Skepticism, Credibility, and Popularity

Popularity does not Imply Credibility, Be a Skeptic

Vjack has a great post up on his site, Credibility and Popularity in the Atheist Community . Edward Clint also has a great post up on his blog, Science denialism at a skeptic conference.  Both are well worth your time to read.  I want to weigh in on the larger topics being addressed in both posts: credibility, popularity, and skepticism.  [Added later:  It is also incumbent upon you to read Stephanie Zvan's critique of Clint's article, I became aware of her article after posting my own.  I link to it below in the relevant section]. [Second amendment: Ed Clint cited Mark Hoofnagle in his post.  Mark has responded on his own blog writing that Watson may not have been correct in all of her statements, but did not act the part of "science denier" in her talk.  I think it imperative that you read this piece as well if you wish to be fully informed.Rebecca Watson’s Skepticon talk is NOT an example of science denialism ].

I made a comment yesterday on vjack’s blog stating that is a mistake to assume that all atheists are intelligent or skeptics (the link to that post is below).  This may seem like an obvious statement, and it should be.  However, that is not how we often treat our fellow atheists.  I agree with both Clint and vjack, that at times, the popularity of an atheist figure seems to lend itself to credibility.  This is a mistake.  I also see” regular” (non-popular, non-atheist activists) atheists fall into the same trap.

Many of the popular atheists are popular because they are intelligent.  However, we will also find that many are popular because they say things that are well…popularly received.  I want to use myself as an example.  By no means would I be considered a “popular” atheist.  My blog does okay, and I appreciate all of you who stop by.  There is one thing that I can’t help but notice.  My “popularity” often increases at a faster rate when I write something that doesn’t necessarily offer any unique insight, scholarship, or analysis, but rather, when I write something that is simply popularly received.  The most successful post I have ever written, if we are to judge success by popularity and number of comments made (which I don’t by the way) is “Can’t You Atheists Keep Your Opinions To Yourselves?”—No I Cannot.”  This is a post that I wrote on April 16, 2012.  I remember that day…I was in a hurry and didn’t really have the time to write a blog post.  I sat down at the computer and wrote that piece in about 20 minutes…no joke.  That post still is receiving about 300 reads per day, and each following day, a few of those new readers return.  It has done more for my popularity than any other post I have written.  I am grateful for that.  I am glad to know that other people feel the same frustrations that I do.  However, does that post in any way give me credibility on a wide range of other topics?  I would argue it does not—it was a rant, and I do think a decent one, don’t get me wrong, but it didn’t really “add” anything to a significant debate.  Yet it certainly gave, and is still giving me some popularity.  My point is that popularity does not equal credibility.  We should be wary of falling into a trap of thinking that it does.

On what topics do I have some credibility?  Politics.  I degrees (BA and MA)in Political Science and Political Philosophy.  I write on those things often.  When I venture away from those things, I am just a guy with an opinion.  I would like to think that my opinion is usually pretty well informed.  However, I am not going to pretend to be an expert on things like evolution and cosmology.  I have a decent working understanding of those fields, but an expert opinion?  Hardly…  I would argue that the same holds true for all of us.  We have an area(s) that we “specialize” in.  Any “credibility” we have in those areas cannot be allowed to extend credibility to everything we say.  Further, just because people have areas that “specialize” in and have some “credibility” in those areas, we still should be skeptical when it comes to believing they are always correct.  We must not lose our skepticism.

This brings me to vjack’s post.  It is easy to fall into the trap of assuming that someone is an expert in all things “atheist”, when we are not.  We must apply skepticism to each other in the same way that we do to other areas in our life.  I will use vjack’s example of Richard Dawkins.  I happen to enjoy Dawkins’ books and have learned quite a bit about evolution/biology and atheism from reading them.  However, should I take all that Dawkins writes or states as absolute truth?  Of course, not, we must apply skepticism to what we hear and read.  Should I take everything he says on biology without questioning it?  The answer is “no”, yet again.  Even those claims must be met with skepticism.  What research has Dawkins done on the topic, what do his peers think of the idea, etc.  When we stop doing this, we become no different than the theists we often rail against—we would be believing something without a reason for doing so.  Ask questions, do some research, be willing to learn and adjust your previously held view if necessary, be skeptical.

