Over the past weekend, there was a bit of a kerfuffle over a certain
gelato shop in Springfield, MO. If you've not yet heard about it, you can read the background
here and
here, or you can read a significantly less accurate summary courtesy of the
mainstream media.
Given that online restaurant reviews effects a franchisee's bottom line, the moral questions being batted about on reddit, twitter, and the blogs are roughly these: "When should we forgive and forget?" and "How much punishment is enough?" On the one hand, we have those who say the apology was genuine and forgiveness should follow forthwith, such as
Jen and
Hemant, while on the other hand we have more unforgiving voices such as
PZ and
JT. As I write this, one half of the atheist memesphere is trying to convince the other half to side with them, and vice-versa. It's like déjà-vu all over again.
Countless bytes are being spilled on the simple issue of just how outraged we should be and how to react to the situation as it unfolds. I am going to suggest that much of this hand-wringing and word-wrangling is largely unnecessary, because we can count on the skeptical movement as a whole, over the long term, to mete out more-or-less the right amount of moral disapprobation.
Awhile ago, James Surowiecki wrote a fascinating book called
The Wisdom of Crowds, about the aggregation of information by groups. In the book, he outlines
four elements necessary for crowds to make better-than-expert decisions: diversity of opinion, independence, decentralization, and aggregation. Skeptics are famous for and rightly proud of the first two of these attributes, and indeed, we'd not be seeing #
gelatogate as a controversy if it were otherwise. Moreover, we have an effective aggregation mechanism already in place in the form of online ratings for local businesses. This leaves only decentralization, which requires people to specialize and draw on local knowledge. In this case, the special knowledge is an awareness of how one has been emotionally drained by a thousand little cuts, each one a small act of open bigotry against unbelievers. This is knowledge that most any Skepticon attendee carries around with them whether they want to dwell on it or not, especially those who live within driving distance of the event itself.
Any number of various other epistemic and moral considerations may be brought to the table here, but the upshot is that each skeptic has to weigh the offense and the consequences for themselves. So, go online and leave a negative review, if you want to register your disgust at Andy's hot coffee and flaming bigotry. Alternatively, leave a positive review if you found his gelato delicious and his apology adequate. I trust that you'll make the right decision, whatever that turns out to be.
