New term to replace 'Skeptic'?

[Admin]

There's a survey online by the UK's Skeptic magazine (here: http://skeptic.org.uk/survey/) where they're looking for feedback for their revamp of the magazine.

One thing that caught my eye is that one of the changes they're thinking of is a new name for the magazine. i.e. changing it from Skeptic to something else.

This is an issue that comes up every now and then because of the equivocal use of the term 'skeptic' by the media etc. particularly using it in place of 'disbeliever'.

I raised this point a while back and wondered whether we're just as guilty of doing the same thing: http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=645

We have a lot more new members now so I'm just wondering what others think.

The choices seem to be:



Stick with Skeptic and do our best to promote the term in a positive light (as skepticism is actually a positive thing) trying to get the message over that being a skeptic is not the same thing as being sceptical nor is it a synonym for disbeliever......
Find a new term to replace skeptic that already has positive connotations. Of course, it would have to mean the same thing and unless it's in wide usage people would have to learn it from scratch.


I've always said that I'd be happy to change the name of UK-Skeptics to something else as long as it's better than Skeptic. The difficult thing is in coming up with a better term. I've never seen the issue being close to being resolved.

On balance, I'd stick with option 1 as coming up with a new term is extremely difficult, it may be just as open to misinterpretation as Skeptic is, and may even make things worse. Think Bright for example.

Any thoughts anyone?

[Electric Angel]

Realist/rationalist/emiricist?

[DrS]

Humanist?

[bobdezon]

We should stick with sceptic (or skeptic if you like greek). I like the term, it is accurate. The problem is like you say John, how the media assumes we are just the opposites of believers. When we (sceptics) use the term, we take it as a given that the term is to be taken as it was implied. We sometimes forget that people have a tenious grasp of the actual meaning of words, but understand fully the "commonplace variation of its meaning".
The word sceptic is much like delusional, we mean them one way, common knowlege understands it in a different way. I think education is the key to change, and by changing the term to something fluffier, is to me a bit "PC".

[Matt]

We should stick with sceptic (or skeptic if you like greek). I like the term, it is accurate. The problem is like you say John, how the media assumes we are just the opposites of believers. When we (sceptics) use the term, we take it as a given that the term is to be taken as it was implied. We sometimes forget that people have a tenious grasp of the actual meaning of words, but understand fully the "commonplace variation of its meaning".
The word sceptic is much like delusional, we mean them one way, common knowlege understands it in a different way. I think education is the key to change, and by changing the term to something fluffier, is to me a bit "PC".

Rebranding does nothing in the long run. We could call ourselves the chocolate givers (who doesn't like chocolate?) but before long the people we pissed off would use the term in a derogatory manner and that would start to spread.

[bindeweede]

For what it's worth, I looked up "sceptic" in my Oxford Compact Thesaurus - OK, not the only book of its type.

1. Cynic, doubter, pessimist, prophet of doom (!).
2. Agnostic, atheist, unbeliever, non-believer, disbeliever, doubting Thomas. (rare - nullifidian)

"Sceptical" gives similar with the additional -
taking something with a pinch of salt, distrustful, mistrustful, suspicious, unconvinced, incredulous, scoffing, defeatist.

One source is not gospel, but most of these supposed alternatives have distinctly negative overtones - which seem to be the commonly held perceptions.

I see what Bob and Matt say, but I think a change, well-considered of course, would do more good than harm.

I like "rationalists". UK Reason?

[SKIRRID5]

UK Nullifidians...hmmm, it's has (as Bob Shaw once said) a certain Je ne sais quoi, but I don't know what it is.

[bindeweede]

UK Nullifidians...hmmm, it's has (as Bob Shaw once said) a certain Je ne sais quoi, but I don't know what it is.

Looked it up in Chambers - "having no faith". Not a good choice, when people have to go scurrying to their dictionaries, I think.:sad:

[Mongrel]

I'm going to agree with Matt and Bob to keep it as Skeptic. Whilst it has it's negative connotations all of the others are equally bad or worse through implication.

Rationalist implies that the other person isn't rational, realist seems to be synonymous with pessimist, Humanist (http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/)is taken and Bright... I've always hated, sounds like your going to go off and chase Unicorns at any moment.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I can't think of any other word that is free of difficulties. So, tepid preference here for skeptic.

[Admin]

I think what we should try to do is to promote Skepticism (the philosophical outlook we embrace) as the positive thing it is and to explain the difference between that and the common usage of 'sceptical' (to be doubtful, etc.)

What I don't like to see is when people who are obviously skeptics (in that they fully use the method) refuse to refer to themselves as such because of 'negative connotations'.

If there are negative connotations then let's do out best to get rid of them. If we don't then a lot of the negative connotations come from ourselves - we're just adding to the problem that we don't like in the first place!

[dalriada]

I like Skeptic (with a K) but we have to acknowledge that it does have those negative overtones of us being scoffing disbelievers, rather than conveying the true, questing, searching, truth seeking meaning of skepticism.

