Too many groups?

[Dr B]

There seem to be a growing number of UK-based skeptical groups around these days. One the one hand this is good and shows there is an appetite out there for science and skepticism. O0

On the other hand, might there be the potential for too many groups and too much fractionation? I think we currently have

UKS
ASKE
BadScience
RDSFSR (Richard Dawkins site)

as the main players. Not too many yet - but is there a potential problem looming? I have heard charities complaining that there are too many in certain areas and that this does not mean more money actually gets spent on the real issues.

Obviously this might not apply to regional groups of an over-arching society - but more to do with quite different societies in the first place.

What thoughts do people here have? Is it an issue or not? How might we prevent it? Is there an issue with having too many skeptical organisations?

[brianp]

ASKE

I recognise the others, but what is ASKE?

[Matt]

I recognise the others, but what is ASKE?

Association for Skeptical Enquiry
http://www.aske-skeptics.org.uk/

[brianp]

Association for Skeptical Enquiry
http://www.aske-skeptics.org.uk/

Thanks.

[polomint38]

a £10 annual fee, I am quite skeptical cynical of this fee

[Floppit]

Until recently I only posted/read here so wouldn't have been in any position to comment. However, after trying to hunt down rational discussion on parenting (ye GADS is that hard!) I've sampled a little of the RD site. On the one hand it's very busy but there seems to be a strong 'fan' element - threads devoted to 'pictures of me with Richard' etc. That personally doesn't appeal to me at all but it perhaps serves a purpose in attracting people in the first instance who may then find rationality more interesting than swooning.

In the long run I'm inclined to think that there will always be a range and that like minded people will tend to gravitate towards each other creating a degree of fractionation, which gives choice to newcomers. It might be nice to have stronger links between the sites so that the choices are more obvious but other than that I very much doubt it can be curbed in any real sense.

[Croydon Bob]

I didn't realise ASKE was still going. They're keeping their heads down! I note that their website says that they have around 70 members, or 25% of the number of people who turn up at the London Pub meetings.

I don't know about now, but 10 years ago we had Skeptic magazine, Skeptics in the Pub and ASKE. They all seemed to cover slightly different areas and be complementary. I'm not aware that anybody saw a problem or wanted a merger into SuperSkeptic Org.

[Trinoc]

I don't think there is any likelihood of any (or at least any more than a few) skeptics boards merging ... and I wouldn't particularly like that as I have moved away from several skeptic and scientific boards due to getting bored with bluster, sophistry and irrelevancy from certain posters. This board is tame by comparison to many in this respect.

[Admin]

I've come to really dislike what often passes for mainstream skepticism: petty group mentality, 'celeb' worship, etc. - anything but critical inquiry and the promotion of critical thinking.

Hopefully UKS isn't perceived that way. It possibly is as most people (including many who call themselves skeptics) have little to no idea of what skepticism is.

Of course, I can only speak on behalf of UKS, but I will put my thoughts down on this topic in the next newsletter and explain a bit more about what UKS is about and where we're heading with skepticism in the future.

Our approach may not be attractive to those who practise 'crusading skepticism' (attacking irrationality/pseudoscience/psychics/whatever) but hopefully we will attract those who are more interested in an intellectual/academic approach to skepticism (using it as a tool of knowledge acquisition/education).

Yes, there's a lot of skeptical groups and what have you popping up but it's mostly the same old formula: preaching to the converted.

[Nicky]

I don't think I can see a problem ... It's a bit like anything - people will go to where they feel the most comfortable and to the organisation which most suits their needs ... And that will change as their needs change ...

There are probably half a dozen pubs I frequent depending on what I'm looking for ... A quiet drink for two ... A family occasion with kids area ... A decent Sunday roast ... They can all provide the bare basics, but when I'm looking for something more fitting to my needs then I'm more discriminatory ...

