How to Be a Skeptic and Still Have Friends

Being known as a skeptic is not necessarily good for your social life. Here's how to overcome the difficulties.

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Logic & Persuasion

Skeptoid #116
August 26, 2008
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe

When I first started the Skeptoid podcast, it was anonymous. I didn't give my name at all in the first 5 or 10 episodes. Why? Because I was afraid of offending my friends and family, afraid of becoming known as a hateful, closed-minded skeptic. I knew that skeptical outreach is an important educational task and needs to be done, but at the same time, I had to live with people. I have friends, neighbors, coworkers, and acquaintances. I'd long ago learned to keep my mouth shut when someone started praising the merits of some new paranormal thing. I reasoned that the best way to be a skeptic and a member of society was to broadcast my critical thinking analyses as far and wide as I could with the podcast, while shielding myself inside a safe little bubble of personal anonymity.

As you probably know, that didn't remain the case. My friends and family found out about Skeptoid almost immediately, but since they're great people I didn't really catch much flak for it, and they pretty much knew that I was skeptical anyway. I decided at that point that if I was going to do it at all, I was going to do it all the way. So I re-recorded all the early episodes with my name on them, and put my full name and picture and bio on the web site. In for a penny, in for a pound; so the saying goes.

This doesn't mean that I go out looking for fights. I rarely go out of my way to proactively challenge a friend's belief when I happen to overhear them talking about something paranormal or pseudoscientific, and then only when it's appropriate to do so. Does it irk me when I hear them talking about how scary the ghosts were in last night's episode of Ghost Hunters, or how they're treating their back pain with reiki? Absolutely it does. And now, since they know that I'm "that skeptical guy", frequently they'll come up to me with something. More often than not, they saw on Action News last night that you can run your car on water, or that an old man somewhere is a proven psychic healer, or that an engineer has gone on record saying the Twin Towers were a controlled implosion. Usually they're snickering because they often believe that now they've got me, that now their evidence is irrefutable and they're about to go one-up on the skeptic. They ask me what I think.

And I'm not the only one who gets this. I frequently hear from listeners who find themselves in similar situations. Here's one email I got:

In my experience, I always come off as a "know-it-all jerk" because in conversations, I have ethical issues with just letting them go on in life with misinformation, especially as a scientist. Maybe the real lesson is just "don't talk science with them. let them believe what they want to believe." I just feel so terrible knowing that they're going to go on, and maybe make a poor decision based upon the assumption that what they know is true.

And here's another:

Starting an argument, although productive, is not instrumental in making and keeping friendships, since a lot of people are very happy with their delusions and only become annoyed with someone when their false knowledge is pointed out. How does one go about informing a true believer without alienating them?

So there we have it. The problem: How to be a skeptic, and talk with your friends and coworkers when the subject comes up, without turning people off? Here is the solution.

Focus on where you agree, never on where you disagree. Start by finding common ground. No matter who you're talking to, they have some level of skepticism about something. Ask them, "Isn't there some myth you've heard that you don't necessarily believe?"

They'll answer "Well sure, Bigfoot, space aliens," whatever.

Tell them "I'm skeptical of Bigfoot for the exact same reasons you are. Tell me why you don't believe in Bigfoot?" And now you've got your friend telling you the very reasons you're skeptical of the new claim. The evidence is of poor quality, it's too improbable, whatever it is. Help your friend along. Point out more reasons to be skeptical of Bigfoot. Be familiar with our checklist of 15 warning signs to help you spot pseudoscience from Skeptoid episode 37.

And then, once you have a good list, apply that same reasoning to the new claim. "We agree that part of the reason Bigfoot is suspect is that we have low quality evidence coming from people with dubious credentials. We can also find those same problems with the claim that you can run your car on water. Also, we agree that one reason Bigfoot is improbable is that if it was real, we'd have known about it by now — people have been living in Bigfoot habitat for hundreds of years. We can say that same thing about running your car on water — science has known all about oxyhydrogen and electrolysis for hundreds of years and exploited it many different ways. It wouldn't have to wait for some guy on the Internet to claim to know something that science doesn't."

Feelings are hurt not so much when there is disagreement, but when someone is summarily proclaimed to be wrong. This doesn't just mean telling your friend that he's wrong, it includes telling your friend that the TV Action News is wrong. It's your friend's source, he found it convincing; and when you simply declare it to be wrong without having seen it, you come off as petty and dismissive. Avoid negative language. Avoid saying that anyone is wrong.

"That announcement you heard alerts us to the possibility that this new breakthrough is true, just as the recent Bigfoot news story alerted us that a Bigfoot body might have been found. But science doesn't determine the validity of a theory based on whether or not its proponents have sent out a single press release; an announcement that would be more interesting would be that the test protocols have been published and the experiment is being successfully replicated all over the world."

Find the common ground. "What are you skeptical of? Well, I'm probably skeptical of it for the exact same reason you are."