The word Skeptic does have power and we should own it. I thoroughly disapprove of the sneaky attempt by Sheldrake and crew to hi-jack the term for their own particular brand of Egotistical Woo-Mongering on the "Skeptical Investigations" Website (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/index.html). The Skeptico Blog (http://www.skeptiko.com/)isn't so skeptical either. However there actually are quite a number of paranormalists on this board, ufologists too and there tends to be quite favourable viewpoints of things like buddhism or meditation expressed on this site, which would probably surprise those noble martyrs who've devoted their life to searching-for-psi-and-failing-to-find-it.

Sooo, I think we should stick with skeptic but explain ourselves a bit more... claim back the disputed ground on the edges of reason. Skeptics and Rationalists? Skeptical Inquirers? Skeptic Quest? Inquisitive Skeptics? Something a bit more skep-chic.

Plus I still believe one of our great selling points is that we are funny, whereas the woos just don't see the joke...

The God I believe in doesn't require me to be stupid

>:D

[Mojo]

I'm going to agree with Matt and Bob to keep it as Skeptic.

Me too.

[bobdezon]

Thats exactly my point John. We need to educate people on what scepticism means, and how we apply its use in everyday life. How it would be a good thing that they themselves became sceptical, and the advantages it brings if you embrace it.

It seems in the media, we are the great naysayers, the partypoopers, the ruiners of dreams. However In believer circles, I am sick of people apologising for asking a question, then adamantly stating they are not sceptical incase they become excluded. Infact the word sceptic has practically because a curseword.

I hope one day my great, great grandchildren will visit a museum, and see how idiotic people were in the 21st century. Infact I hope future generations view believers as an evolutionary dead end. Its crippling us as a species.

[Graham Lappin]

I think that some people can get sceptical (skeptical) confused with cynical and hence it does seem to have negative connotations. However to misquote Churchill - sceptical is the worst form of description, until you've tried all the rest.

[dalriada]

Infact I hope future generations view believers as an evolutionary dead end. Its crippling us as a species.


I so agree with this. Belief has its evolutionary purposes, but it should never ever get in the way of us looking for something better, and if we fail to find it, creating something better ourselves...

[Mongrel]

[/URL]. The Skeptico Blog (http://www.skeptiko.com/)isn't so skeptical either.

You may want to check your spelling, Skeptico (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/) is a different place from Skeptiko (http://skeptiko.com/) ;)

[dalriada]

You may want to check your spelling, Skeptico (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/) is a different place from Skeptiko (http://skeptiko.com/) ;)


Whoops! The link is correct but the spelling is rong.... my link to woo-world should have been signposted with an extra "k" in "Skeptiko".

I hadn't actually noticed on the similarities between the two website spellings before you pointed that out, but now I'm more convinced there actually has been a considered attempt to snatch away the term "skeptic" into the land of the woos and believers...

Conspiracy!

[SimonC]

I really don't want to adopt any kind of 'user friendly' description for my philosophical approach to the world. I am a skeptic, and I'm happy to be referred to as such. I can only imagine incredibly weak, embarrassing exchanges if we were to adopt another term -

"So you're *insert friendly and fluffy description here*. What does that mean?"

"It means that we prefer to use evidence, logic and rationalism as a basis for our worldview"

"So you're basically skeptics?"

"Yes, but *insert friendly and fluffy description here* sounds nicer..."

I'd rather just be upfront about it and, although that occasionally entails having to clarify what 'skeptic' really means, I still think its a better, more expedient option than the above.

[ZERO]

I think choice one: stay with skeptic and promote the proper use of the term.

I don't like the idea of "dumbing down".

[Matt]

OK so the word skeptic has negative connotations. So what - we take it back. We use it with pride and we harrangue those who missuse it we make it our own.

Back in the days of Bedlam the mentally handicapped were classified into cretins, morons, idiots and imbeciles. From the current usage of those words you'd never know that they were once non-judgmental matter of fact scientific parlence. I bet you'd be supprised to find out in which order they were used to find that an idiot is "worse" than a moron.

Of course these words are used as insults so the proffession adopted a more neutral term - retarded. Neutral back then but of course it still meant the same thing. So it's still used as an insult.

Back when I first became involved with Mencap the words retarded was politically incorrect. I was taught to use the term mentally handicapped. A habit I haven't broken. However "mentally handicapped" has already fallen to the ever vigilent sword of political correctness to be replaced by "people with learning disabilities" which is in fact a differt thing entirely to "people with learning difficulties" using the wrong term can be an affront to people in either camp.

[brodski]

I think choice one: stay with skeptic and promote the proper use of the term.

The problem is that the "skeptical movement" has a fairly weak claim to represent the only true definition of "skeptics", our preferred definition is certainly neither the earliest nor the most widespread.

[Cuddles]

The problem is that the "skeptical movement" has a fairly weak claim to represent the only true definition of "skeptics", our preferred definition is certainly neither the earliest nor the most widespread.

While this is certainly true, the same would be true for any other word we chose to use.

When it comes down to it, names and labels are irrelevant, what matters is what people actually do. What skeptics do is come to conclusions based on evidence and reasoning. This will always involve a large amount of debunking and generally proving people wrong, and so we will always be accused of being cynical and dismissive by believers. It doesn't matter what you call yourself, that will always be the case.

[brodski]

While this is certainly true, the same would be true for any other word we chose to use. oh absolutely, but if we are to hijack a word, should we consider hijacking one with fewer negative connotations?