I think we should be pleased that there's a general growth in critical and rational thinking, thought and discussion .. S'all good ... :cheesy:

[Graham Lappin]

I think Nicky has touched on a good point but it should be viewed in the context of John's comments about genuine skeptical groups. It's not just in the UK, there are a growing plethora of groups popping up everywhere. Providing the common cause is true critical thinking (and sadly, it's not always the case) then I don't think it makes much odds how many fractions the overall movement is broken up into. I would hope that given the above caveats that we don't see other genuine groups as rivals but as colleagues.

It seems to be the general nature of those inclined to the skeptical view to reject the mainstream organization. How many of us, I wonder have "authority issues"?

[Croydon Bob]

It seems to be the general nature of those inclined to the skeptical view to reject the mainstream organization. How many of us, I wonder have "authority issues"?

That is an interesting observation that is often made by skeptics. But the loonies are always accusing us of being "in the pockets of big pharma" or "giving the government line".

I was recently accused by a Mormon of being paid to be skeptical on the internet! Wouldn't that be fantastic if true?

[Graham Lappin]

I was recently accused by a Mormon of being paid to be skeptical on the internet! Wouldn't that be fantastic if true?

Oh if you could only have a pound for every-time someone had said that ....

[Croydon Bob]

Oh if you could only have a pound for every-time someone had said that ....

Yup, I'd have £1!

But I/we are often accused of working for Big Pharma and such like, which is, of course, ridiculous. Because I work for the Government spreading disinfo and suppressing free thought.

This particular individual claims to be a female US Mormon, that all skeptics are members of CSICOP, that we're all paid by someone (I'm not clear who) to trawl around forums all day mocking religion, individual thinking, etc, blah. She hangs out on a forum mainly populated by UK pagans so I'm not sure if she's for real...

[polomint38]

If we are being paid by big pharma, where is my share? :smiley:

Please send the money to me via Western Union. O0

P.S. I am an Ex Nigerian General! :cheesy:

[Croydon Bob]

If we are being paid by big pharma, where is my share?

You spent it on a copy of A Brief History of Underpants.

[Dave The Drummer]

Too many groups ?
Are you mad ?
There are nowhere near enough !

How many times are we moaning about the lack of skeptical influence we have ?
How many times have you sat in front of the TV groaning as some politician makes another batsh*t insane decision to support nonsense that we already know doesn't work ?
How many churches are there ? Enough of them ?
There should be more skeptical groups than you can shake a big purple stick at.
With ubiquity comes influence.
How many of us can influence the school curriculum ? None.
How many of us can influence the councils decisions ? None.
How many of us can influence the policy makers ? None.
How many of us sit on the consumer advice boards ? None.
How many of us can influence the lawmakers ? None.
How many of us advise the local radio when it comes to science related topics ? None.
How many of us can influence the local doctor when they decide to introduce woo into the surgery ? None.
Or as near to none as makes no difference.
How many of us sit at home bemoaning the state of things ?
How many woo merchants in religious robes or clothed pseudo-scientific technobabble are already in positions of influence ?

Get out there and create groups.
Groups of people with the same rational and humanistic outlook as yourself.
Get that information out there.
The more people that think with the benefits of evidence and reason the better.

Otherwise as a movement we will die.
And even worse we will cease to be relevant.
We're almost irrelevant as it is.
How many politicians come to skeptical people for advice ?
How many government advisers are on the side of evidence based policy making and reason ?

We need to get into the minds of these influential people, we need to be among those advisers they value.
We need to start becoming those people. Getting into positions of influence and power.
We can only do that by making sure as many people as is possible hear what we have to say.

So get those groups started and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT !

I took a small step by creating a new skeptics society and starting a new SitP group in an area where none such existed.
What's stopping you doing the same ?

Does this sound like some sort of infiltration manifesto for taking over the government ?
Damn right it does !
That's what the religious loonies and the peddlers of woo have done and it worked admirably for them !
There's no holier-than-thou here. Just get it done.