Tip Skeptoid $2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

You can also accept your friend's claim as a great first step, and tell him what else you'd need to see to be convinced. When something's real, it's real; it can be defined, measured, quantified, and replicated by other researchers. When something's only published on the fringe, or reported from only a single source, that doesn't make it wrong yet; but it does mean that it has not yet been replicated by objective scientists following the same protocols.

Just because you can have this conversation in a positive and non-adversarial way doesn't mean you always have to have the conversation. I still find it best to simply keep my mouth shut a lot of the time. A neighbor knocked on my door with their acupuncturist's business card when I was suffering from some pain after one of my volleyball surgeries. That's a kindness, and I thanked them and left it at that. This way the neighbor remains my friend and the door is always open to have the conversation at a more appropriate time.

Spreading critical thinking by engaging in conversation with your acquaintances should be a way to build bridges, not to expose rifts. If you take one thing away from this podcast, it should be that point. Concentrate on where you agree. I've found that this has converted people who used to come to me as an adversary to challenge me with new claims into friends who seek out my opinion on stories that sound fishy to them.

The important first step is to allow youself to become known as a skeptic. Wear the T-shirts and have the books sitting on your desk at the office. When people know that you're the skeptic, they'll come to you when they want to challenge you. And when they come to you, you're not the jerk. Put yourself out there as a skeptic, and wait for the business to come to your door. When it does, handle it positively and show people that they're skeptics too, they just didn't realize it. When you can help someone to understand that they are already themselves a skeptic of something — Bigfoot, aliens, UFOs, celebrity psychics, whatever — your job is half done. It's like judo, use your opponent's strength against him. Help him redirect his own intelligence and existing skepticism towards the subjects where he has not yet thought critically. In this way, you can be a skeptic and still have friends — and, chances are, you'll even have new skeptical friends.

Brian Dunning

© 2008 Skeptoid Media Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Burgess, G., Burgess, H. "Crafting Effective Persuasive Arguments." Conflict Information Consortium. University of Colorado, 30 Dec. 1998. Web. 25 Aug. 2008. <>

Goldstein, N., Martin, S., Cialdini, R. Yes! 50 Secrets from the Science of Persuasion. London: Profile Books, 2007.

Novella, S. "How to Argue." The New England Skeptical Society. The New England Skeptical Society, 1 Mar. 2009. Web. 23 Jan. 2010. <>

Sagan, C., Druyan, A. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Random House, 1995.

Tavris, C., Aronson, E. Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me). San Diego: Harcourt Books, 2007. 88-93.

Wilson, R. Don't Get Fooled Again - The Skeptic's Guide to Life. London: Icon Books, 2008.

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "How to Be a Skeptic and Still Have Friends." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, 26 Aug 2008. Web. 4 Oct 2015. <>


10 most recent comments | Show all 38 comments


How did the control groups fare?

Henk van der Gaast, Sydney
October 10, 2010 9:16pm

I think where scepticism fails is in inadequate recognition of the consequences. A Skeptic is a person who steps aside from the entire pattern of media propaganda that is intended to mislead, divert, misinform and disempower

People are full of crap because they are vessels into which crap is poured. Prejudice is fed. Vilification is encouraged (and called "free speech"). Truth is denied. Denial is encouraged. Children and adults are dumbed down.

Creationism is not a theory about the origin of species - It is fascist politics in religious form. Spiritual charlatanism is not about alternative healing it is about undermining reason - replacing consideration with doctrine in order to maintain power hierarchy. Catholicism is far more about politics than it is about religion. As the amount of sexual abuse and the number of priests mistresses shows, within the hierarchy vast numbers do not believe the dogmas anyway

Know your enemy. Media consolidation is not about big business - it is about centralising the control of awareness.

The belief that skepticism is merely about educated reason and awareness is often the last shade to fall from our eyes

It is about politics.

Phi, Sydney
March 15, 2011 4:14pm

Strange then that sceptics demand objective rationalisation based on evidence and observation. Objective from religious, social, political or personal prejudice.

For example, how about some evidence for all those claims Phi. Newscorp is all about control and not profit? Are you sure about that? As it seems awfully good at the profit thing. The entire media being designed to misinform? ALL of it? Every single publication or broadcast in any format? (That is what "entire" means). Bold claims, and I'm sceptical. Where's the evidence?

If your scepticism is informed by politics, instead of your politics informed by obkective scepticism, you are not sceptical.

the illuminatus, reptoid mountain
March 24, 2011 2:14pm

I don't think you are in a position to offer the mountains of space required Illy

Yes I do think - especially in Australia - the press and media are far more about control than profit. That is why they are prepared to be so chronically bad as both Newspapers and TV stations

Nowadays we read overseas newspapers or use the internet - and I now never watch commercial TV - its crap - even when you record and skip the ads.

Phi, Sydney
April 4, 2011 1:04am

Which is an opinion not evidence. Never mind. Objective evidence unbiased by personal belief or politics is the basic foundation of scepticism, and science in general. A brief look at how studies are formed, and the methods of preventing such biases, blinding, double blinding, control groups, statistical significance, and the likes are a pretty heavy concern when claiming to be skeptic.