When it comes down to it, names and labels are irrelevant, what matters is what people actually do. Yes and no, a rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but if they were called stinkweeds, interflora wouldn't sell as many. Branding and marketing are important if you want to get your message across.



What skeptics do is come to conclusions based on evidence and reasoning. This will always involve a large amount of debunking and generally proving people wrong, and so we will always be accused of being cynical and dismissive by believers. It doesn't matter what you call yourself, that will always be the case. it is not the "belivers" who we should worry about, it is how we are presented to the masses who don't have a foot firmly in either camp.

[ZERO]

it is not the "belivers" who we should worry about, it is how we are presented to the masses who don't have a foot firmly in either camp.

That is a good question and I considered it. I don't think changing a label will change perceptions, just add confusion.
At least people have some idea of what a skeptic is.

Advertise and the truth shall set them free.

As Matt pointed out, whatever term is used would eventually gain negative connotations.

[Matt]

What is in a name, a rose by any other name still grows in dirt and shit.

It's not the word that has negative connotations. It's us. OK so you and I may not see that desire to find out the truth of a situation based upon reliable methods is a negative thing but for those people wedded to unsubstantiated beliefs skeptics attack their supporting faith. Whether or not their faith happens to be true is irrelevent to the support they feel from it.

It matters not one jot if you call yourself a skeptic, a bullshit detector, a truth facilitator or an intelligence benefactor. The person who believes they're getting messages from great aunt Hilda or that their homeopathic remedy fixes their hayfever will ahve their own names for us. Spoilsport, killjoy, doubting Thomas, wet blanket, curmudeon or party pooper.

You want to avoid these people thinking we're spoiling their fun, changing a name will do nothing. Only chaging our actions will. To a certain extent a more sympathetic approach goes someway towards this, but mostly lack of sympathy is a learned response from the abuses of logic, reason and indeed manners that we suffer at the hands of the credulous and their exploiters. A thick skin and a generous disposition may go some way towards maintaining cordial relations but the only way to completly avoid the negative connotations of our actions is to act completely differently.

Call yourself Satan's baby raping bastard child but tell people what they want to hear and they'll think you're a great guy.

Conversly who is going to take kindly to having their cherished beliefs attacked.

We are skeptics, scientific rationalists. We have standards for what we accept as true. When those standards are publically abused it offends us as much as it offends a Muslim when Mohammed (blessed be his name) is called a Child Molester.

Rather than shedding our name when it becomes missued for a term of abuse we should shout it proudly from the rooftops. Proclaim our great emotional distress when it is abused and educate people in the correct methods.

I'll bet that in the last ten years the average levels of public understanding of what it is to be muslim or gay have increased immensely.

[Allo Allo]

What is in a name, a rose by any other name still grows in dirt and shit.

It's not the word that has negative connotations. It's us. OK so you and I may not see that desire to find out the truth of a situation based upon reliable methods is a negative thing but for those people wedded to unsubstantiated beliefs skeptics attack their supporting faith. Whether or not their faith happens to be true is irrelevent to the support they feel from it.

It matters not one jot if you call yourself a skeptic, a bullshit detector, a truth facilitator or an intelligence benefactor. The person who believes they're getting messages from great aunt Hilda or that their homeopathic remedy fixes their hayfever will ahve their own names for us. Spoilsport, killjoy, doubting Thomas, wet blanket, curmudeon or party pooper.

You want to avoid these people thinking we're spoiling their fun, changing a name will do nothing. Only chaging our actions will. To a certain extent a more sympathetic approach goes someway towards this, but mostly lack of sympathy is a learned response from the abuses of logic, reason and indeed manners that we suffer at the hands of the credulous and their exploiters. A thick skin and a generous disposition may go some way towards maintaining cordial relations but the only way to completly avoid the negative connotations of our actions is to act completely differently.

Call yourself Satan's baby raping bastard child but tell people what they want to hear and they'll think you're a great guy.

Conversly who is going to take kindly to having their cherished beliefs attacked.

We are skeptics, scientific rationalists. We have standards for what we accept as true. When those standards are publically abused it offends us as much as it offends a Muslim when Mohammed (blessed be his name) is called a Child Molester.

Rather than shedding our name when it becomes missued for a term of abuse we should shout it proudly from the rooftops. Proclaim our great emotional distress when it is abused and educate people in the correct methods.

I'll bet that in the last ten years the average levels of public understanding of what it is to be muslim or gay have increased immensely.

Great post!

I think you - "you" (this forum - the stalwarts) - have shared opinions - pre-set skeptic dogma that you sometimes almost quote by rote and as "you", you do this skep-attack thing together which rather closes off any relationship with a new member. And to those who have heard the "dogma talk" before, to hear it again just drives people away. That's a pity!

Once when I was under skep attack here, and emotionally very bruised, I received a private e-mail from one of you lot pointing me in the direction where I'd find the information I was looking for. If that person remembers - they will never know how that short email boosted my confidence, and what a joy it was to find out that real scientists were actually studying that which I was trying to make sense of.

I must be a real sticker! This forum revamped the way I think. It is both horrible and great. I have now finished my science course that John suggested I do. It was truly smashing - I passed all my assignments and even managed the maths! I am sure I'll pass my ECA too....thanks John!