Here is a quick example.  I mentioned this in my comment yesterday on vjack’s post.  I recently watched an argument between two atheists.  One of them refused to recognize the difference between atheist/theist and agnostic/gnostic.  She refused to accept the idea that those two pairs of terms answer different questions.  She refused to accept a term like agnostic atheist.  (Her position was gnostic atheist—though she refused to accept that as well).  She was presented with evidence against her position from at least three other people.  She would not, and to the best of knowledge, still has not budged.  Her mind was made up prior to the discussion and would not be changed.  This person could admit that they were wrong about something but did not, she failed to learn something new, and demonstrated a complete lack of skepticism towards her own position.  This is too bad.  It is significantly worse we see a “popular” atheist falling into the same trap—and that happens.

Another issue that I see occurring frequently is that some atheists and some theists expect popular atheists to be expert in all areas.  This ties in to what Ed Clint focused on in his post.  Popular atheists need to recognize their limitations and stick to what they know.  I have no reason to doubt a word of Clint’s post, it seems well documented.  I also have no particular desire to demonize Rebecca Watson, though I have not seen her refute the argument that Clint made, if I am in error on that, someone please let me know.  [A commenter has just informed me that there is a refutation of Clint"s article written by Stephane Zvan.  You can read it here: Science Denialism? The Role of Criticism.]  So, if Clint’s post is true, her behavior should be a warning to all of us.  When you do not know something…keep quiet and go learn about it.  Be a skeptic, be inquisitive, become educated…and don’t worry about your popularity.  Credibility and respect are earned.  With time, both can make one popular.  However, let’s not forget the other side of that coin…both credibility and respect can be withdrawn, and with it one’s popularity.

[I have modified this paragraph a bit since the original posting to make it clear that the "jury is still out" on Clint v. Watson.  Changes are in red].  I do not want the comments section to become a bash Watson rally, that is not my point here.  I only want to use this story as an example.  If Watson was speaking about a topic she knew little about, her credibility needs to be called into question by any skeptical person.  Period.  If Watson is guilty of Clint’s charges I must question everything she says from this point forward, more than I previously would have because she would lose some credibility.  I will not assume that she is wrong in the future…but I will need to verify what she says/writes against some outside sources.  Conference organizers must absolutely do this going forward.  If Watson is guilty and is going to speak at conferences, it is incumbent on the organizers of those conferences to know what she will be talking about and if she is qualified to do so.  If they fail in this, they too will lose credibility for having reliable speakers—none of which would paint atheists in a positive light.

I would urge all of us to remain skeptical, inquisitive, and unafraid to say “I don’t know”…when we stop doing those three things we can easily slip into the world of demagogues and logical fallacies.  I would urge all of us to not put “popular atheists” on pedestals.  Listen to what they have to say and evaluate the words they are speaking/writing and not their popularity.  You and they, will be the better for it.

The last thing I want to address is best summed up in a comment on Ed Clint’s blog.  The commenters name was “Bert Russell”.  Here is what he had to say:

[quoting Clint]“My aim here is not to attack Watson, but to challenge a few of her unnuanced views about science and skepticism with which I happen to have professional experience.”


Am I the only one that finds it unacceptable that reasoned criticisms of stances have to include clarifications like the excerpt above? Is that the kind of people we’re dealing with? People that can’t differentiate and automatically equate criticisms of views with criticisms of the person who holds those views

I realize that I just did the exact same thing above in relation to Watson…Well Bert, I have no idea who you are, but what a great point.  It is also something that vjack wrote about the other day in his post: “Distinguishing Between Criticism and Attacks”.  When those of us who claim to be skeptics need to make comments like Bert’s and write posts like vjack’s we have a problem.   We need to realize that not all disagreement and criticism is an attack.  This seems to be a concept that is getting lost in many recent debates between atheists.  Let’s try to remember this shall we?

The other side of the criticism/attack coin is the language used.  If we are going to try and remember that not all criticism is an attack, we should also think about the words we use when criticizing.  A vulgar comment was removed on Clint’s site that was aimed at Watson…this is a) an attack b) childish, c) unproductive and d) unnecessary.  If you dislike what someone has to say then criticize what they are saying.  Watson has been called a lot of nasty names this past year…I do not know her, I do not know if she is a nice person, and to be honest, I don’t really care at this point in time.  I care about what she has to say.  I will care if she is a nice person if I ever have the opportunity to meet or work with her.  My point is a really super person can be wrong and a huge asshole can be right… Vilifying Watson doesn’t get us anywhere closer to the truth or falsity of what she says/writes.  I really can’t see any reason to ever make it into a personal attack.  (My pointing out that she has lost some credibility is not a personal attack or vilification.  Rather it is a realization of the fact that she has lost some credibility if she gave a lecture on a topic that she knew little about and was incorrect in her assessment of that topic).