Especially if you are accusing others of prejudicing their data.

Given your statements in other threads, you may wish to look into this Phi.

illuminatus, Reality. Kinda.
April 4, 2011 9:48am

I'm still on Illuminatus' side on Newscorp.

If they werent in it for the money they couldnt have any of the control that Phi suggests.

Sure, they have readership demographics that they target and sure, these too may have similar philosophies to the organisation.

Surprisingly so do lots of manufacturers and power suppliers.

Do you really think teenagers think they look good in those fashions they have worn over the years.

Surely this isnt about control other than for profit.

Looking back on the posts of late I realise I am the worlds most boring person. I always thought it was Brian and Maynard..

a new conspiracy..."the notions are coming!"

Henk V, Sydney Australia
September 1, 2011 1:52am

A VERY late response to Fred, Ohio, but the concepts I refer to herein are timeless and my comment is submitted in hopes that it may temper judgement of all "Freds".

Excerpted verbatim from his comment:
"I have actaully had 18 folks drink Mona Vie Pulse for 12 weeks and then go retest their cholesterol, and low in behold all 18 were lower..."

This statement is a prime example of the reason that so many are skeptical of such claims AND their representatives. Bad spelling and an incorrect use of "lo and behold" are simply examples of a presumably well-meaning person with poor spelling and possibly skewed comprehension abilities.

When we read these errors or hear people say such things, many of us are inclined to think something like "There is the problem...they believe such nonsense because of poor educational achievement, comprehension difficulties, or simply low IQ.

That isn't always the case, of course. It is, however, a leading cause of "Freds" being written off as victims of their own misunderstanding of so many things. Whether Fred is correct or not about anything is undermined by his own knowledge and communication abilities. Sure, he is responsible for not pursuing an accurate understanding, but is he capable of achieving that? He is probably a good guy, just not qualified to get into scientific proclamations.

BTW, the best misuse of the phrase that I've encountered so far was: "Lowe and beholed". OUCH. I really don't ever want to be "beholed".

Dean, Texas
August 29, 2012 12:12am

I have found the best way to deal with people who believe in pseudoscience is to listen but remain silent and say nothing. The instant that I even bring up scientific fact, or introduce science and/or logic into the discussion I will be shouted down and attacked and accused of being on the "corporate side" (i.e. the evil side). Nor will bringing science into a discussion change anyones mind. People are going to believe what they want to. The Internet is a fantastic medium for quacks to spew out pseudoscience and make it sound like real science to many. These days I just let them believe what they want, even if it is crap from known quacks. Nothing I or anyone says will change their minds, ever. If someone wants to believe 1+1 = 13 then nobody, not even a great mathematician will convince them otherwise.

Joffbaum, NYC
July 6, 2013 3:00pm

hmmm.. like we havent heard that before and very consistently by the self identified quacks on skeptoid comments..

If its friends, offer a free service whilst seeing only have to state you are a naturopath or homeopath in most united nations jurisdictions and voomph, you have a professional opinion.

Allopath runs fine too.. but i'd advise against it..

As for non friends who are quack friendly.. send them to a quack..The medical community needs a bit of slack from hypochondriacs and their munchausens associates.

Quacks are on the way out, use them appropriately

Mud, sin city, Oz
August 2, 2013 5:17am

I have friends who "believe in" some types of woo, but they don't bother me.
I'll listen to their ghost stories, sasquatch stories, and "campfire" stories, etc without comment. They know I'm a skeptic, and that doesn't bother them either.

Besides, I like a good scare story and cheap thrill as much as the next person - especially in the forest at night, and really sitting around a campfire. (keep the .460 Weatherby close at hand!) :D

What DOES bother me, and gets me mouthing off, are the "believers" that get in my face with their fanatacism and make a great effort to shove their BS down my throat.
(ie - believe! or you're a I have no "friends" like that.

I find that the ufo/Space Brother believers, and certain religionists are the worst offenders, and the most potentially violent.

Ron, Calgary Alberta Canada
October 12, 2013 9:19am

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).

Post a reply


What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid

The Flying Saucer Menace
Skeptoid #486, Sep 29 2015
Read | Listen (12:29)
Holocaust Denial
Skeptoid #485, Sep 22 2015
Read | Listen (12:54)
More Unsung Women of Science
Skeptoid #484, Sep 15 2015
Read | Listen (12:56)
Unsung Women of Science
Skeptoid #483, Sep 8 2015
Read | Listen (13:13)
Sir Franklin's Cannibals
Skeptoid #482, Sep 1 2015
Read | Listen (12:13)
#1 -
The St. Clair Triangle UFO
Read | Listen
#2 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#3 -
Read | Listen
#4 -
That Elusive Fibromyalgia
Read | Listen
#5 -
SS Iron Mountain
Read | Listen
#6 -
A Skeptical Look at the News
Read | Listen
#7 -
The War of the Worlds Panic Broadcast
Read | Listen
#8 -
Ancient Astronauts
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal


Follow @skeptoid

Tweets about skeptoid

Support Skeptoid

Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.