I think you should keep the name Skeptic - at least everyone who visits this forum will expect to get shat on.......;D

[bobdezon]

Well isnt that nice? ;D

[bindeweede]

and what a joy it was to find out that real scientists were actually studying that which I was trying to make sense of.

Can you say what you were trying to make sense of, and which "real scientists" were actually studying it?

[Cuddles]

I think you - "you" (this forum - the stalwarts) - have shared opinions - pre-set skeptic dogma that you sometimes almost quote by rote and as "you", you do this skep-attack thing together which rather closes off any relationship with a new member. And to those who have heard the "dogma talk" before, to hear it again just drives people away. That's a pity!

Which only goes to prove that you failed to learn a single thing while you were here. Shame really.

[Allo Allo]

I think the UK skeptics forum does a real service to people – especially those who are searching. I have posted this many times before when I have been aware of the confused pain that people suffer when they have been ‘put down’ in a discussion.

The thread here is if there is any term that could replace the word skeptic. Well I don’t think there is one. The problem is with the reputation that the word is getting and I pointed out that one of the problems is that skeptics the like of James Randi forum and others learn a certain jargon. They back up by quoting stuff they heard – by rote rather than by thought. It’s a trap. It’s a pity. It’s what is making the word ‘skeptic’ mean something that it shouldn’t. This is a true thing I am saying. It needs to be thought about and not scoffed at…..it harms skepticism and does not promote it. The minute my mouth starts speaking words I am repeating because I heard or read another person saying them, I know I have fallen into the trap. We need different words to express ideas that are now expressed by overused words, stale words and words identifiable with pseudo - skeptics.

It’s a worse pity that Cuddles failed to read any gratitude in my post towards a forum that has taught me such a very great deal and arrogantly assumes she knows what I do or don’t know. ‘The truth will set you free – but first it will piss you off’ You sound really pissed off Cuddles - but you usually do in any post to me! Nothing new there....

[Cuddles]

The problem is with the reputation that the word is getting and I pointed out that one of the problems is that skeptics the like of James Randi forum and others learn a certain jargon. They back up by quoting stuff they heard – by rote rather than by thought. It’s a trap. It’s a pity. It’s what is making the word ‘skeptic’ mean something that it shouldn’t. This is a true thing I am saying.

You see, this is exactly the problem we have been talking about in this thread. Believers like yourself simply have no idea what skeptics actually do, but because they often contradict your beliefs you decide this must be because they are all learning the same things by rote, rather than simply accepting that they are coming to the same conclusions because that is where the evidence leads. This is what I mean when I say you haven't learned anything. You spent plenty of time here to learn better, but you still insist on whining about "jargon" and rote learning instead of actually accepting that it may be you that is wrong. It's not us that makes skeptic mean something it shouldn't, it's people like you who refuse to understand what it actually means no matter how much you have it explained and shown to you.


The minute my mouth starts speaking words I am repeating because I heard or read another person saying them, I know I have fallen into the trap.

Oh the irony. This is the really sad thing about virtually all believers. They complain about people who contradict them by assigning to them all the flaws that they themselves posses. Once again, skeptics don't repeat things because someone else said them, they repeat them because they are actually supported by evidence. I haven't seen you say a single original thing, it has all been just boring repetition of the same old woo nonsense, yet somehow you blame us for your own flaws.


It’s a worse pity that Cuddles failed to read any gratitude in my post towards a forum that has taught me such a very great deal and arrogantly assumes she knows what I do or don’t know. ‘The truth will set you free – but first it will piss you off’ You sound really pissed off Cuddles - but you usually do in any post to me! Nothing new there....

Once again perfectly demonstrating that you simply can't understand things you see written right in front of you. I don't get pissed off, certainly not by some nonsense on the internet. It's just a shame that you interpret everything that contradicts your beliefs as a personal attack instead of actually accepting that you are often wrong. There is no arrogance needed to know what you don't know, you demonstrate it with virtually every post. The whole point of forums like this is to learn. The fact that you refuse to do so is entirely your own problem, not ours.

[Dr B]

Most (but not all) skeptically minded people have been taught or have learned how to think (and not necessarily what to think).

The tools of reason may lead people to similar conclusions for similar and diverse reasons - not because people are copying conclusions - but merely applying the same sound procedure to evaluating information.

If a person makes a host of fallacies in a debate it matters not whether one or a hundred skeptics point them out - the skeptics are not following each other blindly - but coming to similar conclusions based on the principles of logic. These principles are just that - 'principles' and so they hold for everyone and across a variety of situations.

well, that's my take on it.8)

[Dr B]

Great post!

I think you - "you" (this forum - the stalwarts) - have shared opinions - pre-set skeptic dogma that you sometimes almost quote by rote and as "you", you do this skep-attack thing together which rather closes off any relationship with a new member.

I thought you said you actually read this forum?




Once when I was under skep attack here, and emotionally very bruised, I received a private e-mail from one of you lot pointing me in the direction where I'd find the information I was looking for. If that person remembers - they will never know how that short email boosted my confidence, and what a joy it was to find out that real scientists were actually studying that which I was trying to make sense of.

That's good - but if my memory serves me correctly, you nor anyone else here has been 'attacked'. Some psychic predators have been challenged with reasoned debate - but no one has ever been attacked.

