracts and money"

4/16/2013 12:58:36 pm

That's one reason I try to be very careful when criticizing these alternative speculators. Even though they need to show "actual malice" since they are public figures, critics still need to be careful to avoid saying anything that can't be defended with facts. I can't say whether Zias acted with "actual malice," but he probably didn't have the evidence to support the claim that Jacobovici forged artifacts himself. He should have stuck to complaining that Jacobovici was fabricating historical narratives on shoddy grounds.

Melinda

10/31/2013 11:52:52 am

I think this thread is great illustration of a sad reality: our own intolerance. Regardless of a person's point of view, why is it necessary to resort to personal and malicious attacks? An opposing opinion doesn't threaten a person's theory, if they are steadfast in their beliefs. It doesn't make their theory less plausible, unless the criticism points out holes and indiscrepancies - in which case, shouldn't that just be invitation, or even challenge, to do more research and investigation?

It's a common misconception that what science presents is 'truth'. It is not. Science is the -currently most accepted theories- to explain the data we have measured. The reality is, the more we understand about the world around us, science has to be revisited and in some cases, rewritten. Imagine what the scholars of science taught us 100 years ago...would it be the same as what we learn in school today? What about 100 years in the future, will we still be regurgitating the same infomation? Of course not.

I think people need to learn to be more tolerant of other people's ideas, whether they be in favour or against, and not take them on board if it doesn't fit with their personal beliefs. Can't we just agree to disagree? Yelling louder isn't going to change a person's opinion - chances are they've already made up their mind. If the man standing next to you believes in a different god, so what?

Having said that, if for whatever reason, an analysis produces results that are inconclusive and/or cannot be explained, I don't see the harm in postulating a theory. It's not changing the evidence, it's just offering an alternative possible explanation. No one says you have to agree with it.