/angry

[bryan]

Too many groups ?
Are you mad ?
There are nowhere near enough !

How many times are we moaning about the lack of skeptical influence we have ?
How many times have you sat in front of the TV groaning as some politician makes another batsh*t insane decision to support nonsense that we already know doesn't work ?
How many churches are there ? Enough of them ?
There should be more skeptical groups than you can shake a big purple stick at.
With ubiquity comes influence.
How many of us can influence the school curriculum ? None.
How many of us can influence the councils decisions ? None.
How many of us can influence the policy makers ? None.
How many of us sit on the consumer advice boards ? None.
How many of us can influence the lawmakers ? None.
How many of us advise the local radio when it comes to science related topics ? None.
How many of us can influence the local doctor when they decide to introduce woo into the surgery ? None.
Or as near to none as makes no difference.
How many of us sit at home bemoaning the state of things ?
How many woo merchants in religious robes or clothed pseudo-scientific technobabble are already in positions of influence ?

Get out there and create groups.
Groups of people with the same rational and humanistic outlook as yourself.
Get that information out there.
The more people that think with the benefits of evidence and reason the better.

Otherwise as a movement we will die.
And even worse we will cease to be relevant.
We're almost irrelevant as it is.
How many politicians come to skeptical people for advice ?
How many government advisers are on the side of evidence based policy making and reason ?

We need to get into the minds of these influential people, we need to be among those advisers they value.
We need to start becoming those people. Getting into positions of influence and power.
We can only do that by making sure as many people as is possible hear what we have to say.

So get those groups started and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT !

I took a small step by creating a new skeptics society and starting a new SitP group in an area where none such existed.
What's stopping you doing the same ?

Does this sound like some sort of infiltration manifesto for taking over the government ?
Damn right it does !
That's what the religious loonies and the peddlers of woo have done and it worked admirably for them !
There's no holier-than-thou here. Just get it done.

/angry

Are you the same Dave The Drummer who used to record on Stay Up Forever?

[Admin]

I took a small step by creating a new skeptics society and starting a new SitP group in an area where none such existed.

What research did you do to show that this approach is an effective way of communicating skepticism to non-skeptics (who, by definition, must be our target audience if we're to increase our influence)?

Or did you do it because that's what everyone else seems to be doing?

The problem with the 'many groups' approach is that if you have a model of communication that is wholly ineffective, duplicating it many times over simply results in lots of people being ineffective instead of a few - i.e. it makes no real difference. Perhaps it would be better to combine the best of skeptical talent in one big group?

And your post highlights another major problem for skeptical activism: unless you're in a position of power or influence, there's virtually nothing you can do to change anything.

So, we could either:


Get ourselves into positions of power and influence (hardly a practical solution!); or
Attract people who are already in positions of power and influence to join us.

Needless to say, one big group with a strong identity will have a much better chance of succeeding than lots of little groups with option 2.

So this 'are there too many groups' question is a good one to consider.

[polomint38]

JJ,

Remember SiTP is also about having a bit of a laugh and meeting people. It is not only about evangelising a cause, most people who go will be "Skeptical" to some extent.
You can have a conversation without having somebody extolling a litany of bullshit. O0

[Admin]

Remember SiTP is also about having a bit of a laugh and meeting people.

True. But that wasn't Dave's point.

[Cuddles]

What research did you do to show that this approach is an effective way of communicating skepticism to non-skeptics (who, by definition, must be our target audience if we're to increase our influence)?

What research have you done to show your approach is any better?


Needless to say, one big group with a strong identity will have a much better chance of succeeding than lots of little groups with option 2.

Evidence?

[Croydon Bob]

What research have you done to show your approach is any better?


Evidence?

This overlaps with the discussion about the homeopathic overdose campaign. John has some very strong ideas about successful skepticism and I don't (always) agree with him and I don't see evidence to support his position.