[brodski]

The tools of reason may lead people to similar conclusions for similar and diverse reasons - not because people are copying conclusions - but merely applying the same sound procedure to evaluating information.

If a person makes a host of fallacies in a debate it matters not whether one or a hundred skeptics point them out - the skeptics are not following each other blindly - but coming to similar conclusions based on the principles of logic. These principles are just that - 'principles' and so they hold for everyone and across a variety of situations.

well, that's my take on it. ;)

[Allo Allo]

It’s true – I haven’t been reading here for nine months. So I have missed most of what has been going on.

I have been reading other stuff – mostly using sound procedures for evaluating information – scientific method.

Over the years I have posted here, I have pointed out that something in water divining must work in some fashion because diviners are used all over the world by councils and companies. Does that make me woo?

I once thought that discussion was what happened on a forum, and when the thread was about auras, I tried to think of a way seeing them could be tested. Emotionally mediated synaesthesia is a real thing and nothing to do with woo. Any silly test by James Randi is not what it’s about. Does this make me woo?

When a thread arose about hypnotherapy I pointed out that it is successfully used and the idea could not simply be trashed. Does that make me woo?

Where is consciousness stored? What is consciousness? These questions intrigue most thinkers. What is a near death experience? Is there a bad near death experience? Why do such experiences transform the people who have them? Or do they? What is woo about any of these questions?

That science is bleak and inspirational was one thread I started – well, it is. Is that woo?

I do not use or promote homeopathy, crystals, psychics, or commercial new age anything, I am not religious, but maybe some people need to be – I like to think as ‘God’ diminishes through science, so will the power of religion. Is that woo?

Some touch therapies help people feel better – but so does having your hair done, or having sex for the same reason. Is that woo? Why don’t we as a society use placebo to our advantage? Is that woo?

When there was a thread on orbs, I spent days doing my own tests to satisfy myself that my Canon could pick up dust so I could get my own proof. And it did – every time. Is that woo?

It seemed to me that some photographic evidence for UFO’s must be more than simply fake. I don’t care if there are or are not aliens, little green men, or if UFO’s are plasma, or clotted cream. Is this woo?

I think some aspects of life are getting worse, we are brainwashed by the media, entangled in untruths ‘discovered’ by dodgy science, less free than before because of keyhole politics and dullally legislation. Is this woo?

The questions are rhetorical only – no answers please.>:-)

A skep-attack is the kind of post in a thread by one or more members of UK skeptics, that stops any other conversation about the topic, intimidates other readers from posting any opinion they might have in case they get similar treatment, and removes all opposition so that self confirmation of all members of the conforming group can continue. It’s real. It happens. It is the reason there are so many silent members here.

The posts in reply to mine are talking about conclusions – I’m not talking about conclusions. I’m talking about language – words. I’m saying that it’s the constant use of the same words and phrases to describe conclusions that ‘mark’ the kind of skeptic that one is. There are kinds of skeptics who display themself as robotic babblers of jargon – a sort of skeptic dogma learned from other skeptics. It makes me feel ashamed. I get the same feeling from fervent religious fundamentalists. That kind of skeptic does harm to the meaning of the word skeptic.

So as member number 98 in my first incarnation on UK Skeptics when it was new and bright and shiny, and I thought I was a skeptic, I think “skeptic” is still a good word if it means here what it should mean.:tongue:

[SimonC]

Good post, Allo Allo, and y'know what - you do raise some important points, and points that are worthy of discussion.

I get what you mean about rushing to use the same tired and worn objections and arguments. I'm as guilty as anyone. To be honest, I find myself cringing whenever I mention Bertrand Bloody Russell's Celestial Bloody Teapot, and the same goes for the Flying Spaghetthi Monster and endless learn-by-rote lists of logical fallacies. On the one hand, they're all perfectly sound, logical, reasonable arguments. They are important principals to understand. But I do think that I can get incredibly lazy and dependant on them - almost to the point where they become easy cliches. Is this the kind of thing that you're referring to in your post, Allo Allo?

I've just been watching the movie 'A flock of dodos', which addresses exactly these issues, albeit in relation to the ID/evolutionist debate.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=a%20flock%20of%20dodos&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7RNWE&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv

I think that the points raised, however, are just as pertinent here ( as I said, I don't think that changing the name 'skeptics' achieves anything, but the fact that this is an issue for discussion rather indicates that there is something here to be examined ). Thanks for raising an excellent point Allo Allo! O0

[bobdezon]

Not sure I understand this. You are saying that because a sceptic has taken the time to spruce up their critical thinkiing faculties, and how to approach a problem in a logical manner. That because they are usually succesful in rebuking an ill considered argument, or able to point out the flaws in a dodgy theory, that they are somehow just reciting scientific fundamentalist rhetoric instead of original thought?

If this is correct, then I can state emphatically this is an untrue statement. If this is how it appears to you, then you are in error, and verifiably so. If I have read this wrong, or taken it the wrong way, then I apologise.

[SimonC]

No apology necessary, Bob.

All I'm suggesting is that we should maybe decide what we want to do. If all we want to do is 'be right' then, great, we have all the arguments nailed down and understood. Don't get me wrong - I don't question the correctness of Russell's teapot or any of the logical fallacy arguments that we talk about. I absolutely think that we are right, empirically right, in what we say.