My message for the day:  I think we would be best served to remain skeptical—of all things that people claim, even if they have credibility, to recognize that criticism is not a personal attack, and to refrain from personal attacks in general.

Thanks for reading.  I look forward to your comments.


If you have a blog please feel free to promote it on my “Promote Your Blog” page above.

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @logicalbeing

If you would like to share your story of how you became an atheist, please do that on my “Share your Atheism Story” forum.  Our stories may help to encourage others with similar feelings to know that life is more than just okay without god(s).

If you have not yet checked out’s Atheism Blogs….what are you waiting for?

15 thoughts on “Skepticism, Credibility, and Popularity

    1. reasonbeing from Duluth, MN, United States Post author

      Great question R.W.–thanks for asking it and thanks for bringing both PZ’s and Stephanie’s posts to my attention. Here is my answer, PZ’s article does nothing to sway anything that I wrote. He mentions in his post that he will write a more detailed critique of Clint’s post later this week. I will look for that. What he wrote yesterday was really just an attack on Clint, Skeptic Blogs, and the field of Evo Psych and not a refutation of the article Clint wrote. I see there is bad blood between the two of them and it really is not my concern, nor do I have any desire to hop into the middle of it.

      Stephanie’s piece is much different. It is a critique of Clint’s article and not an attack on Clint personally. Some of the language may be strongly worded, but she sticks to criticizing what he wrote and not him personally. I amended my original post to reflect Stephanie’s article. The changes are in red.

      So to answer your question…no those two articles would not have deterred me from writing my post. The point of my post was not to vindicate Clint or vilify Watson. Rather the purpose of my post is to remind us all to remain skeptical and not just to apply credibility to popular people. Stephanie’s post would have caused me to add a few words, which I have now done. Thanks for stopping by.

  1. Recovering Agnostic from Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom

    I hope popularity doesn't equal credibility, or I'd be wrong all the time!

    But yes, the hardest thing is to ensure that we're always evaluating arguments on their merits. That means not assuming someone's right because they're famous/popular, but also not assuming they're right because they're saying something we agree with. I find that's the hardest thing – to stay critical and rational when evaluating arguments that say what I already think or what I want to hear.

      1. reasonbeing from Duluth, MN, United States Post author

        Kristjan—Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I really appreciate both. I hate when I make typos like you did, especially when they change the entire meaning of the comment! Don't worry we all do it.

        Thanks for posting Mark Hoofngle's article. I have just finished reading it and will amend the post above to include it as a must read, as I did with Stephanie Zvan's. This is important to me, as my intention is not validate/vilify either Clint or Watson.

        The point I was making in the post is that we should always remain skeptical, earn our credibility, and not just assume that popular atheists have it. That is something that I still stand by, and am kind of glad the Clint/Watson story is ongoing. I think that it very much highlights the points I was trying to make—we need to learn all of the facts, remain skeptical, and make our decisions from that point.

        Thanks again for stopping by.–John

  2. vjack from Hattiesburg, MS, United States

    Great post. I have noticed exactly the same thing you point out about which of my posts end up being popular – they are often the ones I invest the least time in. I cannot help but wonder if even more popularity could be achieved by posting outrageous statements (e.g., comparing those who criticize feminism to mass murderers). I would not do that, of course, because integrity means more to me than popularity, but it is interesting to ponder.

  3. sbj1964 from Madison, TN, United States

    It is a falsehood to think just because a person has no belief in a God that they are somehow smarter than other people,or that because they write blogs about the subject that they are an expert.I have been talking to other Atheist for over 30 years,and have found they are for the most part no different from the average person.In Fact I have met one who claims we never landed on the moon claiming we could never have made it through the Van Allen radiation belt.Even after I showed him the OSHA studies on radiation effects on Apollo astronauts being less than 3 rads over the entire 3 day mission,and it takes a radiation dose of 300 rads in one hour to kill a human.He still would not except the data holding fast to his belief just as a person of faith will when it comes to they're God.In short even Atheist have their irrational beliefs.

  4. sbj1964 from Madison, TN, United States

    I am fine.Currently working on an article about Yahweh the Hebrew Volcano god.Showing how an ancient Canaanite god evolved from Volcano god to the modern God of Christianity today.If you think they hated the term Evolution before wait until they read this.A lot of really good info.Will let you know when I'm done,and Mail you a copy.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

CommentLuv badge