Skepticism: Why do we do it?

We blog about it, we talk about it, we make videos about it and some even travel the world to attend meetings about it - but why do skeptics rally against practitioners and promoters of the paranormal, pseudoscience and fundamentalist religion?

For my part, I've long been driven by a need to fight for what I believe is right. I've done it in local politics, state politics and federal politics. I've argued with and debated people I know well, and those I barely know, just for the fun of it. I enjoy pitting my wits against people who hold stringent views on issues and have done so for the last thirty years at least.

But other than a warm, fuzzy feeling that I was doing some good, have I, or has the world around me, gained anything from my efforts? I'm not sure I've made that much difference. Maybe I'm just a foot soldier fighting a rear-guard action so the people on the front line, like Randi and Dawkins, and Saunders of course, can concentrate on the bigger battles? I'm no student of war so if that analogy makes no sense, I apologise and assume you'll figure it out.

For most of us, there is no financial reward for our battle against dogma. We'll never make a living out of it. We do it freely, presumably out of some deep-seated sense of obligation to our fellow humans. Maybe it's our way of protecting the herd, or maybe it's just our own dogma and we stick to it for the same reason some of our "opponents" stick to theirs. The obvious difference being that we have reason on our side, so we're right and they're wrong.

I'm not asking why we are skeptics; for many of us this isn't exactly some random decision we've made. We didn't watch an episode of Myth Busters one night and think "Damn! I'm gonna be a skeptic like those cool guys - so I can blow things up". Chances are that if we were watching Myth Busters at all, we were doing so because we were already of a skeptical mind and enjoy watching others help fight the battle against myth and superstition - and blow things up.

My question is related to our public activities as skeptics. While I expect some people come to activism as a result of a direct personal involvement, maybe a friend or relative has fallen victim to a rogue "psychic" or joined a religious cult, many of us probably have no such direct interest. I certainly don't, although I do hold some concern that my kids could potentially fall victim to any spreading of mass stupidity. So what makes us become skeptical activists? Why do we choose to fight this battle against the irrational and why do we care about the gullible? Do we even care about the gullible? Is that the reason we do this? Is it a battle that can be won or is status quo (the state, not the rock band) the best result we can hope for? Are we the proverbial eternal optimists?

If you're a fellow skeptical blogger, a regular participant on a skeptical forum, involved in a skeptical group or perhaps a journalist or author who writes about myth and superstition, why do you do it?

If I was to sell an empty metal box and tell people it was a DVD burner but it would only work "if they believe", I imagine the law would frown upon me.

When you consider what we're up against, it seems like the brick wall we bang our heads against is well and truly cemented together. Even when we manage to dislodge a brick, it seems someone adds another, or two or more. There seems little doubt that the mass media, TV, radio, newspapers and magazines, are nett promoters of the nonsense we condemn - from simple daily horoscopes to talk-back "clairvoyants" and "psychics" to entire programs specifically dedicated to promoting the paranormal as if it's legitimacy was not even in doubt.

Sure, TV current affairs shows will expose a fraudulent practitioner every once in a while but all too often, they call on other practitioners of the same silliness for comment, as if their opinion was somehow valid. Then, a few weeks later, the same TV show will be promoting the latest piece of credulous nonsense, from fad diet, to miracle cure to haunted house, as if it were breaking news.

Then we look at governments' responses and see almost no interest in taking action against that which we declare to be fraudulent. "Psychics", "clairvoyants," and "astrologers" freely advertise their services. They host massive stage events and organise trade fairs to promote their lucrative industry. They can make grandiose claims about solving crimes and no one outside the skeptical community bats an eyelid. They can even use legal threats to silence their critics. If I was to sell an empty metal box and tell people it was a DVD burner but it would only work "if they believe", I imagine the law would frown upon me. But if I make the same promise with regard to talking to dead relatives, it seems the law is okay with that.

And, of course, underpinning all this is the clientele, the people we politely describe as desperate, deluded, credulous and gullible. If it wasn't for them, the provision of superstitious services would cease whether the government or media changed their ways or not. But how do we make such change come about - and should we even try? Lots of people seem perfectly happy with their unfounded beliefs. In fact, lots and lots and lots of them are not only happy with their credulity but insist any other position is ridiculous. They don't want to be "saved".

Can we win? What constitutes a win? How will we know when we've won?