It's a shame that Trinoc waltzed off in a huff because he would have had some interesting points to make.

[Admin]

What research have you done to show your approach is any better?

None. But we're not skeptical activists so it's a moot point.

[Admin]

I don't see evidence to support his position.

I can't supply evidence to support what we don't do!

However, when I make points about things I do explain them with supporting reasons.

If it came to skeptical activism, I wouldn't claim to have all the answers or some grand master plan. I would merely suggest that we take a really in-depth look at how to do it properly based upon theory (such as exists in the psychology literature) and evidence (where things have been achieved before) - i.e. applying the method of skepticism to our activism!

[Harryprice]

I can't supply evidence to support what we don't do!

Good point! The idea that ridiculing certain ideas with stunts and jokes will stop them being supported has been tried many times but there is no obvious shift away from such ideas yet. It is like a political idea - it sounds like it ought to work in theory but in practice it doesn't seem to. But as in politics, that doesn't stop people trying it again and again. For instance, making recreational drugs illegal appears to do more harm than good but they keep trying it anyway (because it 'should work').

I talk to 'believers' a lot and find their belief systems resilient in the face of contrary evidence. One typical response to blasting a big hole in one of their ideas is to say 'maybe that's true but what about ...' followed by a description of a special case. If that special case is also demolished they will move to another and so on - a bit like 'god in the gaps'.

I don't have any answers either but trying a new approach is surely better than repeating methods that show no obvious sign of working. My own pet theory is that it is not enough to demolish an existing idea, you have to replace a belief with a 'better' one (one that better explains something). If that better idea is based on good evidence, that is a good thing.

[DrS]

My own pet theory is that it is not enough to demolish an existing idea, you have to replace a belief with a 'better' one (one that better explains something). If that better idea is based on good evidence, that is a good thing.
Yes. Maybe not so much replacing belief with belief, but providing a reason to eschew beliefs per se, maybe by making rational/critical thinking sexy in some way.

[Admin]

Yes. Maybe not so much replacing belief with belief, but providing a reason to eschew beliefs per se, maybe by making rational/critical thinking sexy in some way.

O0 O0 O0

Which is in one sense merely replacing belief with justified belief!

Promote the thinking tools that enable people to inquire for themselves and get away from this model of preaching and mocking. Then we might, at least have a chance of, being taken a little more seriously outside of our own sphere.

[tolman]

... that we're all paid by someone (I'm not clear who) to trawl around forums all day mocking religion, individual thinking, etc, blah.
So that would be mocking the whole gamut of thought, then?

[Gavin Schofield]

I don't see any harm in regional groups - they can be brilliant at creating a local 'skeptical community' (there's surely a better way to word that). They can draw people 'on the fence' into the broarder movement, but I personaly can't imagine many of them doing much but drawing like minded people together, and perhaps raising the public profile of skepticism slightly - although I think this is a good thing by itself.

There could well be a different story with having several competing national organisations, but if there's only one skeptics group within 50 miles or so, saturation isn't a problem.

I'm speaking from the north-west though, from what I've heard there a lot more groups down south.

[Admin]

I don't see any harm in regional groups

Neither do I. If we had a SitP in Newcastle, I'd definitely attend it or do a talk. O0

I just think that skeptics overstate their importance and start engaging in hyperbole when going on about 'the rising tide of skepticism sweeping the nation' and such like because a few local groups have set up.


but I personaly can't imagine many of them doing much but drawing like minded people together, and perhaps raising the public profile of skepticism slightly

That's an excellent assessment of what they are IMO.

It's basically 'skepticism for skeptics' (and there's nothing wrong with that); but when skeptics start thinking that attending talks in pubs etc. is somehow 'fighting woo' then I'd say they are mistaken. They aren't 'doing something' to fight back - they're just talking about it amongst themselves in pubs!

So I'm all for local groups and talks in pubs etc. I just think that some people need to be a bit more realistic about their nature.