If, however, we really want to demonstrate that our skepticism is a positive approach to life ( as I believe it is ), then perhaps we could be a little more imaginative and creative in the way that we communicate that message?

Just me thinking out loud...

[SimonC]

Over the years I have posted here, I have pointed out that something in water divining must work in some fashion because diviners are used all over the world by councils and companies. Does that make me woo?



Actually, in retrospect, yeah that one does make you a bit woo.

Argumentum ad populum and bugger-all empirical proof to validate the claim of efficacy.

Sorry 'bout that.

:tongue:

( I know you said 'no answers', but you also suggested that skeptics are too conformist. So I'll be a non-conformist and answer anyway ).

[bindeweede]

Actually, in retrospect, yeah that one does make you a bit woo.

Argumentum ad populum and bugger-all empirical proof to validate the claim of efficacy.

Sorry 'bout that.

:tongue:

( I know you said 'no answers', but you also suggested that skeptics are too conformist. So I'll be a non-conformist and answer anyway ).

I don't mean to be nasty to Allo Allo, but she says "over the years".....but she joined in early 2007. How many years is that?

[bobdezon]

No apology necessary, Bob.

All I'm suggesting is that we should maybe decide what we want to do. If all we want to do is 'be right' then, great, we have all the arguments nailed down and understood. Don't get me wrong - I don't question the correctness of Russell's teapot or any of the logical fallacy arguments that we talk about. I absolutely think that we are right, empirically right, in what we say.

If, however, we really want to demonstrate that our skepticism is a positive approach to life ( as I believe it is ), then perhaps we could be a little more imaginative and creative in the way that we communicate that message?

Just me thinking out loud...

Me and John Jackson share the same philosophy when It comes to dealing with believers. We could very easilly be quite rude, and just tell them they are wrong, but we prefer to explain why they are wrong in a way they can verify for themselves. We understand not everybody realises the benefits of leading a sceptical life, and If we can show just one person how to look at the problem correctly, then we win. It changes someones life for the better. Which is the whole point of promoting critical thinking.

Some sceptics behave like "shocktroops" some are just "arrogant" and some (and this is my favourite type) are "ninjas". The ninja sceptic will not only totally destroy your argument in a way you didnt see coming, but you will have agreed with them, and changed your position before realising its too late. The sceptical ninja then leaps backwards 90ft to a rooftop and wails on an electric guitar before totally flipping out.

http://www.realultimatepower.net/

[John.Staahle]

Ungullible ?

[Admin]

Credophobics? ;D

[Admin]

Hi, AA.

I'm glad to see you've done well and enjoyed the science course.

I don't think your criticisms are particularly about skepticism though. More about discourse in general.

I'm in a hurry at the mo - I'll post more later.

[Allo Allo]

Years? Yes – didn’t UK Skeptics first go online in early 2006?

I think maybe John is right about my complaint being about discourse in general now I come to think about it….I am aware of people churning out stuff that they are rote repeating and they are not all sceptics, that's true. But I'm particularly sensitised to skeptalk language.

While I was on my course one of the other students got very anti intelligent design to someone else. I became completely psychic! I could predict exactly to the very word what he was going to say next and although I agreed with him, I had heard it so often before it just sounded tawdry and ‘memorised’. It was like an act of violence on the person concerned who was gently being steered by the course materials come to their own, similar conclusion. In my opinion it just exposed him as a non-thinking word regurgitator. No pride in that.

About divining, if it didn’t pay to use a diviner, no one would waste money on them. But companies do – this just makes me pause before shouting my mouth off - blow empirical evidence in this case. Something doesn't stack up.

Maybe I am emotionally too tangled up in the UK Skeptics website. My writing skills improved on it. It gave me good advice on all sorts of very practical things that were happening to me at the time. It taught me to stop repeating anecdotal evidence as evidence – and to think about why I believed anything. To me, skeptic implies careful thought and research before stating a ‘fact’. Well, I’d like it to.

Now I’m going to watch A Flock of Dodos (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2031983620289630283&q=a+flock+of+dodos&ei=znctSOT6C4aIjQLAioDaCQ) – all 85 minutes of it as my afternoon treat. Thanks for the link Simon C – I’ll be on the lookout for skeptic ninjas!!! – hope there are some in the movie.^-^

[brodski]

[/SIZE]While I was on my course one of the other students got very anti intelligent design to someone else. I became completely psychic! I could predict exactly to the very word what he was going to say next and although I agreed with him, I had heard it so often before it just sounded tawdry and ‘memorised’. It was like an act of violence on the person concerned who was gently being steered by the course materials come to their own, similar conclusion. In my opinion it just exposed him as a non-thinking word regurgitator. No pride in that.
[FONT=&quot][SIZE=3] If an argument is bioth logically soudn and effective, why not use it?
If someone says to me well you cant disprove it why is it wrong to use armaments such as fairies at the bottom of the garden, or Russels tea-pot any more than if someone says that there is no transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs to mention Archaeopteryx? Or when someone asks me what 6X7 is, to answer 42- I learned that by rote at school, does that make it wrong?
Did eth ID proponent use wholly original thinking in their statements? Or did they come up eth the same old canards again and again? Did you challenge them for that, or is it only with skeptics that you object to using any arguments which may have been used before?
Challenging the beliefs of others is “like an act of violence”? Really? wow…



About divining, if it didn’t pay to use a diviner, no one would waste money on them. But companies do – this just makes me pause before shouting my mouth off - blow empirical evidence in this case. Something doesn't stack up.
Why? there are all manner of things used in all manner of industries which can easily be shown not to work, however businesses are made up of people, and people make all kinds of decisions which are not fully rational. If you accept that individuals can be fooled, misguided or attached to things for emotional reasons despite the evidence.

The simple fact is that despite repeated testing even in situations in which dowers claim they can produce reliable results no dowser can do better than chance.
Until any dowser can actually show that they can do what they claim they can do, they are frauds, and your argument from authority (ooh, a “learned by rote fallacy”!) is meaningless.

[Mongrel]

[While I was on my course one of the other students got very anti intelligent design to someone else. I became completely psychic! I could predict exactly to the very word what he was going to say next and although I agreed with him, I had heard it so often before it just sounded tawdry and ‘memorised’.

Well given that ID has been using the same arguments they inherited from creationists it may well be that the 'opponent' had been through this before, not so much memorised as repetitious, why chuck away a good response after all :smiley:.

[Allo Allo]

Ok - whatever...it's a matter of opinion really.

The participant in the anti-creationist incident seemed to me to be a very naive young person taking her first steps into the world of university and science. She responded by silence. I would think it was her first experience of that kind of thinking. Poor thing, I hope she recovered.

[ZERO]

About divining, if it didn’t pay to use a diviner, no one would waste money on them. But companies do – this just makes me pause before shouting my mouth off - blow empirical evidence in this case. Something doesn't stack up.



*Warning-anecdote*

My Father ran a successful water well drilling company for decades.

Over the years he saw many diviners in action. He thought they were all fools.

I got to see one in action when I was 14.
The diviner wandered up and down following water and decided where my Father should drill...On top of a hill.

As it turned out, there was no water anywhere on that property, not even in a dry creek bed, the lowest point available.

[Allo Allo]

The diviner wandered up and down following water and decided where my Father should drill...On top of a hill.


;D and I love your avatar!

[Graham Lappin]

About divining, if it didn’t pay to use a diviner, no one would waste money on them. But companies do – this just makes me pause before shouting my mouth off - blow empirical evidence in this case. Something doesn't stack up.

Well if you want to talk about cliché's this has got to be in the top ten. This is also in the top ten logical fallacies. Just because many people "believe" in something does not make it right. If you have just finished a science course, this should be clear to you but this may be a result of the woful way science is taught, and not necessarily your fault (but I had better not get started on that one). I would be interested to see how you justify the truth by democracy argument.

Turning to a Flock of Dodos. Speaking from the point of view of my alias on this forum and my avatar, I was trying to keep it quiet that rabbits ate their own poo!

By the way, we may have evidence for evolution by simply looking at how this thread has evolved from the use of the term Skeptic into rabbit poo through as series of small intermediate steps.

[Allo Allo]

Hi bunny,

No - I think the science was ok! It's just me really. And its not about any kind of belief - not mine anyway. Scientific divining tests seem to be about finding bottles of water in buckets of sand. This removes any unconcious signals the diviner gets from his surroundings when he is in action in the 'wild'. But it makes it scientific. Maybe some people who do have this ability to pick up clues are worth paying? I dunno. I was just wondering why they get paid for something they can't do.

Wish someone would do that for me! I could be really wealthy. ;D

I used to think my rabbit was disgusting - but I am now educated. ^-^

[Graham Lappin]

You might have a point there and one I had not thought of before, that dowsers are picking up clues from their environment. That I can see as feasible.

[Dr B]

am I the only one with a sense of deja-vu in this thread? >:-)

[Jocky]

Maybe some people who do have this ability to pick up clues are worth paying? I dunno. I was just wondering why they get paid for something they can't do.

Hello 'Allo. Long time no see.

I think they manage to get paid for something they can't do largely because they do not themselves realise that they can't do it. Because many dowsers genuinely think they can do it, they exude a sense of certainty about their abilities which has a tendency to convince the credulous (some of whom work for big companies) that there 'must be something in it'.

If they were upfront about just being someone who happens to be good at recognising environmental clues, then perhaps one could say they were worth paying as 'consultants' or something. However, IMO it cannot be right to pay them on the explicit basis that they possess an ability which does not in fact exist.

It's much the same with many "psychics", who just happen to be the sort of person who's naturally quite good at picking up clues and making people feel better by telling them what they want to hear. They convince themselves that they must posess a 'gift', and that conviction in itself sells them to potential punters. The fact that they belieive in themselves, and are adept at selling that belief to others, has no bearing whatever on whether or not they are in fact right.

[Allo Allo]

am I the only one with a sense of deja-vu in this thread? >:-)

No! :spank: naughty me! Won't do it again, not ever! :liar:

[lost thought]

Hello I've just joined and it was the word skeptic which allowed me to find you. It got through my new wave/ age/ crap dedector. If you change to another title, How about debunkers.:cheesy:

[Trinoc]

Hello I've just joined and it was the word skeptic which allowed me to find you. It got through my new wave/ age/ crap dedector. If you change to another title, How about debunkers.:cheesy:
I think "debunker" carries even more negative connotations than "skeptic/sceptic". Some skeptics, regrettably, are knee-jerk debunkers of all unfamiliar ideas, but I think true skepticism is summed by the phrase "Show me the evidence". A skeptic should be as willing to accept something supported by evidence as unwilling to accept something in the absence of evidence.

I often tell people - probably without good historical justification - that a "sceptic" (British spelling) may refer to a pathological doubter, whereas "skeptic" (Greek/American spelling) is as in the original Greek meaning: someone who believes only what can in some sense be observed, and about which different observers can (in principle at least) agree.

[Mulder]

The word 'debunk' implies you are starting your analysis of a subject not from a position of doubt but from an assumption ie. there is something that needs to be debunked.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

What about in-credibles?

Yuri

[Trinoc]

What about in-credibles?
Trouble is, the meaning of the hyphen is lost when you say it. It needs to be unambiguous both when spoken and written.

[Mulder]

I predict that there will be no generally acceptable replacement term found because of the nature of skeptics!

[highflyertoo]

Seems the Skeptics feel threatened to have contemplated a name change ;D

[Croydon Bob]

Seems the Skeptics feel threatened to have contemplated a name change Yup. We find a delusional loony very threatening. What are you going to do when none of your predictions come true? Will you come back here and apologise to us for wasting our time?

[highflyertoo]

Yup. We find a delusional loony very threatening. What are you going to do when none of your predictions come true? Will you come back here and apologise to us for wasting our time?
I am skeptical of you ''claiiming'' me to be delusional . prove your claim .
oh and by the way, another part of my dreams happened when I was at Walpole over the last few days :smiley: .

so keep holding on to your breath and the ''PROOF'' will be seen by you to .

[SimonC]

I am skeptical of you ''claiiming'' me to be delusional . prove your claim .
oh and by the way, another part of my dreams happened when I was at Walpole over the last few days :smiley: .



How about you prove that? Prove that you dreamed something before it happened. Even better, predict something ( other than your magic powers and a walking statue ) that's going to happen in the immediate future so we can all see how awesomely accurate your dream predictions are.

[Mulder]

... so keep holding on to your breath and the ''PROOF'' will be seen by you to.

When I win the lottery ... actually, I'll probably keep it a secret ...

[Croydon Bob]

When I win the lottery ... actually, I'll probably keep it a secret ... When I won the lottery, using my psychic powers, I kept it a secret because I knew you grasping peasants would want a share.

[Trinoc]

I am skeptical of you ''claiiming'' me to be delusional . prove your claim .
I refer you to the sum total of your posts to this forum, and put it to you that any reasonable person reading them would conclude you are delusional.


oh and by the way, another part of my dreams happened when I was at Walpole over the last few days :smiley: .
What a pity you didn't post your prediction here before it happened, then you could have convinced all of us.


so keep holding on to your breath and the ''PROOF'' will be seen by you to .
It will only be seen by us if you tell us the predictions in advance.

[Trinoc]

When I won the lottery, using my psychic powers, I kept it a secret because I knew you grasping peasants would want a share.
You can't buy many pints with 10 quid these days ...

(Should someone have his skeptics licence revoked for playing the lottery?)

[Croydon Bob]

(Should someone have his skeptics licence revoked for playing the lottery?) But I knew I'd win because I'd seen it in a dream. So that makes it OK...

[al_capone_junior]

I am skeptical of you ''claiiming'' me to be delusional . prove your claim .
oh and by the way, another part of my dreams happened when I was at Walpole over the last few days :smiley: .

so keep holding on to your breath and the ''PROOF'' will be seen by you to .

All your threads got moved to the spam bin where they belong, so now you're spamming/trolling more threads again?

BORING **YAWN**

[skbuncks]

I am skeptical of you ''claiiming'' me to be delusional . prove your claim .
oh and by the way, another part of my dreams happened when I was at Walpole over the last few days :smiley: .

so keep holding on to your breath and the ''PROOF'' will be seen by you to .

[trying to stop myself being drawn in]...I think on this occasion you may have been lucky. Photographic evidence was obtained of your special powers
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/SKBUNCKS/SGU/1295245465_0b1c44dfe8.jpg


[/trying to stop myself being drawn in]

skb

[SimonC]

[trying to stop myself being drawn in]...I think on this occasion you may have been lucky. Photographic evidence was obtained of your special powers
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/SKBUNCKS/SGU/1295245465_0b1c44dfe8.jpg


[/trying to stop myself being drawn in]

skb

Epic win! ;D

[highflyertoo]

Maybe you people JJ could so spawn the name of the skeptical people to the non-phasers .

The Non-Phasers ;)

[SimonC]

Maybe you people JJ could so spawn the name of the skeptical people to the non-phasers .

The Non-Phasers ;)

I have no idea what that means.

[polomint38]

I have no idea what that means.

Neither does highflyertoo.

He is a random word generator :cheesy:

[al_capone_junior]

Neither does highflyertoo.

He is a random word generator :cheesy:

A random SPAM generator too. ::)

Stupid
Pointless
Asinine
Meaningless

Hey hft, isn't it about time for your petulant frenzy?

[globwin]

We need an image that suggests that we are liberal, tolerant and open to new ideas. The title "The Catholic Truth Society" comes to mind for some reason.^-^